The "Gospel" of Partisan Politics

I am a frequent and often requested respondent on the site "Quora". Over the past 5 or so years, I've had somewhere in the neighbor of 10 million viewers and have my answers included in a number of dedicated spaces which are similar to encyclopedia entries. My specialties are history (especially military history and WWII in particular), economics, theology, humanities, community organizing and activism, management/employee relations, sociology, and of course, politics. 

Recently I was asked a rather unusual political question. The individual wanted to know which of the two corporate controlled parties (the Democrats or the Republicans) considered their particular brand of political dogma to be "gospel", which I took to mean as not based on their professed "ideal", but on their reality. Below is my answer. How would you have answered?  Does either party govern the way they claim to do? 

Which party sees its dogma as political “gospel”? Simple. They both do. That’s why we have such a wide and deep partisan divide. Each believe they know what’s best for the country and the American People. Each has a nearly inflexible political dogma which has lead to intolerance for anyone who isn’t as “pure” as they are. Compromise, which used to be considered the hallmark of modern politics , is now viewed with contempt.

The only thing the two corporate owned parties seem to agree on is their opposition to third parties and Independents (who happen to the nation’s majority voters) because they represent a threat to their control and power. Independence of thought or the development of critical thinking skills are to be discouraged and ridiculed.

Secondly, both agree on pursuing every means of self-enrichment, primarily for the benefit of their controlling corporate clique. It’s not by chance that power doesn’t rest in the hands of the voters, but boardrooms. There’s a reason why we’ve transitioned from a Republic to a corporatocracy and why we’re led by an oligarchy of very wealthy individuals.

As long as we remain divided, we are easier to control and manipulate, which is why both parties have largely purged moderates/centrists for their ranks. It’s why money is “free speech”. It’s why corporations, those legal fictions, have not just the same rights as people, but in many cases, have rights that exceed flesh and blood citizens. So, which party sees its ideology as “gospel”? The answer is that both do, and their gospel was written on Wall Street and their prophets can be found on “K” Street. 

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. 

Special Announcement: Another Opinion has been name "The Best Centrist FSS Feed for 2025"

 

We are pleased to announce that Another Opinion Political Blog has been named the "The Best Centrist FSS Feed for 2025" in the "Top 15 Centrist of 2025" list published on March 2, 2025 by FeedSpot Reader. We were chosen from thousands of centrists and moderate political sites on the internet worldwide by FeedSpot FSS (https://rss.feedspot.com/centrist_rss_feeds/

. Our thanks to FeedSpot and especially to all our readers. We couldn't do it without your support.

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

"The Fifth of November" As Told By Paul Hosse: A 2024 Election Special

"Remember remember this Fifth of November

 January's treasonous plot.

I see no reason why the treasonous plot should ever be forgot

Trump, Trump 'twas his intent

to overthrow the government"

Three score militia's did go

the electoral college to overthrow  

By Hillary's providence he was catch'd

behind Nancy's darken lectern an election snatch'd"  

So goes my brief rewrite of John Milton's famous poem about Guy Fawkes and 12 other's failed 1605 "Gunpowder Plot" to blow up England's Protestant king, James VI of Scotland and Parliament as today's media and political status quo would attempt to reframe for us Donald Trump in the role of the "villainous" Guy Fawkes. 

It's almost time for all the posturing and spin to come to an end and for us to go to the polls (bearing in mind that it's the Electoral College, not us, the voters, who actually decides on who becomes the next president). The news media, so-called "celebrities" and "personalities" will be out in force telling you to vote the way they (allegedly) did. Even TV talk shows and radio programs, print advertising, and commercials will have their overt and covert partisan innuendos (often masked in humor, sex appeal, or social correctness) to more subtly manipulate your vote.   

 Newspapers in particular will make their "endorsements", which, in effect, is aimed at convincing you to support their agenda---not yours. They want you to put the issues important to you, your family, your friends, and your neighborhood aside. They, through their endorsements, want you to support the issues and values which are important to them and their crony like friends.

We at Another Opinion don't make "endorsements". We give you---our readers---the unvarnished facts as we find them and urge you to make up your own mind (we even provide the links to that information so you can verify them for yourself).

We hope you will do your own research based on the issues important in your world and vote accordingly irrespective of partisanship because you can bet that neither of the two corporate owned parties care one iota about what's important to you.  

So, on this Fifth of November, we hope you will have not forgot to get out and vote. America's future  depends on it.

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.

 

Remember remember the 5th of November by John Melton

Gunpowder Plot

Gunpowder Plot in popular culture

 

The Great Swift & Trump Dustup: The Impact of Celebrity Endorsements

Celebrates have long sought to use their fame (or at least perceived fame) to push every type of product there is, from video games and deodorant to restaurants to clothes. Back in the days of radio and early television, it wasn't uncommon to see some of your favorite movies stars hawking "Chesterfield" cigarettes, Colgate toothpaste, or some perfume. It seems like everything and everyone had a sponsor.

It's not much difference when it comes to politics which is, after all, nothing more than a popularity contest that much different from the ones you had in Junior high school when running for school council or class president, talent contests, or the glitzy high budgeted "Miss America". pageant. Always with the contestants trying to be everything to everyone while promising the moon. The only real difference is that with political races the outcomes are actually matter.

These celebrities (which includes athletes, television and radio "personalities" and entertainers)  are often treated as a sort of royalty, as if their opinions were somehow gospel. They get asked  by the media about world affairs, the economy, national policy, and so forth as if they're are experts. Now, why everyone is entitled to an opinion, the majority of these folks known little and the topics they're speaking. They tend to exist in a make believe world, which may be why they also tend to be highly liberal. It's only in a highly liberal world that they are allowed to fully express themselves.

When it comes to performers and politics, endorsing candidates is nothing new. The famous Al Jolson endorsed  the Republican Warren G. Harding for President in 1927 (including writing and performing a song for the campaign at campaign stops). The "Chairman of the Board", Frank Sentara, joined with Humphrey Bogart, Rita Hayworth, Orson Wells, and other notables endorsed Franklin D. Roosevelt of President, including holding several fundraisers.

Meanwhile, Bob Hope and Bing Crosby backed Thomas E. Dewey. Sammy Davis Jr and football legend, Jim Brown, Ronald Reagan,  John Wayne, and "The King", Elvis Presley, were Nixon supporters while "Babs" (aka Barbara Streisand) openly helped both Bill and Hillary Clinton.

Fast forward to 2024, and we find former President Trump with the likes of Rosanna Barr, Kid Rock, Hulk Hogan, 50 Cents, Ted Nugent, Elon Musk, and Mike Tyson are among a great number of other popular individuals in his corner. On the other hand, Vice President Kamala Harris has the majority of the wealthy "Limousine Liberals" working it for her, with names such as  Spike Lee, Oprah Winfrey, Mark Hamill, Beyonce',  Mark Cuban,  Jane Fonda, and George Clooney (historically, they've always supported liberal Democrats). However, the biggest name to come out of in support of Harris was that of billionaire pop performer Taylor Swift.

Following the recent debate between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris on September 11th, Swift issued a statement (signed "Childless Cat Lady") via the social media platform, Instagram, to her approximately 283 million Instagram followers announcing her support for Harris. Nevertheless, following Swift's Instagram post, musical legend Stevie Nicks, Aubrey Plaza, Dan Levy, and "Lil Nas X" (aka Montero Lamar Hill) all followed suit.

This apparently resulted  in some 406,000 individuals visiting the Votegov.com site to register to vote (presumably Democrat and again, presumably for Harris).  Many of these are part of the new wave voters comprised of Millennials, Gen Y, which will eventually replace  Gen X and Babyboomers.

Somewhat amusingly, the former president responded that he hated Taylor Swift  (presumably referring to Swift's music) and add that he liked "Mrs. (Brittney) Mahomes better" Mahomes is a former professional soccer player and co-owner the Kansas City Current soccer team. As a side note, I have to admit that I'm not a fan of Swift or Pop music in general). Brittney is also married to Kansas City Chiefs quarterback, Patrick Mahomes.  Ironically, Mahomes came out in support of Taylor Swift shortly after his comment.

Taylor Swift is the first ever musical performer to occupy the Hot 100's top ten records and end up as Billboard's year-end number one performing artist (male or female) in three decades---2009, 2015, and 2023. At 34 years old and with an estimated net worth of $1.3 billion dollars, Taylor Swift has sold an estimated 114 million albums (11 albums certified platinum) and has received more awards than any other artist. 

What kind of impact could Taylor Swift potentially have in the election? A recent survey by Statista indicated that 22.56% of adults identified themselves as fans of the performer (they self-identify as "Swifties"). Digging further into the demographics of her fanbase, we find that 41% of her fans are between ages 18 and 24, making them members of Gen Z.  If that age bracket is expanded to age 34, then we find that the personage of fans jumps to 78% (the difference is comprised mostly of males). 

Looking at gender, 61.5% of "Swifties" are female. As an aside, the data shows that the older the age bracket (up to age 44), the more likely the fanbase will be comprised of males. Over the last 12 months, Swift has seen a growth in her overall fanbase of 25% on Instagram and 75% on TikTok. Swift is seen as the quintessential social media super star.

On YouTube, she as 50.3 million followers. On Facebook and Twitter (aka "X") it's 76.9 and 92 million respectively. Instagram shows 232.9 million fans. TikTok show her having 92 million followers while Soundcloud has 428,500.  There are 62.5 million followers on Spotify. Deezer has 9.4 million "Swifties".

 By comparison, former Beatle and musical legend, Paul McCarthy, has "just" 4.5 million on Instagram. Black Sabbath front man and bat connoisseur, Ozzy Osborne has 75.8 million follower on TikTok. Rock masters, Queen has only 3.3 million on TikTok.  On Twitter/X, Led Zeppelin reaches 721.2,000.  Lastly, the greatest band of all time, The Beatles, have 8.5 million fans on YouTube.

Given the ages, gender, and active  engagement of her  fanbase, there's little question that her support of Kamala Harris can have a substantial impact. None of Trump's celebrity backers can come close to matching Taylor Swift and her "Swifties". Should Harris win her race for president, she'll owe a huge debt to "The Childless Cat Lady".

So, if we go by the what we see here, Taylor Swift's endorsement of Kamala Harris could have a serious impact on the outcome of the race. Celebrity endorsement can give a candidate access to an entire base of potential voters they may otherwise not have access to. They also raise the prospects of more financial donations coming into the coffers.

However, celebrity endorsements are a double edge sword. Not everyone likes a given celebrity or their opinion for whatever reason. As such, their endorsement may bring out that "anti-celebrity" crowd, and with it, their vote and possible donations. Secondly, many voters see celebrity endorsements as nothing more than an attempt to bring attention to themselves, especially if their career is sagging or passé (such as can be said of Roseanne Barr or Kathy Griffin). Media endorsements can be seen as just as useless since they tend to promote their own agendas, which rarely benefits the people.

Taylor Swift's endorsement of Kamala Harris, the Vice President with the longest and worst approval rating in U.S. history, has breathed new life in her campaign. It has also diverted attention from the particulars of the race to the sideshow. Untimely, how much will it impact the race? I guess we'll know in just two months. Hopefully, however, the American People will stay focused on the issues and not on the circus performers.

 

 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!

 

From Sinatra to Streisand: 100 Years of Celebrity PoliticalEndorsements

Trump Celebrity Endorsements: A Full List of Celebrities  Supporting the Ex-POTUS

Celebrates who Support Trump

These celebrates have endorsed either Harris or Trump forpresident

All the Musicians Supporting Kamala Harris  in the 2024  Presidential Election

Lists of awards and nominations received by Taylor Swift

How to Build a Fanbase That Can Break Ticketmaster

 

What are some of contributing factors for the decline of the United States? An Observation from the Center

 

America, as you know, is no longer a “Republic” although it still likes to pretend it is (much like Rome did under the early Caesars). While purely speculative, as all such predictive analysis are, our decline is not one or two things, but a series of events external and internal, all connected directly or indirectly, which, in the moments of our daily existence, barely warrants our notice. Some appear benign, hardly noticeable, while others glare back at us like Fredrick Nietzsche's abyss. 

First is the assumption that the world wants to be America, or at least like America. America is first and foremost a capitalistic pseudo-democracy. We tend to export “American” ideals and values along with our Levi's, Fords, soybeans and television shows whether they're wanted or not. We try to imprint our society on everyone, especially through consumerism to created a world of "mini me's".  

We create mostly unrealistic dreams, from what to eat, what to wear "what's in and what's passe'" (an artificial construct to sell clothes), TV shows to watch, what we should drive to look sexy or "cool", or what we should look like (especially applies to young girls and women), and even what we should think and what should be considered "important".  Doesn't it make you wonder where we would be without them to think for us?

The corporate media, after all, manufactures the narrative (remember, only five corporations control 96+% of media in all its forms). They tell what's important and not just as they tell us how we're to think or feel. But even that is all about selling "eye time". The higher the viewership the higher the price they can sell a particular commercial slot or print space for.

Another way we sell American ideals is by removing governments we don’t like because they negatively impact our (that is, Wall Street's) financial interest.  This is typically euphemistically referred to as "regime change".  It doesn't matter if the individual or party are chosen by the people, if it interferes with profits, it goes.

During the Cold War with Soviet Russia (1946 - 1991), the U.S. has been involved with the overthrow of roughly 12 governments (euphemistically referred to as "restoring democracy" or "supporting the will of the people"). We've also been directly involved in several hundred political assassinations such as Ngo Dinh Diem, the South Vietnamese President in 1963 or  President Salvadore Allende of Chile in 1973. During the same time span, we've been involved at varying capacities in some 23 proxy wars and 285 armed conflicts. According to one survey, the U.S. was responsible for 81% of the world's armed conflicts from 1945 to 2001

Overwhelmingly, each of these were either directly or indirectly the result of pressure by Wall Street since the individual leader or their government is a threat to their bottom line. In their place, we have typically installed a puppet government, but not just any ole puppet government popular with the people. No siree bob!  These are almost always far Right military juntas headed by such charming individuals like Generals Augusto Pinchot, Gregorio Conrado Alvarez, Alfredo Stroessner, and Jorge Rafael Videla.

Under "Operation Condor", which lasted from 1973 to 1983, we were active in the kidnapping, torturing, murder, or "disappearance" of some 60,000 individuals along with over 400,000 imprisoned. Many of them being Communist, democratic socialists, or simply vocal Left-leaning  activists. Some were union organizers, teachers, pastors, nuns, community leaders, and students.  Naturally, the government likes to say we acted in conjunction with our allies as sort of a soothing balm for our collective conscience.  Still, it kinda brings into question that notion of "leader of the free world" doesn't it?

As an aside, in researching this and similar articles over the decades, I've noted that we've never tried a to elect a non-partisan centrist or someone without strong financial ties to Wall Street. Rarely we elect someone without a military background  Given that we're no longer a democratic or constitutional Republic, having become a Oligarchy led corporatocracy years ago, if we were to have some sort of coup or civil war, what's in store for us? Based on our history, perhaps this is a hint. After all, we have so much experience at it.

Following wars, conflicts, or police actions, the next step is often what's called "nation building" (it should be more properly labeled "national building in our image"). This is where dozens (or more) government contractors engage in the lucrative business of, well, the literal business of physically rebuilding countries we had just bombed back to the Stone Age while the State Department helps restore their government to something acceptable to Wall Street.

Speaking of "nation building", Brown University announced the results on one of its projects concerning U.S. and its "War on Terror", that states over the last 20 years, Washington has spent $8 trillion dollars and came out empty handed with the Taliban still in charge and Al Qaeda still in business despite the loss of some leaders. Why isn't the American Taxpayer furious?

 In addition, over those 20 years, around 900,000 people have been killed. The U.S. Department of Defense confirmed that over those same 20 years, the American taxpayer has shelled out $145 billion dollars just to rebuild Afghanistan. I'm sure Al Qaeda and the Taliban are quite grateful, not to mention  thankful for the millions of dollars in state-of-the art military equipment we so graciously abandoned when we skedaddled out of Kabul.  

It's worth noting that despite spending billions on nation building since 1946, not a single country has opted to adopt our form of government. Not a single one. The dozens of countries we've helped rebuild like Humpty Dumpty tend to adopt the inclusive British proportional representative government.

Instead, they tend to choose the British “parliamentary” or proportional system where each party is basically guaranteed a seat, depending on the percentage of the vote they get, meaning everyone has a voice in government. This is in lieu of America's "winner take all" system where the voters on the losing side are unrepresented for the term of that office.

Another serious factor in our decline is our educational system. We’ve dumbed it down so as not to “offend” underachievers. We're ranked in the lower tier among industrial nation. How will we compete globally? We’ve accepted the idea of “equal outcomes over equal opportunities”. Everyone gets “participation trophies” just for showing up. Everyone isn't a “winner”.

We’ve developed the notion that certain individuals or groups are somehow "due" something by society simply because they exist. An extension of that is the mistaken presumption that we're “owed” something--- aka "reparations"--- because your ancestors experienced an injustice or other burden. Well, that may be reprehensible, but try naming one group on this planet who hasn't experienced injustice somewhere in their collective history (which speaks volumes about the state of humanity more than it does anything). 

Every race or ethnic group has at one time or another been the slave or the master. But it's all in the distant past. We can't change or undo what happened. They sacrificed for our future. Take from it the lessons they taught us  and move on. The only person ultimately responsible for your success or failure is you. Not the government, not your fellow citizens, and sure as hell not your ancestors.

America has lost its way. We no longer value life or show respect for others or their things. We covet what others have more than we value our own lives. That's how some people end up dead. We're told we're all victims. So now we've developed a victim mentality where others are responsible for our failures, but why not our successes? We're told it's okay to be "offended" if others won't play along with our "pronoun pity party". Guess what? You can "self-identify" as the "Cheshire Cat" if that's what you want, but that doesn't mean everyone has to play long Alice.

We no longer discuss opposing ideas in a civil manner. We don’t want to be presented with anything outside our “bubble”. We want nothing that would distort our view of the world. To do otherwise triggers a intellectual breakdown, requiring a "safe space" and "comfort blanket".

Our partisan politics is a reflection of that. Its’ developed a enemy-like “us vs. them” mentality where the “us” part doesn’t include the average voter. Rather than producing, society now based on consumption of everything without replacing it. Capitalist democracy requires that we  constantly expand and consume ever faster to survive. It’s appetite is insatiable. It’s fueled by greed for “more” of whatever is there.

When capitalist democracy can no longer expand, it begins to metastasize. It starts to consume itself. As it does so, it increasingly seeks to control and manipulate its environment. The economic class which feeds it is put under increasing pressure to provide more and more while it starves. That’s the stage we're now at by the way.

We've arrived at the point where there are no absolutes. Right from wrong is merely shades of gray. Much is often promised, especially by our so-called “leaders”, but no one actually expects those promises to be kept. We've discovered we can invade the coffers expecting them to always be filled but that's increasing not the case.

Facts are now seen as ambiguous. Truth is now a matter of perspective rather than accepted norms mutually agreed upon by society. They're conveniently assumed to be a lie to be discarded if we disagree with them. Perhaps worse is when no one is held accountable for the lie. Let's take a quick look at the nation and the lie we were loosely modeled on---Rome.

"Rome the Eternal", like countless nations before and after, fell because of an over extended and undersupplied military. It was no longer able to impose Roman values on the unruly barbarian tribes. Even its military became less “Roman” as more and more foreigners filled its ranks, who had no vested interest in the empire due to a decline in Rome's  birthrate.  

Originally, the title (and it was a “title”) of “Roman Citizen” carried great weight.  It was bestowed rarely and often with great fanfare. Eventually, it all but lost its mystique. Foreigner didn't settle in order to become a “Roman Citizen”. They came for the economic opportunities Rome could provide.  Eventually, didn’t they even bother to learn the lingua franca of the empire--- Latin---or follow its laws, traditions and adopt its values.  Sound familiar?

Internally, Rome had always been corrupt, but it was the degree of corruptness which changed. It became a cancer and spread everywhere. Citizens were distracted  with “bread and circuses”, that is, games and monthly bread rations, all paid for by the working class---the Plebeians or "Plebs"--- until it eventually collapsed from over taxation.

Taxes and goods from client states also dried up. They developed their own trade alliances and bypassed the Roman “middlemen”. They even lost their fear of Roman might. Why? Not because it was no longer formable, but because Rome could no longer financially sustain a war. Again, sound familiar?

Eventually, there arose an outsider, Julius Caesar, who pledge that “in order to save the Republic I must destroy the Republic”, which was a true enough observation. The Republic could no longer reform itself out of it situation. The dependent classes lacked the means and will. It couldn’t appease all the special interests groups which controlled it. Rome must be founded again.

However, Caesar failed and paid with his life. What followed was a series of internal civil wars, When they were over, Rome had order. It also had a dictatorship. Can we be that far aways from our own Caesar? That’s a question many Americans are asking themselves. We are now a defacto neo-fascist corporatocracy; a surveillance state with all the tools for a full blown police state already in place. All that’s missing is a crisis—-real or manufactured.

We likely won’t have a military junta (although the military is the only institution which has kept a positive approval rating), but rather someone like a board president or chairman. And why not? After all, Wall Street runs the show. Why shouldn’t they step center stage and claim the crown?

 

 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!

 

United States involvement in regimechange in Latin America

Operation Condor

Parliamentary system

US initiated 81% of global armedconflicts from 1945 to 2001   

Cold War Coups and Proxy Wars

Costs of the 20-year war onterror: $8 trillion dollars and 900,000 deaths

DoD: What We Need To Learn:Lessons From Twenty Years of Afghanistan Reconstruction

  

2024: Does Anyone Want To Be President?

Assuming Trump isn't the GOP nominee for some reason, who is there for the Republicans? Nikki Haley? She's lost six races in a row, including her home state of South Carolina. She even lost to "None of These Candidates" in the Nevada Republican primary, and Trump isn't actually out campaigning.

How can anyone take her seriously? Nevertheless, Haley's is the only active candidate on the Republican side. It looks as if the entire Republican Party has decided to capitulate the 2024 presidential election, which has never happened before.

So, what if Trump is removed from the ballot, has the GOP blown the next four year?  After all, there are some 91 felonies charges pending against "The Donald" and they need only one to stick. to disqualify him from office. I can't imagine this is the Republican Party's grand strategy, and it isn't any better on the Democratic Party's side.

The Democratic power brokers see the same polls we do (and few that we don't). They know Biden has no realistic shot at winning in a general election. His approval rating is just 38%, but then it's never been strong. So, who's there to step in when---not "if"---Biden is removed from office for being mentally unfit? Kamala Harris? Hardly.

Ms. Harris's only accomplishment to date is not having accomplished anything with the possible exception of somehow managing to maintain the lowest approval rating of any VP of any party at any time.! Her current disapproval rating is 52.8%. It's almost as if the Democratic Party is intentionally throwing the 2024 presidential election to Trump which is impossible to imagine.

Then we have to look at the consequences of what potentially could happen if either of these "for display purposes only" candidates wins by default. As we saw in 2016, when Donald Trump defeated Hillary Clinton, and thus denied her of the coronation she and her supporters felt entitled to, there were demonstrations throughout the U.S., Europe,  Latin America, and Middle East (especially among those who had donated millions to her foundation, expecting special excess). They blamed everybody (including Putin and Xi Jinping) for the defeat except for the candidate herself.

There were violent protests seemingly everywhere to the tune of $57.4 million dollars in damages.  If Trump should win in November, is there any reason why we shouldn't expect more of the same? Antifa, LGBQT groups, and BLM will be back in business and better financed than ever before.

Accusations of racism will skyrocket while claims of reverse racism could reach epidemic levels, creating an climate of unmatched racial and gender tension in this country. Censorship, especially on campus as well as on social media will seem to be everywhere. Given the depth of our national divide, can we endure even more?

Meanwhile,  President Trump will find himself playing hell at getting anything accomplished. Even Republican members will fight him at nearly every turn, sending bill after bill down in defeat. I suppose that if there's a "silver lining" to be found here, is that the Republicans and Democrats may finally have an issue to bring them together, namely shutting Trump down for the next four years.

Ultimately, pro-Trump forces ---which comprises about 64% of all conservatives---will grow so frustrated at seeing their agenda being blocked at every turn, and with continued social chaos and crime  reaching record levels, they may take to the streets to fight for "traditional American values". In the end, America may find itself staring into the abyss with the abyss staring back. 

On the other hand, what if Joe Biden somehow manages to win in November, with thanks to the corporate media and in large part to the years of political character assassination directed against Trump. Let's face it, by November Trump will be physically, mentally, and financially exhausted., and who can blame him?

To date, he's already spent over $76 million dollars  over the last two years to 60 law firms on his defense. He's raised just over $27 million for his campaign, but much of that is having to be diverted to his defense. Never before has one individual endured as much as Trump has in his quest to be president again. He might be a billionaire, but even billionaires have finite resources.

So, what if Biden manages to win? Perhaps the most obvious threat facing the U.S. in the event of a Biden victory is on the global front. A Biden win could be the green light China has been waiting for to reclaim Taiwan, not to mention enforcing its claim over fishing and territorial water disputes with Australia, Indonesia, South Korea, India, Japan, and the Philippines.

Given a weakened American military, which is currently at a ten year low in terms of recruiting having adequate supplies and proper updates of equipment, combined with a perceived weak president, could be the ideal situation for Beijing. Meanwhile, this may be the impetus which forces  these countries to unite economically and militarily in lieu of their dependence on U.S. forces.  

A Biden win in November could present Iran with an opportunity for approving a full court press on Israel through Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Qaeda, and the other terrorist cockroaches organizations.  Maybe to North Korea's tinpot dictator, Kim, will use the global situation to press Seoul's defenses. I put nothing pass any of these states or their leaders.

Finally, we need to look at the big bear in the room---Russia. Putin could decide to finally end the drain on Russia's economy vis-à-vis Ukraine while daring NATO to threaten its strategic border again. I think Putin has been more than patient with NATO's saber rattling. He has also demonstrated remarkable restraint in avoiding to be drawn into a new Cold War, which is something the neocons in the West have been desperate to revive.

Nevertheless, Putin may find it necessary to temporarily circle the wagons behind "Brics" and continue to build an alternative to the global petro-dollar based economy."Brics" currently includes some strong and growing economies such as China, India, Brazil, and several of the Gulf States, as well as Russia.  Whether I'm right or not (and I hope I'm not), there won't be many golden opportunities like a second Biden term.

Meanwhile, domestically the Republicans will continue to the dominate party in Congress, though in reality the only clique of  true importance is that of Wall Street and its K Street knights errant with their bags of money and favors. Without them there is no politics in this country. So, we can expect to ended up with more of the same gridlock, petty sniping, and distractions as before.

Of course, the only joker unaccounted for are the Trump supporters, of which there a millions. If Trump losses and Biden manages a second term, there will likely be a upheaval to make January 6th look like a five year old's birthday party. There will naturally be claims of fraud, election sabotage, outside interference, and every other form of tomfoolery you can envision. You can expect mass protests and demonstrations from coast to coast. As an aside, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center, there are currently some 200 militias operating in the US. as of 2015.

Sure, the Feds will do everything in their power---legal and otherwise---to downplay and redirect the anger coming from the Far Right over a Biden victory. How successful they'll be is hard to say. Federal agencies such as the FBI , NSA, Homeland Security think they're clever in their efforts to infiltrate, bug, and monitor these groups, but it's just as likely they'll be the ones to have the infestation especially given that most of these organizations on the Far Right are run by former members of the military, law enforcement, and intelligence communities. In short, nothing is as it seems.

Should the Left make the mistake of trying to confront these groups of the Right, it could get seriously ugly very fast. Let's hope that doesn't happen. Despite having had largely card blanche to do as it pleased in the past, the Left really has no idea of the hurt the Right can bring.

Of course, the media will do its best to villainize Trump and his  supporters as it has in the past while covering up the Left's "peaceful" demonstrations as we watched stores being looted and torched, people brutally attacked (mainly white, Hispanics, Asians, and seniors), and private property vandalized. I suspect the corporate media will get a rude awakening as to just how far their credibility has fallen.

I think there will be another factor to consider, and that's the American People themselves. Americans are overwhelmingly politically Independent. They are sick and tired of the two corporate controlled parties.  We all know the political, judicial, and economic systems don't work, at least for us. For the ruling elites, it works just fine. It's how they designed them to work. The American People want a deep and fundamental change which isn't going to happen willingly. Power is never surrendered voluntarily.

So, who do we do ivote for if Donald Trump is ineligible for some reason  and we don't want Joe Biden? Do we have any other choices aside from Nikki Haley? Well, we do. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., son of Robert F. Kennedy, the former senator from New York. Senator Kennedy was murdered in his 1968 bid for the Democratic Party's nomination.

 I remember that at the time (I was about 10 years old), I really liked Senator Kennedy and had high hopes he'd win. We had a mock election with all the candidates represented and I was "Bobby Kennedy". I had to articulate his various positions. before the entire 6th Grade class.  For what it's worth, I (or rather Kennedy) won! America would have been so much better off if he had. Instead, the nomination went to Senator Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota  who lost to Richard Nixon.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is running as an independent and while he's more than qualified to be President, the political duopoly has virtually made it impossible for anyone outside to the two corporate parties to get on the ballot. and the media is virtually ignoring him. Nevertheless, Kennedy has been mostly successful and poised to be a serious contender in November. However, like any outsider, he needs a lot of grassroots support.

Regardless of who you vote for or who ultimately wins in November, remember that America is at a dangerous crossroad. Once chosen, there will be no turning back. We'll be committed to whatever comes next.

 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!

 

Here's how much the Anti-Trump protests cost, at Trump paid turnout rates

Trump Has Devoured the Republican Establishment

The GOP's Establishment is More Populist Than Its Trumpsters

Who likes Donald Trump? Lots of Republicans, but especiallyHispanic voters plus very rural and very conservative people

Trump spent $76 million over late two years on attorneys aslegal troubles mount ahead of election

US Military  'Weak', At Risk of Not Being Able to Defend National Interests: Study

Kennedy24

Political Endorsements: Providing the Masses with Bread and Circuses for Fun and Profit

 

Another Opinion has published an article like this in one form or another every election cycle since 2001 not just as a public service, but as part of the fight to save our Republic. Why? Because we now live in a world where independent thought is no longer considered "politically correct". We're expected to toe the line dictated to us by the Status Quo. America is no longer a Republic. It's a Corporatocracy run via diktat by a super rich Oligarchy.

There are just five of these corporations that control 96+% of all media content---TV, movies, video games, radio, publishing, newspapers and so on.  They have an incredably powerful ability to directly influence your opinions by controlling and spinning what you watch, read, or hear.  They keep you entertained, distracted, angry, confused, and ignorant of the real issues. Bread and Circuses. While they your attention, they try to influence your vote through their so-called "endorsements".

We have a problem with this. We believe you should make your own decisions based on your own research regardless of who you ultimately vote for. Independent thought  is important for our present if we are to have a future. Please consider sharing this article. Thank you.

BTW: The opinions expressed here are strictly my own.

 

Political Endorsements: Providing the Masses with Bread and Circuses for Fun and Profit

There was a time when the news media (particularly newspapers) were the ever vigilant "crusaders" of public morality, albeit self-appointed and as often as not, the creators of their own hype (see "Yellow Journalism"). However, society and technology grew up. Today, we are better informed that at any time in history.  We have instant access to information the world over, and with it, the ability to do own investigation of candidates and the issues which are important to us.

The media, especially newspapers, make endorsements to serve their agenda, not yours, although they try to make it sound one and the same.  For years, I've campaigned for the release of unedited transcripts of candidate interviews  and full disclosure of the interviewer's names and their political affiliations. The public has a right to know exactly what a candidate said and in what context, as well as political leaning of those making the so-called "endorsements".

I've been a community organizer and political activist for well over 40 years.  To many times over those years I've come across candidates who were misquoted, misattributed,  or instances  where the "correct" response was inserted while gaffs were carefully removed on behalf of certain candidates. In fact, I've been a victim of these manipulations. That's deception, whether intentional or not.

 Today, a handful of news and other media outlets are making public these interviews unedited and providing the facts behind their research in a timely fashion. They are also providing unbiased information regarding both side of key issues, particularly those that will be appearing on the ballot. To those brave few actual journalists and editors, bravo to you!  

However, not all are providing full disclosure of the names and political registration or leaning of the interviewers making the endorsements nor are they disclosing the criteria by which the endorsements are made. That remains hidden behind a false veneer of make believe "integrity"!  You-- the voter--have a right to know if an "endorsement" on an issue or candidate is honest and fair or is being made based on a political or economic bias.  

As I have done for decades, I'm urging voters to take a few minutes to do their own research in order to make an informed decision before casting their vote.  Using a Voter Guide is one such resource for you to consider.  You can check out a candidate's or issue's website, or do a general search on the internet. You'll find out a lot more than just reading or listening to a biased review or opinion.

As an aside, if you're looking at a political party's website or that of an endorsing organization, bear in mind that they are writing from their point of view. Any endorsements or opinions they make serve their interests, not necessarily yours.  Always understand the political slant of any source.

If you find that you happen to be in agreement with a candidate or issue, fine. Support that individual or issue as a volunteer  or with a financial contribution, a yard sign, or simply with your vote. But whatever you, do so as an informed voter. Don't let anyone think or decide for you. Never surrender your vote!

I also suggest that candidates or those representing an issue who are interviewed for an endorsement, especially by the news media, to be sure and write down the names of those conducting the interview. Ask if they will be making the endorsement. If not, who will?  Also ask when their recommendation will be announced. If you're being recorded for TV or radio, ask when it will be aired.

 Finally, when being interviewed for an endorsement, don't be afraid to ask what their political affiliation is. If they refuse to tell you, note that too. You may want to make this public  once the interview is over in order to keep everyone "above board" and honest. Keep it factual and to the point. Leave any personal opinions or animosity out of it. If your campaign depends on their recommendations, then you, your supporters and the voters deserve to know what to expect.

The role of the media, regardless of its format, is to present the facts in a impartial, balanced and fair manner. It is not to attempt to manipulate or sway public opinion to suit their  political or economic  agenda, even if they believe it's "for your own good".  Only you can decide what's in your own best interests.  

Organizations, including business associations and unions, have a specific agenda.They even create a myriad of fake "committees" for this or that to hype their agenda (made all the more powerful by the 2010 "Citizens United" blunder by the not-so-Supreme Court). It's in their economic interests to make these endorsements. They are responsible solely to their board of directors and/or the stakeholders, not the general public. 

But it's not the job of the news media, including newspapers, to push any agenda! Their one job should be to provide the public with honest and balanced information free of political bias and let the people decide, wouldn't you agree?  

Remember too that endorsements are merely ultimately personal opinions, often based on money and access to power, and those opinions aren't always the most informed! Think for yourself. Do your own research.  And then vote!  Your community and America are counting on you!

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! 

 

What is 'Antifa' and is it a Threat?

 

So, just who or what is "Antifa"? The answer depends really on who you ask. To the Far Left, it's a largely benign and loosely organized groups and individuals on the political Left spectrum, ranging from climate change activists, radical feminists, anarchists, members of LGBQT, so-called "socialists" and Communists, and groups like Black Lives Matter.

 Many define Antifa as a ideology and a movement rather than as an organization or political party (which incidentally was how Fascism and Nazism were originally defined. How ironic). 

To those on the Right, especially the Far Right, they are hardly benign or loosely organized. They tend to be decentralized (that is without a identifiable organizational structure) and yet operate with a specific purpose, leading some to speculate that there are coordinated cells within the larger mass of protesters charged with attacking specific targets.

They're those who call for the "defunding" or closure of police departments and the creation of "citizen policing", especially of minority communities by fellow minorities. Some groups went as far as to take up arms and attempt to menace the police by carrying weapons (or taking up roof top "sniper" positions) or pointing small handheld lasers at the police.

The mainstream media generally glosses over the mayhem and damage they cause (such as setting fires, looting, vandalizing), or attacking specific groups or individuals physically aside from minor irritants such as blocking traffic. Instead, the media calls these riots "peaceful protests". 

Case in point is Donald Trump's inauguration when they staged attacks on parts of Washington DC and surrounding areas by starting fires, flipping cars, breaking out store windows, and spray painting almost everything in sight. Their objective, of course, was to and divert attention from the inauguration to them. 

On several occasions, they've aggressively denied individuals the opportunity to speak, even when previously invited and especially on college campuses. It's as if these individuals live in a political bubble they're afraid will get popped if additional facts are let in. So much for higher education and critical thinking skills!

When George Floyd and Breonna Taylor were killed (some would say "murdered"), they staged massive demonstrations in cities and towns across America, especially in Minneapolis, Minnesota and Louisville, Kentucky, where the two incidents happened.  While chaos ensued, police officers were ordered to stand down and respond only when actually attacked, and then only in moderation in order to deescalate the situation, which the media again downplayed.

Meanwhile, whenever small pockets of Far-Right groups showed up "to observe", the media heralded them as "neo-Nazis" or "hate groups". It's worth noting that in no instances during the Floyd and Taylor "peaceful" riots, did the Far Right show up enmasse. In most instances, their appearances were limited to around a dozen or so individuals, albeit with many in military garb.

So, what's the truth? Just who is Antifa and what is their objective? Indeed, given the political diversity of Antifa, is there a single objective?  The name ("Antifa") is a abbreviation for "Anti-Fascism", which also kinda sums up their mission statement if you will. To be more specific, the overarching goal of Antifa is reputedly the creation of a more "open", "accepting" and "liberal" society and the total destruction of whatever they deem as being "fascist". If that sounds contradictory, it's because it is.

However, there's little or no consensus as to exactly what that would entail. Some favor creating a "Communist" style of government based on Stalinism or Maoism (neither of which had any actual basis in Marxism). This would call for a total elimination of capitalism from the ownership of private property to total government control and regulation of business (including Wall Street).

Others favor a form of anarchy, which calls for the annihilation of government itself.  Even currency would be abolished in favor of some sort of barter method. There are those who favor a form of socialism with greater government regulation of key industries, expanded social programs, overhauling the tax code, while some want legalization of all drugs, open borders, the complete confiscation of all guns, free education, debit forgiveness and medical care.

There are those who want a complete redistribution of wealth and the creation of a universal base income to fight poverty paid for by the elimination of the military (perhaps leaving a small volunteer national guard), and defunding or elimination of police departments and the creating of community policing. In a limited sense, this has already happened in some cities such as Portland Oregon.  

 In fact, approximately 20 cities have, in some form or fashion, have defunding their police departments with one report from 2021 saying that police department budgets across the country have been cut $870 million dollars.  

Meanwhile, other participants of Antifa are more focused on climate warming and are demanding extreme changes in environmental laws with stronger enforcement. Many want changes in laws concerning the LGBTQ community including adopting the normalization of multi-genders (they claim there are  72 genders) and the adoption of asexual or non-binary  pronouns. Surprisingly, this segment of Antifa has been perhaps the most successful.

In a early victory of sorts, there are five U.S. cities which have banned the use of gender specific pronouns such as "he" and "she" on government documents and forms or used in laws and policies. These cities are San Diego, Oakland, Berkeley California as well as Boston Massachusetts. 11 states have approved the use of a "third gender" on forms and documents. The reputed goal, according to various local and state officials, to create a "open and welcoming" environment for the approximately 1% of the U.S. population which self-identifies as neither male or female.

As an aside, there are roughly six states which have adopted a LGBQT "inclusive" health education curriculum which numerous more  who quietly promote gay identity through the use of "gay pride" flags in the classroom or allowing individuals in full drag queen attire to read to young school children. In addition, there has been changes in various local law to allow individuals to use the restrooms of the gender they self-identify as. 

 Another group affiliated with Antifa is Black Lives Matter which seeks to promote everything from the creation of autonomous or semi-autonomous zones exclusive to blacks to additional funding of black or minority owned businesses, housing or other social programs. Despite instances of violence and looting, BLM's aim has been to reduce what they believe is police violence and harassment of blacks in general.

Statistics indicate that blacks, who make up 13.6% of the U.S. population, are three times more likely than whites to be killed police officers although blacks are shown to be 1.3 time less likely than whites to be armed. One third of the incidents have occurred when the suspect is attempting to flee on foot or vehicle. 43%  of deaths happened during the commission of a violent crime or in the possession of a weapon while 22% was during a non-violent offence. 

Other groups under the Antifa umbrella include those who want to confiscate all firearms, make changes in medical care of seniors, the handicapped, or mentally ill, eliminate student debt, raise minimum wage, reform the judicial system (including the prison system by closing all privately own prisons), make changes in election laws to permit more ballot access or eliminate mandatory voter ID laws.  Of course, there are plenty of those who simply enjoy causing mayhem and violence.

What makes Antifa so dangerous, however, is a lack of formal structure and thus a centralized hierarchy.  Interestingly, within Antifa demonstrations there are "legal observers" from the National Lawyers Guild (NLG). They monitor and video tape the actions of the police department and assist individuals who are arrested with bail money and legal representation (demonstrators often write NLG's  phone number somewhere on their body in anticipation of arrest).

The NGL allegedly uses the video (along with video and pictures obtained from assorted cell phones) to bully cities with threats of lawsuits for various supposed civil rights violations. The City of Denver Colorado had to pony up 1.6 million dollars while Austin Texas coughed up $17 million. Many cities find it cheaper just to pay off NLG than to contest the lawsuit (this tactic is known as "lawfare"). As a result, it's taxpayers who ultimately end up funding Antifa.

As an aside, the NLG also engages in passive resistance training and related tactics for protestors (many of the techniques were gleaned from lessons learned during the protest movements of the 50's, 60's, and 70's).  Instruction is often either online through private chats or in person just before a protest or other action begins. There is typically someone designated to ensure everyone follows their instructions.

Antifa reminds me less of the "Red Front", the paramilitary arm of the Communist Party of the Weimar Republic, and more like the Nazi "Brownshirts"  or Mussolini's "Blackshirts" of the same era (in fact, Antifa is known for dressing head to toe in all black clothing).

It's worth pointing out that while the Far Right are typically demonized by the media as being extremist, they have not been able to organize as effectively as Antifa has, and they are certainly aren't as well funded. Antifa has engaged in over 140 mass protests across the country (many of which have degenerated into riots) as of 2022, while aside from the January 6th protest, the Far Right hasn't had any major protests and or riots.  

As many observers of Antifa have pointed out, despite their name, action is louder than words and their actions are more fascist than not. Some have called Antifa a new type of political guerilla warfare in the footsteps of Mao. And while there is strength in numbers, there is also guilt by association, and this doesn't apply any more strongly than in the political arena.

As Antifa is expected to be labeled a "domestic terrorist organization" by the U.S. Justice Department, it could have a negative impact on those groups seeking to affect changes in the law or society as a whole.  Affiliated groups have managed to achieve some success based on individual issues and data than through their relationship with Antifa. So, is Antifa an actual threat?

 In some aspects, yes. It has caused chaos as well as a great deal of property damage. It has injured police officers, journalists, and innocent bystanders. It has expressed itself as an opponent of capitalism and the Constitution. It's no friend of critical thought, the open exchange of ideas, or open debate, preferring instead to remain isolated in its political and social bubble. 

At the same time, it has attracted more publicity than perhaps it deserves.  Besides, Antifa hasn't truly faced any real opposition either from the conservative or independent intelligencia or on the streets by law enforcement or the Far Right, so their actual strength or clout has yet to be measured. Thus, they've yet to reach the critical mass of Mao's youthful "Red Guards" they imagine themselves to be or the Nazi "Brownshirts" which they emulate by their actions. 

I suspect Antifa will gradually fade much like the Weathermen and similar groups of the 1960's and 70's as new avenues are found to affect change through non-violent means much like Cesar Chavez and Rev. Martin Luther King. Ultimately, social change requires the support of the populace and that's not likely to be achieved with indiscriminate violence.

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!

 

Fox News Video: Antifa: The Truth Behind The Mask (10:24)

VICE News Video: So, What is Antifa?  (5:47)

These US cities defunded the police: 'We're transferring money to the community'

Mapping Police Violence

Who funds Antifa protests? We all do

Examining Extremism: Antifa