Our Election Day PSA to Voters Everywhere

 

Our Election Day "PSA" to Voters Everywhere:

The role of the media should be to provide accurate and balanced news so that we can make informed decisions. That means the news media needs to be non-partisan in their reporting. At election time the media (particularly newspapers) like to make their endorsements and urge you---the voter---support their agenda. Their agendas don't necessarily represent our best interest best interest. Do your own research and vote your conscience. Don't vote to be "anti" anything. We don't need any more negativity in the world. Instead, make your vote count "for" something you truly believe in. Thank you, AnotherOpinionblog.com

Can You Name the Candidates Running for President in 2024?

Can you name the candidates running for President in 2024? If you said just Donald Trump and Kamala Harris you would be partly right. While Trump and Harris are the most prominent candidates running for president, they aren't the only ones. Of course, you wouldn't know it by the news media.

 It's not that they forgot to tell you about the other candidates running for president, it's just that they want to give you the illusion choice while limiting your options at the same time. It's like going to a car lot full of cars and being shown the only two you didn't want!

 In fact, they want you to believe all their rhetoric about how "free" and "honest" our electoral process is while at the same time ignoring or ridiculing all the "also ran" candidates in the hopes you'll focus on just the two options given you by Wall Street, thus perpetuating a corrupt duopoly cloaked as "choice". So, this begs the question---who are the other candidates for President?

Here in the U.S. we have a "winner-take-all" form of government. That means if your candidate loses, you have no representation within your district for however long the term of office is. Of course, you still get to pay taxes for the privilege of having no one representing your interests.  The United States is virtually alone in the world when it comes to a "winner-take-all" political system.

Among those nations who are democracies, the parliamentary or proportional system prevails. Under this system, the voter chooses the party---not individual---they want. The winner is assigned a certain percentage of seats based on the votes received. However, unlike the U.S. where the loser has to wait until their next opportunity, a parliamentary system allocates a set number of seats even for the losing party. That way, even if your party loses, you still have someone there to present you.

In the United States, we have numerous political parties (although many are state level only), but only the Democrats and Republicans are dominant, even though both are minority parties. The largest political bloc is Independents with about 40+% of all registered voters. Democrats have about 30% and Republicans have about 29%, but that still leaves about 1% for third parties. While they won't win a presidential election, they do have enough voters at state levels to impact congressional and local races.  The two largest of the "third" political parties are the Libertarian and Greens.

Founded in 1971, about 15% of registered voters are ideologically libertarian or lean libertarian (and about 12% are in the Republican camp) while about 700,000 registered voters belong to the Libertarian Party. Libertarians describe themselves as "socially liberal and fiscally conservative". They claim their ideological linage extends back to Thomas Jefferson because of a mutual belief in small government, free markets (aka "laissez-faire") and maximum personal liberty---provided it doesn't impinge on anyone else's liberty of course. Politically, the Libertarian Party doesn't consider itself to be either "Left" or "Right" wing.

Most oppose a strong central government, believing that authority derives from the actions of a majority. However, a few believe that a small, relatively weak federal government should exist to do those things the marketplace can't  do efficiently.  There are currently about 186 Libertarian elected to local office nationally.

Interestingly, the states with the highest amount of personal and economic freedom are South Dakota, Tennessee, Nevada, and Florida. The "freest" state is New Hampshire. In terms of personal freedom, the top spot went to Nevada, followed by Arizona. Maine was third and New Hampshire was fourth. New Mexico rounded out the top five (Kentucky was 47th in personal freedom. Texas, known for its rugged individualism, was dead last).

When it came to economic freedom, New Hampshire took first place. Second was Florida and third was South Dakota. Fourth was Tennessee and fifth was Georgia (California was 48th and Hawaii was 49th. The worst state in terms of economic freedom was New York).

The 2024 Libertarian Party presidential nominee is 39 year old Chase Oliver, who was born in Nashville, Tennessee. He's an account executive for a import shipping business. His top three issues are foreign policy, criminal justice reform, and immigration reform (he supports a legal pathway to citizenship of illegal immigrants). Chase is anti-tariff, free market, and supports rank choice voting.  He supports the 2nd Amendment and is pro-choice. His vice president nominee is Mike ter Maat.

Mike was born in Portland, Oregon in 1961, making him 63 years old. His primary occupation is in law enforcement, He holds a PhD in Economic (Austrian School) from George Washington University and is economics professor and a substitute teacher. Mike's top priories are jobs and wage growth; mask and vaccine mandates (which he opposes as unconstitutional), along with police and justice reform, including greater transparency and accountability. Mike also backs term limits, ending the Federal Reserve System and IRS.  Both candidates support a anti-war agenda.

The other major political party (though you wouldn't know it by the corporate media) is the Green Party. Starting off as a offshoot of various social movements originating in the 1960's and 1970's, it came into its own right as a movement in 1985. By 1990, it had evolved into a Left oriented political grassroots party comprised of a federation of state parties operating under a central committee. It's focus has been on environmentalism, non-violence and anti-war, grassroots democracy, social justice, anti-racism and  pro-choice. Ideologically it is democratic socialist. It's been jokingly referred to as the "anti-party party".

Although lumped in with the Libertarian Party as a third party, the Green Party is technically  the fourth largest political party with about 244,000 members with 131 members serving in elected office (it bears mentioning that the Green Party is known worldwide and has chapters all over the globe. It's one of the largest and most powerful parties in Europe). Maine has the most elected Green Party members with 57 followed by California with 22.

Although having ballot access in 44 states and the District of Columbia, the Green Party presidential nominee, Dr. Jill Stein, is no stranger to uphill challenges, and neither is her running mate, Dr. Butch Ware. The 74 year old Stein is a graduate of Harvard University's School of Medicine where she concentrated in internal medicine. She previously ran for president in 2012 and 2016. Her main issues this go around is on developing a anti-war oriented foreign policy, universal healthcare, free public education, climate change and a cleaner environment as well as stronger worker rights.

Dr. Stein has been a political and community activist since 1998, focusing on the connection between health and the environment. She has been highly critical of U.S. foreign policy, particularly so far as the Gaza conflict between Hamas and Israel is concerned. The crux of her criticism has been on Israel's so-called "genocide" policy toward the Palestinians.

Dr. Stein has also proposed a "Economic Bill of Rights" which includes a living wage for workers, support for housing (and assistance for the homeless), expanded healthcare, support for childcare availability, free and improved public education (including textbooks and any fees), additional benefits for retirees (which presumably includes full protecting of Social Security), healthier foods from farm to table, and cleaner water.

Lastly, she favors "reparations" for slavery. Whether that money will include contributions from England, Spain, Holland, Portugal, the African nations responsible for providing slaves such as Ghana, Nigeria, and Tanzania,  or just from American taxpayers wasn't specified.

Her running mate is 59 year old Dr. Butch Ware. He earned a doctorate in history (West Africa emphasis) in 2004 from the University of Pennsylvania. Dr. Ware currently teaches Islamic Knowledge and Spirituality, Colonialism, African Diaspora and West Africa at the University of California (Santa Barbara). Other than his support for Palestine, I could find no information concerning his stance on the economy, domestic and foreign policy, taxes, housing, crime, drugs, rebuilding our infrastructure, etc.

Dr. Ware is reputedly a leading academic authority on the U.S. Black Radical Tradition, Africa, and Islam.   He is credited as a public educator, activist and organizer, artist, and is involved with groups opposing ethnic cleaning, the anti-war movement, ending colonialism, and "build sustainable, just, peaceful alternatives rooted in African, Indigenous, and Abrahamic traditions".

The last notable candidate for president is Dr. Cornel West. The 71 year old professor has been a outspoken voice on the Left for decades. He is a philosopher, theologian (and grandson of a Baptist minister), activist, social critic, and public intellectual. His professional focus is primarily focused on the role of politics on race, gender, and class conscienceless in the U.S.. 

Dr. West describes himself as a democratic socialist and proponent of Left-wing populism, a supporter of the Black Church tradition, a neo-pragmatist, and a student of transcendentalism (the philosophical, spiritual, and literary movement which believes in the natural goodness of people and the tendency towards corruption of the individual by institutions. It also proposes the humanity is at its best when people are more self-reliant and independent). 

Dr. West, a former Green Party member, announced that he was running for president under the banner of the People's Party, which is a Left-wing populist party, in June 2024. However, because of alleged claims of sexual harassment by the party's founder, Nick Brana, and internal dysfunction, he decided to continue his president campaign as a independent four months later. In August, with a $17,000 dollar debt, Dr. West stopped active campaigning although his name may appear on some ballots.

So, there you have it. In addition to Republican Donald Trump and Democrat Kamala Harris, these are the other candidates you might see on your ballot this November. While it's unlikely that any of these individuals will win, they can still affect the overall outcome by drawing away votes from one or the other major party candidate.

 It also shows that Independents and third party candidates are a factor that's here to stay, especially as the two corporate own parties continue to hemorrhage voters. Polls show that between 63% and 58% of Americans want to see a alternative political party. As it is already, the majority of voters are now Independents. We are the only industrialized nation without a labor party.  At the current rate of political defections away from the Democrats and Republicans and mounting dissatisfaction of voters with government general (68%), that may soon change.

However, as we don't have the 2024 donation numbers yet, we need to look at 2020. The Democrats and Republicans received a total of $29 billion dollars from Wall Street (with Biden getting 2.5x more in donations than Trump). This is concrete proof that the ruling elites take good care of their investments.

Meanwhile, the Libertarian Party received just $2.9 million from corporate donors and party donors in the 2020 election. The Green Party receive nothing from Wall Street donors. It's money came mostly from individuals and environmental groups totaling $58,452,552. We can thank Citizens United for this financial disparity. Until that's changed, Wall Street will continue to call the shots no matter the issues or how few voters support either party.  

 

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

 

Who is Running for President in 2024

Gallup: Party Affiliation

Freedom in the 50 States

Libertarian Party

Libertarian Party presidential nomination, 2024

Chase Oliver

Mike ter Maat

 

Meet Our Nominees: Jill Stein & Butch Ware

Jill Stein

Meet Jill Stein

 

Butch Ware

 

Slavery in Africa

Cornel West

 Transcendentalism

Support for a Third Party in the U.S. Dips to 58%

Jo Jorgensen (L) Donations

 

America's Loss of Faith in Itself: Failing Confidence in Our Institutions

We Americans are facing a severe crisis. Some might rightly call it a crisis of trust. We no longer trust our social institutions, and that's a serious problem. Most governments likes ours exist solely by the consent of those governed.  Well, what happens when citizens withdraw that consent? That's not  meant to be rhetorical. That's where we are now as a country.

In 2022, Gallup published a poll about Americans confidence in our top 16 most important social pillars. Of those, 11 were total failures. Of the five which were positive, only the U.S. military and small business had a solid approval rating. The other three were only marginally positive.

Gallup's most recent approval poll from July 2024 shows that our trust in government and our institutions have gotten worse. A 2023 Ipsos report indicated that on average only 30% of Americans said we could trust each other.  So, given this is a presidential election years, lets' start with confidence in the presidency.

When questioned about their confidence in the role of the presidency, 26% of respondents said they had " a lot" or "great deal" of trust in the presidency. Compared that to 69% who said they had little or no confidence. 4% said they had absolutely no trust in the presidency at all. In 2013, while Donald Trump was President, 36% said they had a great deal or a lot of trust in the office. The Nixon Presidency went from a high of 71% to 24% post Watergate. Ronald Reagan left office with a approval rating of 63%. Bill Clinton's was 66% despite his impeachment.

Trust in Congress has historically remained low, yet somehow it magically manages to pull off a 95% reelection percentage. For the period of June 3 - 23, 2024, Congress had a 9% approval rating according to the Gallup poll. 4% said they trusted Congress a "great deal" while 5% said "a lot". But, 88% said they had no or little trust in Congress.

Just these two sets of numbers alone would have most politicians in other nations booking flights out to non-extradition nations, and yet here in America, many are campaigning for reelection based on the marvelous job they've been doing. How can we explain this?

So, if Congress and the President can't get the job done, who can? How about the third branch of government, the legal system? If we look at the justice system, 76% of respondents would find it guilty of not serving the people. 3% rejected it completely. A mere 11% was happy with how things are going.

The Supreme Court was once held in high esteem and could always be expected to be one of the few institutions with a positive approval rating. But ever since its 2010 "Citizens United" debacle, faith in the high court has taken a nose dive. Just 30% approved of the job being done by the Chief Justices. 66% would dismiss the lot of them. 3% had nothing but contempt for the nation's top court. Is it any wonder that America is labeled a "flawed democracy" and on the brink of being labeled a "failed democracy"?

What about the news media? Print media held themselves out to be the sole arbiters of truth and morality for over a hundred years.  Today, 96+% of all media is owned by just five corporations. Can we still trust them to provide fair and balanced reporting? Beginning with television, 12% say they have a "great amount" or "a lot" of confidence in network news while 83% lack any confidence in what we're told. Another 5% would cancel the lot of them. 

The overwhelming majority of Americans don't believe we're getting "non-partisan" or "fair and balance" reporting from any national networks. As for print media, it had a 18% approval rating. Americans, it seems, have come to expect print media (newspapers, magazines, etc) to publish biased or slanted stories. 79% of respondents agreed.

The survey didn't mention social media sites such as "X" (formerly Twitter), Facebook, Gab, YouTube, TikTok, LinkedIn, etc.  However, another survey showed 25% trusted social media. 42% had confidence in cable news, and 38% in podcasters. Who did they trust most? 56% said their local broadcasters.

A Pew poll reported that among those under 30 (Gen X) had a 50% approval rating of social media sites when it came to getting their news. It was 36% for those ages 30 to 49 (Millennials) and from 50 to 64, the approval rating was 25% and 20% for everyone 65 and older.

Next are those who protect us---law enforcement and the military. America has boasted having the best equipped, best trained, best fed, and best prepared military in the world. Ever since 1945, we have taken on the (mostly self appointed) role of the world's policeman. However, following a exhaustive 20 year war in Afghanistan, which ended where it started, the Pentagon announced that we are currently not militarily capable of fighting a sustained multi-front conflict.

Our planes, ships, tanks, and equipment are in desperate need of total overhaul or replacement. We've depleted our stockpile of spare parts  and other supplies, and all the while, men and women are getting out at a higher rate than average. But, despite our military loss, how did the poll indicate Americans felt about our men and women in uniform? Despite a 2.7% attrition rate, the 2024 Gallup poll showed that most American's still had the back of our military personnel. 61% had a positive opinion of our Armed Forces compared to 39% who didn't.

As an aside, a  Rand study reported that 54.4% of parents would discourage their children from joining the military as enlisted (non-commission). On the other hand, 75% of parent would encourage them to join, but only as an officer. Having been there, done that, I have to agree. Officer is the only way to go. They have a better choice of duty stations, pay, housing, retirement, and they are  treated much better.

When it came to law enforcement, 51% said they trusted the local and state men and women in blue. However,  a sizeable number---48%---puts little or no trust in them. 58% reported little or no trust in the FBI. 43% felt the same way about the Secret Service (the poll was taken prior to the attempted Trump assassination, so it's likely those numbers would be lower). Just 46% had any confidence in the CIA. 42% felt the same way about the Department of Homeland Security. 33% trusted the Justice Department.

Our currency is backed by the "full faith and credit" of the U.S. Government, which, if so, should give every American serious reason to pause. We have the biggest debt of any nation. Congress continually raises the "debt ceiling" so we can keep the government going. We routinely borrow billions from foreign countries (including China) just to keep our nation afloat and make the interest payments on that debt. Imagine having to borrow money just to pay the interest on your mortgage or credit card debt! How long do you think you could keep that up before ending up in bankruptcy court?

So, let's look at the Federal Reserve System, which  manages and regulates the nation's money supply. With a approval rating is mere 36%, most disapprove of how its job performance. 62% of Americans lack faith in the FRS. Next comes the banks. It should come as no surprised that 72% expressed little or no confidence in them.

Big Business, often portrayed as ruthless and immoral (not to mention puppet master of Washington) is deeply disliked by most Americans---83% to be exact. The Big Tech companies like Microsoft or Apple, have an approval rating of only 27%. Small businesses (the "Mom and Pop's" ) are liked by 64% of consumers (which is why Big Business spends billion to portray themselves as being community and people oriented). After peaking in the 1950's, only 27% now approve of unions.

Another key institution is healthcare. Globally, the U.S. healthcare system is last among the top seven industrial nations. It ranks highest among the top industrial nations and 54th overall in infant mortality rates, 60th in life expectancy (behind Estonia and Saudi Arabia), highest treatment cost, fewest hospital beds, and 22nd in quality of life.  Our healthcare system's emphasis is on repeat  treatment instead of prevention.  Could the problem be putting profits over patients?

The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has a disapproval rating of 58% following their (mis)handling of COVID-19. Given the above, it shouldn't surprise you to learn that our healthcare system as a whole has an approval rating of just 36% while 64% disapprove.

Our currency boldly proclaims  "In God We Trust". So what about religious institutions? Surely we can safely put our trust in religion...can't we? Well, apparently not so much. According to the Gallup Poll, organized religion has a approval rating of only 32%. 67% of respondents placed little or no faith in doctrinaire religion. In the 1950's, according to a University of Southern California report, 57% of households belonged to some religious institution. By 1960 it rose to a high of  63.3%. Why?

America had come through two wars---WWII and Korea. The economy was booming. Suburbs were springing up everywhere. nearly everyone had a car and a nationwide highway system to drive them on.  We had a functional government where both sides tried to meet in the middle. There was a new sense of optimism to go along with our patriotism. Everybody liked Ike. But somewhere in the late 1970's and early 80's, it all began to fade.

Rev. Jerry Falwell's "Moral Majority" (which was neither) was became viewed as a religious form of McCarthyism; a stick to measure others by. It demanded conformity as it inserted its values into government and society. Televangelists ("pay to pray" preachers) like Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker, Ted Haggard, Oral Roberts, and Falwell, watched by 85% of religious households at one point, found themselves immersed in scandal amid a lifestyle of obscene wealth.

There were widespread reports of child molestation by Catholic priests (and the Church's efforts to intimidate victims and hide the perpetrators), pedophilia, hiring prostitutes, sex trafficking, and tax evasion as well as their positions on abortion, birth control, LGBQT acceptance, single mothers, support of illegal immigration, musical lyrics, and more. America changed as organized religions failed to adapt.  

A 2020 Pew Poll revealed that while church attendance was down considerably, 64% of Americans still self-identified as Christian. Given the current trend, its predicted that by 2030, that number will be 46% or less and 35% by 2070. Americans are leaving mainstream (mostly fundamentalist and conservative churches) at a rate of 10% to 15% annually. Many are becoming agnostic, atheist, or converting to Buddhism, Humanism, Hinduism, or to spirituality (Wicca, pantheism, paganism, etc). What's the fastest growing  religion in America? Islam. Non-doctrinaire? Secularism (aka "none").

Lastly, education. Our educational system is ranked 12th among 81 industrialized nations. We scored in the bottom half globally in math (the top five were all Asian countries). In science, we ranked 16th out of 81 countries,, placing us in the second tier. The top five? All Asian again.

The 2024 Gallup Poll showed our public school system had a approval rating of 29%. However, 70% of those surveyed said our public schools were failing. We had kids graduating high school who can't read at a 12 grade level (many have an 8th grade reading or comprehension ability). In math and the sciences, it's just as bad. History, English (including proper grammar) face a similar problem. In literacy, we rank 36th globally (note that poverty levels are closely tied to literacy rates).  

Higher education doesn't fair much better. To many colleges depend on quotas to fill their enrollment criteria rather than the best performing academically.  Many incoming Freshmen aren't prepared for college. As a result, they are usually required to take remedial classes. just to get started.

Bear in mind too that college isn't for everyone and not every job should requires a four year degree. The best alternative? Trade school. Tuition is much less. There is a strong job demand (many have jobs before graduating), it pays well, and the trades offer a wide range of opportunities.

A lot of students go for whatever major is easiest or trendy, This usually translates into degrees with little demand (such as gender or race based studies, art history, Humanities, Mass Communication, Anthropology, or Sports Health or Administration). These are the students who typically end up with the most debt and least likely able to find a job or pay off their academic debt.

So, there you have it. We have lost confidence in overwhelming majority of our foundational institutions; a trend which has been accelerating for years.  For some of these institutions, it may be possible to earn back some of that trust over time, but for others, perhaps the majority, that confidence appears gone forever, and with them an allegiance to our nation's future.

 

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

 

U.S. Confidence in Institutions Mostly Flat, but Police Up

Government Agency Ratings Remain Largely Negative

User trust in social platforms is falling, according to ournew study.

U.S. adults under 30 now trust information social mediaalmost as much as from national news outlets

Most Americans Would Discourage Young People From JoiningMilitary as Enlisted Service Members

10 Infamous Evangelical Scandals

 

Pew: Modeling the Future of Religion in America

A Majority of Americans Trust Local Broadcasters Above OtherMedia for Election News

U.S. Education Rankings Compared to Other Countries

U.S. Ranks Last Among Seven Countries on Health System PerformanceMeasures

30% of adults say most people can be trusted

 

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

 

A Snapshot of US Politics: Where We Are and What We Can Do About It

As most of you know, America is no longer the democratic republic established by our Founding Fathers. Over the decades, but especially since the end of World War II in 1945, the US has morphed into an Oligarchy; a plutocracy with a near permanent political class comprised of politicians, professional staffers, bureaucrats who manage agencies with little oversight except by their fellow insiders (and certainly with little to no public accountability), and the ever present corporate lobbyists, which nearly every politician aspires to become, and in the background, the corporate and financial elites.

Corporations nowadays essentially run Washington via their messenger boys and girls, the lobbyists, which means they run America, especially with the Supreme Court's "Citizens United" fiasco in 2010 which defined corporations as "people", or "Frankensteins" as I prefer to call them. It also declared money to be "free speech", except that these Frankensteins have unlimited "free speech" while you and I are still capped in how much say we have when it comes to elections. It's often been said that money is the life blood or mother's milk of politics. Personally, I think it's more the "crack" of politics; everyone always wants more and more is never enough. For example, in 2017, lobbyists gave Congress, government officials (including congressional staffers, the DNC and RNC, agency heads, etc ) $3.37 billion dollars not including perks like golf outings, hotels, use of private jets or cost of airfare, dinners, or help writing or summarizing legislation (along with their recommendations on how to vote), and so on.

Nevertheless, the mind boggling amounts of money and perks provided to Congress (and indirectly to the Judicial branch as well, not to mention the presidency) by lobbyists far outstrips what ordinary Americans can donate. In fact, it's practically made it impossible for the average American, who is often just as well educated and experienced as their multi-million dollar counterpart to run for office. As a result, we are forced to cast our votes for who may be the least qualified candidate, but certainly the richest.

Of course, primaries are all about the two corporate owned political parties choosing which puppet they'll put up for election. I liken it to a beauty contest among prostitutes (you can take it from there). General elections aren't much better. We're stuck with mostly one dimensional cardboard cutouts posing, glad handing, and pretending they're having a good time. It really comes down to whose meaningless populist platitudes we dislike the least. As far as their corporate paymasters are concerned, it doesn't really matter. They own them both. We're just picking figureheads while the media tries to make it into political reality show.

Think of the two corporate political parties this way. Corporations own it all. Money trumps everything. The two parties are both literally owned by the same corporate elites, but in slightly different configurations. Basically, it's one corporate syndicate comprising certain special interest groups versus another corporate syndicate with its special interest groups. Their agendas are similar, but ranked slightly different, but regardless, they work together to get did what their key players want done. The hubbub we see on TV or read about is usually over the crumbs and details.

For instance, both needed to weaken labor unions in order to make it harder for workers to fight back and to reduce costs, and so they did! Unions bosses went along in order to avoid seeing whole sectors either closed or moved overseas rather than a few plants or hundreds of jobs. Legislation was written, mostly in conjunction with the lobbyists, to provide tax breaks to underwrite the cost of jobs being sent overseas and return finished products sans import tariffs, all at taxpayer expense naturally. Want another example? Both politicians and their corporate overseers needed to artificially keep down unemployment numbers and boost the economy, and so now we have the eternal "War on Terror" to drain off "excess" job seekers while making a killing off of military contracts which affects a whole host of peripheral industries. Thus the economy grows, employment remains artificially high as we continue to operate at near wartime production rates.

Seriously, do you think that if they weren't working hand in glove? Why hasn't a tax code favoring working class Americans been written by now? That there hadn't been serious campaign finance reform and an end to corporate donations, as well as an end to gerrymandering and establishing term limits? With all those lawyers in Washington, do you really think those loopholes are accidents---legal "boo-boos"? Nah, those people are a lot of things, but stupid isn't one of them. How do you think they can pass laws which apply to us but not them? Why is it that out of a ten hour work day, the average Congressman spends only two hours working on bills and other issues and the other eight raising money?

Of course, the smartest thing they can do is to keep us divided, and they seem to be pretty good at that. They promote, albeit quietly, animosity between Left and Right, between races, between genders, between white collar and blue collar, and in every other way they can think of. Various groups are formed (and paid) to foment chaos in the form of inflammatory speeches or interviews, inciting riots and trying to silence anyone who disagrees with whatever their position happens to be. Meanwhile, there are arguments interjected to curtail this or that law or Constitutional Amendment which they claim will solve everything. The political center, where the majority of Americans live, is virtually ignored or even ridiculed by both political extremes and the media, even during general elections; once they gravitated toward the center during the general election and spun back to their respective extremes. Not anymore! Now they barely bother. It seems both camps have lost their fear of the electorate thanks in large part to Citizens United.

Meanwhile, the police are militarized and increasingly taught, even if unofficially, to view the public as the enemy, and to respond as such. The result is often excessive violence when a little patience would do. The courts, almost as a matter of course, find the police officers "innocent" and that ends the matter. That in turn results in individuals not trusting the police and either fighting back, running, or ignoring the police, and so the cycle repeats. At the same time, the corporate puppet masters use their influence to expand the monitoring of groups and individuals through social media and national intelligence agencies; to build not just individualized consumer buying profiles, manipulate and control content, but also to build profiles on potential resisters and independent thinkers who are not buying into the whole scam.

The media, of course, plays along and why not? As I previously reported, over 90% of all media--- TV, radio, social, newspaper, etc---is controlled by just six corporations. They decide what is and isn't news, manipulate the facts, decide how it will be spun, and above all, create public opinion. And if that isn't enough, they decide how we'll be entertained, be it sports, video games, game shows, movies, TV shows and so forth; much of which also containing subtle political content designed to influence our opinions on various subjects. More recently, some corporations like Nike and Levi Strauss have stepped directly into the political arena by promoting various issues or agendas so that sporting a certain look or product will now express or imply a particular political outlook. Perhaps the hope is to shame those who don't adhere to the same look through peer pressure.

Elections are controlled by keeping Independents, who are the nation's largest political bloc, as well as third parties off ballots. Why? Because they won't play the game. They can't and won't be controlled by corporate handlers. They also had a high degree of uncertainty to election outcomes, that means they can't count on either of their political puppets winning; someone with a different agenda or who will think independently might "accidentally" get elected and that must never be allowed to happen. That's because after Ross Perot ran for President in 1992 (and again in 1996) and did so well that he embarrassed both corporate candidates (Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush) the DNC and RNC came together to amend the Commission for Presidential Debates to make it virtually impossible for Independents and third parties to qualify to participate (and many states followed suit).

Requirements to get any non-Democrat or GOPer on ballots were also set so high as to be nearly impossible, even though both parties know it would likely fail any Constitutional challenge. However, the problem of course is the costs to do so in court. Both parties are banking that no one will spend that kind of money to take the matter to court. In addition, the media, which is owned by the same corporate interests, have stopped treating Indies and third parties as "legitimate" candidates and also stopped covering their campaigns; treating them as sideshow entertainment and someone not to be taken seriously. Naturally, the big donors, who also happen to be these same corporations, ensure that their money keeps flowing to the two pre-approved candidates. The same goes for endorsements, which are valued for their cash and in-kind donations as well as for volunteers. Doesn't sound very much like a "free" country do it?

Lastly, I want to discuss something which, frankly, irks to no end, but I also think it's important for you to understand. As I mentioned before, there's a lot of effort being put into dividing us by the ruling Oligarchy. They don't want us to come together and peek behind the curtain so to speak. one of the ways they are trying to divide is by name calling. Specifically, by one side or the other being called "socialists", "Nazis", "Communists", "social democrats" or "fascists" as if the names and terms are interchangeable. They're not.

Socialism is the common ownership of the means of production by the workers. Think of it in terms of worker co-ops, ESOPs, credit unions, etc. Workers/employees come together to decide on how the business will be run, how much everyone will be paid and so on. In terms of government, committees are formed from these groups to decide how to manage the town, city, or community. Participation is not mandatory, but then you also don't get a voice if you don't Each committee elects someone to a larger committee to manage the larger state. Of course, there are other variations, but that's the general idea. Basically then, the workers/employees control the state through direct democracy.

Communism as we know it isn't Marxism as Karl Marx and Freidrich Engels wrote it. Communism as we know it was based on Stalin's corruption of both Marx and Lenin ideas. Thus, Communism came to be State ownership and control of everything---corporations, jobs, houses---you name it. You may be employed at some job, but your employer was the State, and the State was the party. You participated whether you wanted to or not. The State controls your life from cradle to grave. Democratic Socialism is something of a mix between the two, and despite claims to the contrary, it has been very successful in Scandinavia. Under democratic socialism, the State exists exclusively to serve the people, with the people approving what the States does through referendums or voting. While Communism is very undemocratic, democratic socialism is highly democratic while socialism is more communal. All of these are on the Left side of the political spectrum (although the Left/Right spectrum is completely out of date and not very accurate).

Nazism, which is short for National Socialist German Workers Party, is generally considered a far Right ideology, although that's not entirely correct. First it's nationalist whereas Communism is internationalist; in this case Germany or Germanic countries. It socialist, but not the way we think of socialism. It founder, Adolf Hitler, said that "socialism" for Germany meant a community of Germans only. Here, Hitler means "Aryans" or pure Germanic People. It also means creating an community of mutual support for Germans. In this, Hitler promoted a classless society between the old nobles and Junkers (the elites) and everyone else as well as distinctions between regions or occupations.

It meant equality between Catholics and Protestants, equality in hiring and education, promotion of similar ideals such as proper health, hygiene, and fitness. German Worker meant just that. German society would be dedicated to ordinary workers, artisans, craftsmen, farmers the same way it was to the banker, business owners, or academia. He dissolved individual unions, and created a single State union, the DAF or German Labor Front, into which everyone would belong. Of course, Hitler also choose the specific wording to attract as many people as possible away from the other political parties (his biggest political competitors was the Communist and Democratic Socialist parties on the Left, the Catholic Center Party, and the German National Peoples Party on the Right). Thus on our political spectrum, the Nazis would be more center Right than anything.

Lastly, Fascism. Modern Fascism was created by Italian dictator, Benito Mussolini. Essentially, it's a merger or partnership between the State and key corporate entities which cooperate for their mutual benefit. Individuals may work for a given company, but that company serves the State as its partner. The State operates along the lines of a corporate board of directors who elect their chairmen or President (in this case, Mussolini. In fact, in 1944, Mussolini was voted out of office by his Fascist board of directors). Like Nazism, Fascism borrows from the ideological Left and Right, but it varies depending on the history and tradition of that country. That's why the fascism of Italy was different from that of Bulgaria or Spain which was differed from that of Argentina or Hungary or Romania. Thus, Fascism can come from the Left or Right whereas Nazism is strictly conservative and socialism is strictly liberal.

The Oligarchy or plutocracy which controls our government now, and to a greater degree, much of world's economy, come closest to fitting the description of fascism than anything. It is very much the merger (or perhaps takeover is a better word) of the government for the sole purpose of controlling assets, resources, production, and yes, even us. They use our tax money as their own slush fund. They use our military as their own enforcers against nations who won't cooperate. We have been transformed from nationalist citizens to international consumers. Our loyalty is less to country and more to a product (ever notice how often commercials use words like "family", "trust", or "love"?). We are encouraged to buy the latest this or that and thus incur debt, which in turn becomes our shackles. We are their economic serfs or as some people prefer, "wage slaves".

The only way out of this is by not cooperating; not drinking the blue or red Kool-Aid they offer us during the election cycle. Supporting Indies and third parties, including demanding equal ballot access. By insisting that non-policy or lawmaking elected offices become non-partisan. By organizing employee associations or cooperatives. Changing your voter registration to Independent or third party. By finding common ground to bring diverse groups together. By demanding a voice when it comes to raising taxes, rate hikes, fees, or salaries for elected officials. By becoming more economically independent like shopping local, buying at farmer markets, growing your own garden, installing a rain barrow, solar panels, home schooling, and so on. By ignoring news media endorsements and doing your own research. Seeking out alternative media. They are beatable although they try to convince us otherwise. All we have to do is refuse to cooperate and to think and act for ourselves. But in a fascist state, even a benign one, that can be a dangerous thing.


Total lobbying spending in the United States from 1998 to 2017 (in billions U.S. dollars)

How Third Parties Are Kept Out of Presidential Debates

U.S. Presidential Debate Rules Out Third Party Candidates

Has America lost its ever-loving mind? Civility in Today's Politics

The level of anger in politics has reached a new high, though it would be more accurate to say a new low. Congresswoman Maxine Waters, a Democrat representing the 43rd District in California, has been known for saying some insane stuff for years now. In fact, many view her in the same vein as another Congressional nut job, Nancy Pelosi. However, this time, ole Maxie went just a bit too far.

The 79 year old Congresswomen recently called her supporters and others (mostly Millennials), on the Left to "harass" Trump Administration officials and supporters at every turn, including protesting at their places of work, at stores where they shop, and even at restaurants. Some have even interrupted this to mean harassing them online, by phone, or in front of their homes. Whatever they feel they have to do is acceptable, at least according to Waters.

Ms Waters told the crowd that had gathered to protest the arrest of illegal immigrants "Let's make sure we show up wherever we have to show up. And if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them. And you tell them they're not welcome anymore, anywhere. We've got to get the children connected to their parents". She went on to demand the release of illegal immigrants and the temporary separation of children from the detainees.

The following day, Waters appeared on MSNBC, where she had "no sympathy" to Trump staffers or their supporters. Excuse me for the comparison, but as an amateur historian, this has shades of Kristallnacht written all over it. For those of you unfamiliar with Kristallnacht, otherwise known as the "Night of Broken Glass", it was the most violent Nazi pogrom to date against the Jews of Germany. Kristallnacht took place in night of November 9/10, 1938, and led to destruction and burning of hundreds of Jewish businesses, homes, and synagogues throughout Germany by the feared SA (better known as "Brownshirts").

However, the actual intent of Kristallnacht was to encourage violence against not just the Jews, but gypsies, the Democratic Socialists, homosexuals, and Communists. More importantly, it to see just how much violence against these groups that the German People were will to accept. As we all know, they were willing to accept quite a bit, Many considered it "none of their business", or where to afraid to say anything.

We've recently learned where White House Press Secretary, Sarah Huckabee Sanders was asked to leave a local dive, the Red Hen, by the owners, who told Ms. Sanders that they had "certain standards that I feel it has to uphold, such as honesty, and compassion, and cooperation". Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen found herself, along with a couple of friends, confronted by an angry mob when went to a Mexican Restaurant which forced them to leave. Later, another mob showed up outside her Virginia home, complete with signs and megaphones.

Amusingly, the Congresswoman appeared on several talk "news" shows, complaining about the backlash from fellow Congress members and claiming that she was getting "death threats" (most likely it was just people wishing she'd hurry and die). Nevertheless, when did we cross the line where members of Congress can feel they can wantonly call for the open harassment, protests, and threat against anyone, let alone an opposing Presidential Administration?

Since the election of Donald Trump, we've witnessed an a near crescendo of rhetoric, mainly by the Left, and egged on by the corporate media, against the Trump Administration. It seems that every news broadcast, be it cable, network, talk, or interest, starts and ends with some deliberate jab at Trump or someone in his administration. The same can be said of his supporters, or quite frankly, anyone on the conservative Right. College campuses have become hotbeds of political activism, which isn't a surprise. They've been that since the 1960's, but what's different is that instead of accepting differences of opinion and open discourse, they attempt to quell anyone who disagrees with their carefully polished worldview.

We find, at nearly every turn, attempts to quash any freedom of opinion which differs from theirs. We've come to accept "echo chamber" politics as the norm. That is, we tend to associate only with those who think and act like we do, and in doing so, come to believe that our particular worldview is the only one. Thus, when we encounter anyone with a different worldview, we tend to react by either running away or with aggression, what is often called the "fight or flight" syndrome which is based on both our individual makeup and to an extent, on society's (or at least, our own 'tribal' clique).

This has really never been a problem for society before since there was always too much personal interaction, which meant individuals and groups had to accept these differences and had to learn to get along. Nowadays, thanks to social media, we can simply avoid what we don't like or understand. In fact, technology has made it possible to nearly avoid all personal contact in general, which will prove interesting over time given that we are social animals. The problem comes in when these self-reinforced notions of moral superiority come in contact with each other, such as with politics and social or economic policy.

Now, I don't want it to appear that I'm placing all the blame on the Left. I'm not by any means. Under the Obama Administration, there were many on the Far Right who were bordering on having a complete meltdown over his actions and policies. In fact, there were several instances where it got pretty dicey, such as repeatedly wanting to invade Syria, immigration issues (like suspending ICE, illegally selling guns to drug cartels, or suing Arizona for enforcing federal immigration laws and---for the first time---allowing a foreign government to participate in a federal lawsuit against a state), and so on. However, the Far Right never reached this level of visceral hatred that we see coming from the Left.

During the Obama Administration, we saw those on the Left singled out Fox News' Right leaning reporting, along with some of its early leading hosts such as Glenn Beck, Laura Ingraham, Megan Kelly, or Bill O'Reilly. Talk radio consisted of several prominent individuals, most notably Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity (who is also a Fox host), and Michael Savage. However, opposing that was CNN, MSNBC, the network channels (ABC, NBC, and CBS and the overwhelming majority of their daily programming, often masquerading as "entertainment"). There's no question that the Hollywood elites push a liberal message. Talk radio too had its share of liberal or "progressive" hosts such as Thom Hartmann, Alan Colmes, and Rachael Maddow (who is also a host on MSNBC). The internet had its share of political perspectives represented, but liberal dominated.

Today, Fox still remains, but many of its prominent hosts have disappeared (many after false accusations of "sexual harassment" years or decades after the supposed event) while the Left continues in full force, thanks to the sheer number of networks and shows available (and directed advertising dollars). The same goes for radio and even the internet (and let's not forget that 96% of all media is owned by just six corporations, so they all dance to the tune these corporations call). So much for unbiased reporting. In other parts of the world, this is called propaganda.

In addition, we've seen the proliferation of so-called "fake news", which entails not just non-mainstream outlets, but even the major news outlets knowingly and willingly pushing stories which are untrue, either in their entirety or at least their presentation (such as showing staged events and presenting them as actual events or making it appear that more people are present that they actually are). Of course, we've become used to biased reporting to the point now where it's taken for granted. Note: see the last line in the previous paragraph above.

Some key hosting sites such as Facebook and YouTube have openly censored, demonetized, and/or deleted any conservative content, including blogs! I even had two articles "censored" recently for discussing an ongoing issue in the UK concerning an individual who was arrested for reporting on a Muslim rape gang. The British Government ordered a media blackout and asked that other media outlets globally comply, which they apparently did! Since the ban being partially lifted, my numbers on those articles have started to increase, but it's doubtful they'll reach their previously anticipated levels. Many individuals who host sites on outlets like YouTube have been all but forced off; usually by demonetizing their content under the auspices of "dangerous", "potentially offensive", or "inciting" language. Whatever the term they chose to use, it's always broad and vague enough to cover anything they dislike, which is anything they view as too conservative.

So, what's happening here? The division we're experiencing in society goes back years, if not decades; perhaps even extending all the way back to LBJ and the Vietnam War for some. Each administration since has created its own cracks in our national foundation, however, those cracks seem to have widen under Clinton, George W Bush, and Obama. Now, we're see it under Trump. Under Obama, there were calls for the succession of several states. We're now hearing of the division of California in order to acquire more Congressional influence in Washington. Perhaps we'll see Texas do something similar.

Meanwhile, the call for succession is still there. Some, such as the Washington Post, have discussed the increasingly likelihood of a second Civil War. Personally, I think it's a real possibility, although I think it's more likely to be a revolution than a civil war since a civil war is, by definition, an attempt by one party to replace the government held by another party (the US Civil War was, in reality, not a "civil war" per se for instance. The South sought to leave a union it voluntarily had join in order to create a separate government, not seize control of the existing one. Thus, the "Civil War" was actually a rebellion of the states).

I think something similar is in the works. How this will play out, given the interconnectedness of society remains a big question. Nevertheless, the current union as its now exists can't and won't hold for much longer. America's divide is too broad and too deep. It's been compared to the divide America experienced in the latter half of the decade before the war. The chief difference is that we lack the great statesmen of their time which were able to hold the nation together, albeit briefly. Today, we have people like Maxine Waters, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, and a media egging it on. I suspect what we'll eventually see is something more akin to the French, German, or Russian revolutions; and either/or scenario where there is a victor and the vanquished.

In the case of France, it led to Robespierre and the Reign of Terror, followed by the rise of Napoleon. In Germany, it was the collapse of the Weimar Republic and rise of Hitler. In Russia, it was the fall of democratic Provincial Government and rise of the Lenin and the Bolsheviks, which ultimately led to Stalin's Reign of Terror. Since we're closely modeled on the Roman Republic, in its place we'll see the military dictatorship of a Caesar. We can only hope it's someone with the intellect and benevolence of a Julius or August and not the despotism of a Tiberius or Nero. However, unless we demand the restoration of civility from the political class, the media and their corporate masters, from the universities and schools throughout America, and from each other, the outcome for us all appears bleak.



Is America headed for a civil war? Sanders, Nielsen incidents show its already begun


Maxine Waters encourages supporters to harass Trump administration officials


Maxine Waters encourages supporters to harass Trump administration officials


Nancy Pelosi unraveling is a sad sight

America's Achilles Heel: Stopping Illegal Immigration

There's been a lot of talk---perhaps far too much--- of late about the recent influx of illegal immigrants and the "alleged" separation of children from their parents. Most of this "outrage" has emanated from the political Left and has been directed at President Trump. Perhaps that's because of the continuation of the anger and disbelief of Trump's victory of the Presidency and the denial of the obvious coronation of Hillary Clinton.

Certainly there can be no denying that the Left has been on a bender of sorts since the election. it seems every news broadcast, every headline or lead story, and every talk radio or TV show starts and ends with some alleged wrong doing by the Trump Administration. They've even tried to tag the enforcement of immigration laws, which call for the temporary separation of children from their parents "Trump's Policy" when they know good an well that it has been in effect for decades.

I've even heard a few commentators point out the attempts to discredit Trump's White House via alleged bribery charges, Russian collusion, vote buying, and just about everything else you can think of allegation just simply hasn't stuck no matter how much the Left wishes it to. Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton's known criminal behavior has been completely ignored. Do you think that perhaps the two are connected somehow?

Just recently, the corporate media, still trumpeting its "anti-Trump" tune, has been claiming that these individuals were there to "seek asylum", which may...or may not be true. The reason I say that is that it's not logical that people would bring their families (including young children and teenagers) hundreds of miles just to illegally cross into the US and then, after being arrested by the Border Patrol, saying they intended to enter the US in order to seek amnesty. "Why" you ask? Because the US maintains consulates and embassies literally everywhere in the world. But since these individuals are coming from Latin America and Mexico, let's stay focused on them for the sake of argument.

Mexico has a US embassy in Mexico City, which is the country's largest urban center. In addition, there are nine consulates scattered all through Mexico. Colombia, which isn't a very large country, has an embassy in Bogotá, the nation's capital. Honduras, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Panamá, El Salvador, and the rest of the countries which make up Central America all an American Embassy in their capital city as well. As for South America, Brazil (which has the fewest number of illegal immigrants attempting to enter the US), has an embassy in Brasilia and three consulates; Rio de Janeiro, São Paulo, and Recife.

Argentina, Chile, Paraguay, Uruguay, Colombia, Peru, and all the rest in South America also have one US embassy each, which are all located in their respective country's capital city. So, again I ask---why could you tote your entire family hundreds, if not thousands of miles along dangerous roads full of all sorts of bad guys (especially those working for the drug cartel), illegally crossing borders and risking the loss of everything they have, including their lives, just to knowingly and willingly break US federal law to enter the US and ask for asylum when they simply just needed to go to their country's capital city and apply? Even initially, US officials will mail out the paperwork to get them started! Thus, I have to wonder if their actions make any logical sense? For me, the answer is clearly "no".

Of course, the next obvious question is why these individuals are seeking asylum in the first place? None of the countries south of the border are engaged in any ongoing military action. Each has a relatively stable government, at least as far as our State Department is concerned since the US doesn't officially provide aid to any "terrorist" or "terrorist sponsoring" state (of course, "terrorism" is in the eye of the beholder as we all well know), but let's look at that too for just a moment. Given that the majority of illegal immigrants come from Mexico, we'll start there.

According to USAID, Mexico, with a population of 131 million, receives $87 million dollars from US taxpayers. Next is Honduras, with a population of about 50 million, takes in $325 million. El Salvador gets $75 million while Costa Rica and Nicaragua receive $15 million and $31 million respectively. Paraguay cashes in with $22 million dollars of our money. Uruguay gets a paltry $837,000 (obviously they need a better lobbyists). Brazil cashes our check for $15 million each year as Argentina, which has one of the worst economies in Latin America as a result decades long poor economic policies, gets $2.1 million of our tax dollars, and the list goes on. In short, each of these countries benefit mightily for US taxpayers to help prop up their governments. Of course, none of these figures include the peripheral benefits of US trade or military bases.

If we look at the their economics, we find that most are doing ok; nothing to write home about (though sending money back home seems to be acceptable). As I said earlier, Argentina has perhaps the worse economy due to decades of pursing poor economic policies which has resulted in hyperinflation, severe unemployment, and, naturally, a lot of civil unrest. Nicaragua too has had some major economic troubles, especially since the death President Manuel Noriega. Brazil, on the other hand has done well economically, however, that prosperity hasn't been equally spread out. The ruling 3% or 4% elites have made a great deal of money off of the country's developing economy while the remaining majority live at or below poverty level.

Of course, the same thing can be said of most of Latin America countries, Mexico included. The problem goes back centuries where wealthy clans bought up huge tracts of land, which they, in turn, used to invest in various industries. Naturally, their wealth allowed them to control the various governments which have come and gone and ride out the periodic "People's revolutions", either through bribery, extortion, and old fashion murder. A middle class never really got a chance to take hold. Peasants were kept largely uneducated and ignorant, mostly with the active support of the Catholic Church, which received large kickbacks from the wealthy elites. In fact, it wasn't until relatively recently (post 20th Century), that any assemblance of a middle class has started to develop. Nevertheless, the elites remain in control of the government and more importantly, the military.

About two decades ago, there was a brief attempt to change the social and economic face of Latin America through a reinterpretation of the Catholic/Christian message called "Liberation Theology" which provided a more "socialist" take. The message was highly popular among the poor, especially in underdeveloped rural portions of the various countries, especially sense it promoted social justice. The message was promulgated primarily by individual priests and lay leaders, who spread the message primarily by word of mouth as they ventured from village to village (the best known of these was Gustavo Gutierrez).

It wasn't long before the ruling elites and the Catholic Church officials clamped down hard on this modern day "heresy". Anyone promoting "Liberation Theology" face dismissal from their parish and even excommunication! Thus, it too was consigned to the "dustbin of history" as Trotsky once said of the opposing Mensheviks. What's of interest, however, is that out of this there seems to have developed movement to bring individuals from these poor South American countries to the United States regardless of whether they broke US immigration laws or not.

These groups, which tend to be liberal and religiously oriented, as well as highly organized. They tend to hide behind their traditional "untouchable" status to secretly transport, house, feed, and support these families. They are also actively engaged in helping these individuals navigate or actually circumvent US laws to obtain taxpayer based social services such as healthcare, housing, and even jobs through various programs and church based connections, and when necessary, to even evade immigration officials.

The other group directly involved with smuggling illegal immigrants are (not surprisingly), drug cartels who are often paid up to $10,000 per person. These cartels often make use of corrupt politicians and individual in the police force and military. In some cases, such as we're now experiencing, these cartels will "borrow" children from those working for them or who may owe them money, and randomly pair them with an adult to create a "family", which is then used to aid these individuals in crossing the border illegally, believing that families get preference. Of course, the media loves a good "family drama", which gets overdramatized and politicians can't keep away from anything which smacks of good "PR" (the same thing can be said of Hollywood Liberals, who are always looking for the latest social "fad").

As we're now seeing, many of these kids are spilling the beans once they're interviewed separately by immigration agents, but that's not all of the story. In some cases, parents are legitimately sending their children north in order to link up with relatives already in the US. However, authorities from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) have reported that, when contacted, these relatives often seen to vanish, leaving the kids abandoned, which creates a whole other problem---what to do with these children? At present, HHS officials are trying to place these kids with foster families while they continue to find either their actual families (who also don't want to be found for fear of prosecution) or an actual close relative willing to take the child.

Lastly, perhaps the worst offender in my opinion, are those who encourage these individuals to illegally enter the country with the promise of jobs. In reality, these are typically dirty, unclean, underpaid, unstable, and often unsafe jobs (obviously with no benefits). They are subject to whatever treatment the employer wants to dish out without recourse. What's worse, there's no one for these individuals to complain to. Some say these individuals will do the work US citizens won't, which is untrue. American's will work these jobs, but only if working conditions are improved and they're paid a realistic salary. No more paying pennies and pocketing dollars!

My solution to at least some of these problems is fairly simply. Illegals caught in the US should be deported ASAP by depositing them at the nearest home embassy or consulate; let them find a way to send their citizens back home. We should deduct the costs of handling these individuals from the millions of dollars in taxpayer aid being sent to their home country. We should, however, make it easier for those with a needed skilled to obtain a work permit and enter the country (with a mandatory minimum English fluency requirement). We should end the "anchor baby" provision; requiring that at least one parent to be a US citizen. No access to any taxpayer based services, including healthcare (unless it's deemed an medical emergency). All US taxpayer funded documents should be printed in English only, however, English language classes should be made available.

To reduce the supply, we must eliminate the demand. Any business or institution, including churches, aiding, employing, or assisting illegal immigrates should be subject to a substantial mandatory fine for the first offense; an increasing fine for the second offense including a 30 day suspension of their business license or tax exempt status along with a 30 day jail sentence (which includes the president/CEO and members of the board). For the third and additional offenses, a larger fine, permanent suspension of their business license or tax exempt status and up to one year in jail.

As mayors or governors who want to thumb their noses at federal laws, that's fine. However, they should also be willing to accept responsibility for their decisions and forego federal money to their state or community as well. You shouldn't be able to flip someone off with one hand and beg for money with the other. In short, we need to make it impossible and/or unprofitable to continue with this business as usual attitude and not expect consequences for their actions.

The US should and will continue to welcome immigrants to this country. It's what have made America the greatest country the world has ever known. But we can't continue to accept illegal behavior. We are a nation of laws, and we must not allow some to blatantly ignore the law just because it's convenient or makes us feel good. Maybe most importantly, it's not fair to those who have taken the time and made the effort to do the right thing; who are attempting to follow the law.





USAID: United States Agency for International Development