republicans

by

North Carolina’s Vile Political Ads


I am a new resident of North Carolina having moved here just a year and a half ago. We moved here from Massachusetts in no small part to escape New England’s harsh winters. Over the last several months, we have been bombarded with political ads from both Democrats and Republican. By and large, I have found all these ads to be very disingenuous. Democrats have run ads against a woman called Sandy Smith claiming court filings show her to be a dangerous person. They showed documents that were requests for restraining orders against her. I think if the restraining orders had been put in place, they would have shown such documents. This leads me to believe that no such order was ever given.

The Republicans have been particularly egregious in their ads with claims that are on their face false. A woman named Cheri Beasly, a judge on North Carolina’s Supreme Court, is running for the U.S. Senate seat being vacated. Her opponent is a Trump acolyte named Ted Budd. One of their ads claims that Beasly in her present office has allowed sex offenders to go free without any tracking. Behind this is a North Carolina law for lifetime ankle GPS monitoring of these offenders. What they fail to mention is why she refused such restrains and what she her decision actually was. I suspect that Beasly found the NC law to be in violation of the 6th which bars “cruel and unusual punishment.” I think it likely that she did order tracking on these offenders. They ads claim that Beasly is putting children in danger because of her decisions. Such fear mongering tactics rely upon the electorate to take them at face value and not question what is being said.

I have long said to people that they should not let other people do their thinking for them. The only outlet I know of which challenges political claims is the site factcheck.org. As an organization that is not aligned with any political party, the site takes on various claims made by politicians and their campaigns.

I am registered as an independent. There are things about each political party which causes me pain. But I cannot help but wonder how much of what is happening in North Carolina is happening in other states, particularly those states that are turning “purple” as the old solidly conservative North Carolina is. Someone, somewhere needs to come forward and speak the plain truth about the various lies and half-truths being foisted upon the American public and it needs to happen now.

by

Political Tomfoolery


In this election year, the Republican Party has taken our economic condition as its cudgel. Similarly, the Democratic Party has taken abortion as its cudgel. Neither position helps the American public to any great degree.

The Republicans a very disingenuous in using the economy. In my undergraduate studies, oh so many moons ago, I minored in business administration. But even in those days, it was made very clear to us that we live in a world of a global economy. Simply put, every nation in the world is affected by the actions of either a handful of large economies of any single nation or that of a handful of small nations tied together.

Over the last 10 years, one of the world’s largest economies, China, has affected the rest of the world. China supplied, and still supplies, the world with electronic components and toys among to many other items. In return, China imported many food stuffs, particularly from the United States. When the corona virus hit the world, supply lines everywhere were negatively affected. Christmastime last year those supply line issues were shown to us via the major news outlets. Everything seemed to be in short supply, which was true. And who was to blame? Absolutely no one! The simple fact that many workers were too ill to work caused shortages which were entirely because of the pandemic. Recently, China has taken the stance of cancelling many of its food imports.

During those two years, many of those workers dropped out of the work force entirely, some never returned. Additionally, sectors such as transportation laid off huge numbers of their employees entirely because of the lack of demand. But in all cases, many of those workers who were of an age to retire, did so. Others got themselves trained for jobs which were still available and did not return to their previous job. Were there no pandemic, it is not unreasonable to assume they would have stayed on well beyond today. This was not because of the action or inaction of either political party. It was a simple and predictable part of economics. One such example is the oil industry. When demand goes down so do prices, a simple principle of economics. But the response of oil producing countries was to lower supply, an entirely reasonable response. This has the effect of raising prices even in a down economy. But this particular industry is somewhat unique. As the demand for oil started to rise, there is no reason for oil producing countries to increase production even though the United States was able to get OPEC to briefly raise production. Recently, OPEC decided to reduce production again.

Americans, thinking locally have taken this personally, and have disregarded this as a global issue, which, of course, it is. Right now, it is President Biden who is taking the heat for something over which he has no control, a global issue. The entire world is suffering the effects of higher oil prices with no country immune.

Our economy, like every economy in the world, is affected by the whims of stock markets, and in particular, that of the “futures” guessing game within stock markets. Easily spooked and too often wrong, these markets affect the prices we pay in the supermarket. Does the President of the United States or the entire 535 members of Congress has any sway over these things? It is foolish to think they do.

Politically speaking, neither party has the power to change our present economic situation. The best tact for each party is to explain to the public the truth, as I have just laid out, how our challengers with China, the war in Ukraine, the problems with the European Union economies, political unrest in Africa, food shortages world-wide, and so many other ills, all play into the economy in which we now find ourselves. One of the best moves, which Pres. Trump started, and which Pres. Biden has continued in earnest, is to make America lest dependent on supplies from other countries. No place is this more evident than in the automobile industry where new car availability is difficult at best. Pres. Biden has called upon industry to manufacture more electronic components here rather than relying upon other countries to supply them. But that is not an isolated example. Our export deficit has been plaguing us for decades with U.S. businesses sending more jobs overseas in search of lower manufacturing costs. There is one place that politics can take action, if unpopular to business, the resulting effect would be positive to Americans, in supply availability but in job availability.

It would be far more responsible were politicians to honestly educate Americans on the realities of economics than playing the us-against-them ideology being practiced today. All 535 members of Congress plus the President and his political appointees are responsible for seeing that through.

by

Why Do Republicans Fear “Critical Race Theory”?


Over the last 6-plus years, the Republican Party has attacked this idea. Their political ads make out the idea of teaching this idea in our public schools as something which should horrify the average American.

What is “Critical Race Theory”? It is the idea that there exists structural racism in society, first when it was introduced by 3 Colombia University law professors in the early 1980s, and today. What is “structural racism”? It is the fact of racist tendencies that have been passed down for many generations and is too widely accepted in today’s society. (https://news.columbia.edu/news/what-critical-race-theory-and-why-everyone-talking-about-it-0)

I was getting my master’s degree in U.S. History from Harvard University when this idea was presented, although I did not hear of it at the time. In one course that I took, one of our required readings was a book named A Thick Interpretation of Culture by Clifford Geertz. Geertz explained why using a simple cause/effect idea of telling history to be undesirable. That is, in one of his examples, he used the Battle of Waterloo where Lord Wellington defeated the far superior force of Napolean. He stated that by simply assigning the victory to Wellington’s having gained the literal high ground is far from enough to explain the battle. He showed that Napoleon’s tired troops, who had marched many hundreds of miles, his lack of good logistics, the weather, the temperament of troops, and other things must be brought to light to give a full view of the battle.

In “critical race theory,” we are charged with looking at a broad view of racism, not only as it exists in America today, but its history going all the back to 1865 when the Civil War ended. For nearly a century, Jim Crow laws of the south used the idea of “separate but equal” as being an acceptable response to race. Today we know, or should know, that such laws were used to manage white supremacy as the norm. Northern states were guilty as well but in different ways. In the north, as in the south, people of color were routinely pushed aside in favor of white people, even when the person of color was the better choice. In the area in which I grew up, the Merrimack Valley of Massachusetts, the newest immigrants, who were also people of color, were of Hispanic heritage, particularly of Puerto Rico at first and then from the Dominican Republic. These people were looked upon as being lazy and inherently violent. Of course, these things were not true, then or now. But when that is how you are “educated,” that is what you come to believe.

Critical Race Theory is an attempt to look at the whole person of color, not just his race, but his entire heritage which includes the forces which worked against these people over the decades. It asks the question, “Why is the crime rate higher in neighborhoods of color than in white neighborhoods?” But it would force the question of how such neighborhoods, if the statement is in fact true, came to be that way.

Sadly, the Republican party, these days, is embracing white nationalist ideas and ideals. These are things which can not only be identified as coming part-and-parcel from the Trump administration, but from Republican governors of states bordering Mexico. When Trump decried the refugees from Central America as being “rapists, drug dealers and murderers,” is his simply saying out loud what many of the more conservative Republicans have thought for many decades.

Were the greatest part of the Republican Party to embrace “Critical Race Theory” would mean alienating an unfortunately large portion of voting Americans. They fear losing power more than doing the right thing. They would rather embrace the institutional racism which exits today in America rather than decrying it and working towards a more unified, accepting America.

One last thing, on the current state of immigration. Today, both legal and illegal immigration is about 1 million per year from all countries. Those coming over the border, both legally and illegally, to the states that border Mexico, are about 200,000 per year. In 1910 there were about 1.12 million immigrants to the U.S., most of whom came through the ports of Boston, New York and Baltimore, a large portion of whom settled within 50 miles of those ports. Today this a large part of our present Italian, Polish and Russian Jewish population. Sadly, our national resentment towards new immigrants still exists today towards immigrants, not only from Hispanic regions, but also those coming from India and Asia. In the 1900 to 1920 era, our largely Republican northeastern states acted towards immigrants as our southern Republicans do today. And that, sadly, defines too many Republicans and is why Critical Race Theory is so important.

Teaching critical race theory in our public schools is a necessity if we are ever to ever embrace our entire society with equity and understanding. We are a nation which was founded on the idea of “all men are created equal” and we are now challenged to ensure that. It is only through an honest education, starting in our elementary schools and continuing forward, that we will become closer to a nation of our ideals rather than a nation of shortcomings.

by

Biden’s Failing Presidency


I voted for Joe Biden however I am very discouraged with his performance so far. I would give him a grade of D right now, even though he has been in office only 8 months. He can turn it around but he has to change his mindset.

My first disappointment with him was his decision to complete what Donald Trump had started in his presidency, the removal of all troops from Afghanistan. This was always a mistake. With Trump, a man who said he knew more than his generals, I stayed quiet only because this was a man who was impossible to reason with. But Biden, who did not listen to his military advisers, just as bad as Trump, was told by many of his top generals that he needed to leave a force of about 2,500 to 3,500 troops in Afghanistan to maintain its stability. But Biden figured he knew better and did not consider the repercussions of a complete pull-out. And in 11 days, the country was overrun by the Taliban. General Milley described this as a complete failure.

Now, the intelligence is saying that Al-Qaeda is in position to become a serios threat to the U.S. within the next 12 months as they position themselves in Afghanistan. What can Biden do? He has put himself in a very difficult position. To reverse course now and reinsert troops into Afghanistan is a very difficult process and will be a deadly one. But for Biden, the time to do that is now while the Taliban and Al-Qaeda are relatively weak. Still, he would need a country that would allow troops to flown in prior to their invasion of Afghanistan. And what countries might support such an undertaking? Turkey will not as it did not 20 years ago. Pakistan is unsuitable. That leaves Saudi Arabia and Qatar as the best candidates. I suspect the leading generals at the Pentagon have already draw up such a plan and Pres. Biden would do very well to listen to them.

Now comes Biden’s infrastructure bills. This is where Biden has shown little if any leadership at all. Even though the 2nd infrastructure bill was his vision, he must discover its political viability. The Republicans and a number of Democrats have come out and said they will not support this bill. Biden does not need to have this bill passed this year! He needs to shut down discussion on the bill and return it to committee for reconsideration. That done, he could focus on the bi-partisan roads infrastructure bill that will pass and which all Democrats can declare as a victory. And with the second bill, it needs to broken up into pieces and each passed on its own. In the existing bill, most people support the proposal to get broadband to areas which are not now served; This should get bi-partisan support. Unlike that portion, many people, including many Democrats are balking at the day-care portion and so why not cut that out?

Biden, in my opinion, does not understand the underpinnings of good leadership. He needs to put Nancy Pelosi in her place as in that relationship, the tail is wagging the dog.

Other failures, his slow response to the victims of hurricane Ida. His not having a plan for the southern border and the influx of migrants. This is where a “bad look” has haunted the administration. He has failed to speak to the public in a manner that will soothe their concerns about these immigrants, It is not easy but that is why he has highly intelligent advisor who understand the political landscape and know how to navigate it.

by

Where Have All the Decent Republicans Gone?


I just watched a salute to Bob Dole, former senator from Kansas, who is now 98 and dying from cancer. I never voted for Bob Dole, but I recongnized him as a very decent person, a veteran who was a hero, as a good man. In 1997, President Bill Clinton bestowed upon him the highest honor a civilian can get from the government. In those moments, there was no Republican-Democrat divide. It was the simple acknowledgement of a member of one party to another that his sevice must be recognized.

I have never voted strictly party line, Democrat, simply because I recognized the huge failings of certain Democrats and would vote for their Republican opponent. In Massachusetts, where I spent most of my life, I am now living in North Carolina, I can remember as a teenager when Ted Kennedy first won a seat in the senate, there was something about him which I did not like, even though I could not put my finger on it. The, in 1967, when he caused the death of MaryJoe Kopeckne, my mistrust of him and his ability to escape prosecution he so richly deserved, was solidified. Not once did I ever vote for him.

I spent 11 years on active duty in the Army and was stationed in states such as Louisiana, Texas and Georgia, all of which had seen the old Dixie-crats (Democrats) switch parties in 1968. And even though I do not remember who I voted for in those states, they were solidly Republican. That never bothered me. Most of the senators and representatives for both parties were largely centrists.

Then in 1996, the Senator Newt Gingrich decided it was time to become devisive with his “Contract to America.” That piece of legislation, with the Republican controlled house, was passed into law and pushed the Republican party a little further to the right. Also at the time there were people like Pat Robertson, a man from the far right, who were trying to pull the party further to the right. It was Gingrich who first introduced the “us against them” sentament. And then when they decided to get rid of the most hated Democrat, Bill Clinton, they spent millions of dollars, with Ken Starr in the lead, to convict Clinton of an abuse of power charge. It failed by a single vote, as most have, but it set into motion a move that continues to this day.

But even in those days, the majority of Republicans were decent people. In the 2000 election, which the Republican party started using dirty tricks to win, George Bush won when Republicans usurped the power of the Florida State Supreme Court, and got a decision they desired to give George Bush the win. I never voted for George Bush, but even so, I found myself defending him against Democrats who liked to call him a draft dodger and druggie. I reminded them that Bush was a member of the Texas Air National Guard during Vietnam and was subject to activation to Vietnam just like so many National Guard units had been. He is a veteran and I almost always defend veterans against those who choose to demean them by spurious lies. That exact thing happened to John Kerry, a silver star awardee for his service in Vietnam, when a group called the “Swift Boaters” mounted a series of lies about Kerry to insure Bush’s win. I thing George Bush would have won anyway, but this was Karl Rover, the Republican architect of the early 2000s, working his dirt.

And now Republicans are giving homage to a man who is probably the worst president we have ever had, even worse than John Quincy Adams and Andrew Johnson, both of whom scholars show them as complete failures as president. But in the case of Adams, he returned to the U.S. House and became an extremely successful leader there. And so it is not unheard of for an former president to continue public service. William Howard Taft became a member of the U.S. Supreme Court after his defeat for re-election, and eventually became the chief justice and an admired member. I only wish the George Bush would consider doing the same in Texas.

The term “Moderate Republican” is fast becoming a name difficult to assigned to any Republican in either the house or senate. Why is that? Donald Trump managed to so polarize the American republic, they fear that to speak out against him will cause their defeat for re-election. Why are they cowtowing to the will of a single man over the greater good of their contituents? Why do they find it so difficult to speak the truth over perpetuating the great lie of 2020 that the election was somehow stolen from Trump even though Republican jurists around the nation have declared Joe Biden to be the legitamite winner?

To those few Republican who still stand for something, the truth, Liz Cheney, Chuck Grassely, Mitt Romney, Susan Collans and a few others, I truly hope they will rescue the Republican party from its death wish.

by

Trump’s Latest Lie; Republican Sycophants Bow


Donald Trump declared that Facebook is hindering his First Amendment rights. That is an absolute lie. His right to free speech extends to what he writes, public speaking, except in fraud, libel, slander, child pornography, purgury, blackmail, incitement to lawless actions, true threats and solicitation to commit crimes. On privately owned platforms there is no First Amendment priveledge. Facebook, and other platforms, have the absolute right to control the type of speech on their platforms. One of the more infamous type of barred speech comes from insider trading on Wall Street where one party knows of something that is going to affect his company and tells outsides to buy or sell stocks based on that knowldge.

McCarthy and Cruz have blasted these platforms claiming they are part of a liberal bias against conservatives. Nothing could be further from the truth, and they know it however they are cowtowing to a still popular former president who has a large and loyal base. They are far more interested in the political funding they get from siding with Trump then speaking against him.

But there are two Republican centrists who advocate the truth, have spoken out against Trump’s lies and know are pariahs in their own party rather than be touted as heros of the party. They are Liz Cheney and Mitt Romney. McCarthy is so incensed with Cheney’s sticking to the truth that he has arbitrarily decided that she must be removed from power. He decided this without conferring with other members of his party. But he is probably on safe ground as a large portion of Republicans either agree with Trump or are too fearful to speak against him.

It would seem that Republicans themselves are more against free speech than they are in protecting it. They seem cowed by the lingering presence of an out-of-office president who is probably the most devisive personality since Andrew Johnson. I do hope that in the near future cooler heads will prevail, that truth will prevail and that Republicans will get their heads out of their butts and just do the right thing!

by

Five New States? Why Not!


The United States possesses four territories plus the District of Columbia. The territories are the American Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam and Puerto Rice. The United States has held the territories for over 100 years. And in the case of Guam, this territory cannot exist on its own.

The District of Columbia is a special case since it has always existed entirely on American soil. The idea of it, as proposed by George Washington, was to provide a neutral place for our nation’s Capitol. It was established in 1790 but the Capitol Building itself was not finished until 1800, along with other supporting buildings. The city’s population in 1800 was a little over 14,000 people. Today the city’s population is about 690,000 people. Contrast that with Wyoming’s population of 578,000, Vermont with 626,000 and North Dakota with 760,000. Washington has a larger population than 2 states and is close the a third. Why are the people of Washington kept from having a voting representative and two senators?

It was not until 1971 that Congress allowed the district to have a non-voting representative to Congress. From its earliest days, Congress has been the presiding power over Washington DC. The city of Washington has an elected mayor who with her city council passes ordinances. From time-to-time, Congress acts to overturn certain of these ordinances as it sees fit and the city has no right to redress. Clearly a violation of our Constitution.

The Spanish-American war allowed the United States to gain province over the aforementioned territories. The population of American Samoa is 55,300, of Puerto Rico 3.2 million, of Guam 167,000, and of the American Virgin Islands 106,000 people. Together they represent 3.5 million people with no say in their administration. When Arizona was admitted to the union in 1912 it had about 200,000, and when Wyoming was admitted it had barely 56,000. To argue size is made irrelevent by these numbers. One of the most recently admitted states, Alaska had only about 200,000 people.

These four territories plus D.C. have a legitimate complaint about not being properly represented in Congress. Each has one non-voting member of the House of Representatives. They get to be heard but are not allowed to vote on laws which deeply affect their constituents. The present U.S. Government is doing exactly what the British Parliment did prior to the Revolution. And the colonists vocally decried that lack of representation to Partliment. In a final try to gain that representations, Benjamin Franklin eloquently laid forth his case for the representation only to be mocked and laughed at. This was one of the final acts which lead to the revolution.

The people of Washington DC and Puerto Rico have been quite vocal in the same way. But their complaints have long gallen on deaf ears. It is wrong and it must be corrected. Republicans have long voted against statehood only because they fear these two areas would only send Democrats to Congress. They have shown no concern for the people who live there. It is time for Congress to act and for Congressional Republican to stop being obstructionists.

by

Keep Your Religion Out of My Government!


Everyone knows the First Amendment, right? I kind of doubt it because most people believe it is all about freedom of the press and the right to assemble. It is but that is just the first part. The First Amendment reads in its first part, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The is the first portion. It is not until the second part that freedom of speech is address as-well-as the freedom of assembly and to petition the government with its grievances. During colonial times, Americans had a long running battle with the British over their right to assemble, have a free press, and to demonstrate their grievances.

When it came time to write the Constitution, all of the first 10 Amendments we left out as an expediance to getting it passed by at least 10 states, the minimum required. They knew that when the government was officially formed in 1789, they could present amendments to the constitution. To show how almost paranoid the early leader were about establishing their personal freedoms, that one amendment seems a bit of an anathema today, the third amendment. It deals with the quartering of military forces in private residences. Why did they put this one in as anyone today knows that it seems a bit ridiculous. Back then it was not. The British has passed a law called the “Quartering Act” which allowed exactly that.

It took two years for the states to agree on what we call “The Bill of Rights,” but they knew these amendments had to be faultless. The second amendment, always of great discussion, was a direct response to General Gage’s numerous attempts to capture gun power the various town militias kept as they felt their right. Again, in colonial times, all men from 18 to 60 were considered a part of that town’s militia and were required to purchase their own gun and to partake in regular exercises as the town saw fit. The very first part of the amendment states, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to to secure a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” The idea of a regular military, today’s active duty, was held by a minority, George Washington being its most fervent supporter and Thomas Jefferson stating that he believe only act active navy was necessary. Still, the idea behind this was that no one could ever keep our country from being well-armed. Even the NRA, as recently as 1939, believed that to be the truth. But in recent years the US Supreme Court has ruled that it does indeed extend to private individuals. I only bring this up to show that we have differences about what the amendments mean, and the 2nd Amendment has been the most visible.

My ancesters were Puritans who arrived here, at Ipswich Massachusetts in 1638. The very word “Puritan” came from the idea that these people had about “purifying” the Church of England which they believed to be too “papist.” The Puritans of Boston who moved to New Town, a portion later known as Cambridge, founded Harvard College, as a non-sectarian seminary. To this day, the Harvard Divinity School retains that ideal. But this is import to recognize because these Puritans to a man believed that religion was a personal thing which each man had to decide for himself. These beliefs brought about the founding of the Congregational Church which allowed for no hierachy. And later the founding of the Unitarian Church but the transcendentalists. To differentiate the Puritans from the Pilgrims, a mistake often made, the two groups were at odds with each other. John Brewster, the leader of the Pilgrims, was the leader of a seperatist group. A radical group who did not believe the Church of England could be reformed. They were Calvanists who believed in predestination. But Roger Williams, a Calvanist preacher with the Pilgrims, split of and founded Rhode Island and the first Baptist church in America.

The British were always upset that the Americans refused to be a part of the Church of England although there was little the could do about it. But the British had the Church of England at the center of their government. The colonists hate that ideal and refused to abide by it in America. This feeling was even stronger at the writing of the Constitution. Among them were the atheist, Benjamin Franklin, and the indifferent, Thomas Jefferson, who called himself a “Theist,” to George Washington who was an Anglican, and others who were Roman Catholic, Presbytarian, Congregationalists, and others. To them, it was obvious that the inclusion of religion in matters or state was against all they held true. Their differences were on display at the Constituional Conventions, and none tried to claim their religion over all others. That they knew of Britains efforts to force the Church on England on them allowed them to understand the need to keep all religion, without exception, out of their government.

It is ironic that the Republican Party, whose adherents claim often to be originalist, fail to apply that to religion in government and are frequently trying to put conservative Christian beliefs into law, or to defeat laws they dislike or claim to be against their religion. Now they will never say it is against their religion but instead state their belief and tell all who will list that to thing otherwise is unpatriotic. Their efforts to ban abortion are absolutely of religous belief. What they fail to realize that they are doing exactly what they claim to be against, defining morality on certain issues. Morality, or lack thereof, is the right of the individual to decide and must remain out of our government!

The right wing attack of Planned Parenthood is an abortion unto itself. Ninety percent of everything Planned Parenthood is about is helping to educate women about sex and their bodies. That the Federal Government would fund an organization whose main task is to educate any portion of our society is against all reason. For example, Ted Cruz, who is a Southern Baptist, and claims the moral high ground, speaks for on 6.7% of American when calling upon his religous beliefs. He does this often. Our founding fathers knew full well the danger of this. Why cannot right wing Republicans do the same. Republican claim to be the party of Lincoln. Did they ever look to see that Lincoln did not care for any formal religion. The great minds of our early country usually believe in a power greater than themselves, a God who above all, and for no one in particular. Why cannot those who seek to push religion into our government see that?

by

Biden’s Failed Speach to Congress


One thing Biden did correctly was to enumerate what is enclosed in each of his trillion dollar packages he wants Congress to consider. Biden campaigned on being someone who would bring both parties together but this speech was entired divorced from that pronouncement.

I voted for Biden and want him to do a good job. But on Wednesday, he had the opportunity to reach across the ilse to embrace Republican issues with his bills. He not once said anything to that effect, and that was clearly seen on Republican’s lack of enthusiam. No one expects the party out of power to respond favorably to such a speech but Biden never once gave them the chance to even mildly applaud him.

This was Biden’s chance to bring Republicans to the table by simply stating that he was open to compromise and that each bill may be reduced in part. Had he simply said that he knows Republicans are against certain portions of his bills and that he knew compromise was essential, he may well have garnered some positive response from them but he did not give them the chance.

Additionally, he made a big mistake by introducing a second trillion dollar bill at this time. The two bills equal about $6 trillion which he must have known such a large figure is immediately unpalitable to Republicans. Right now he needs to make a public statement that he is pulling back the second bill until it can be vetted in committees by both partis.

Republicans have proposed a more than $900 billion bill on infrastructure. They knew, and any Democrat with a lick of sense knows, that this is the avenue to compromise between $900 billion and $2.6 trillion. Democrats must assuage Republican by agreeing to compromise rather than digging in their heel against any.

Republicans have acknowleged the need for investment in our infrastructure. Democrat’s hold on power in tenuous at best and the next elections may swing that power back to Republicans. If Biden and the Democrats truly want to claim a victory here, they must acknowlege that certain portions of their bill must be reduced or eliminated. They must not pass this bill along party lines. To do so is foolish.

by

Who Owns America? Not You!


American political parties today are dominated by political action committees. Democrats and Republicans both have PACs who make large contributions to support their various causes. It may come as a surprise to you but the limit for giving, individually, is $35,000. There is, as there always seems to be, a catch.

Let us say, for example, that I am Charles and David Koch with more money than I know what to do with. And I decide I want Joseph Stumblebum to be president of the United States. I start by giving my $35,000 directly to Joe’s campaign. Then another $35k from my wife, another $35k from each of my kids but his kids are all grown. But there is no limit to how much I can give to a national PAC which is not directly supporting a particular candidate.   That is the loophole.

As of February 9, 2016 (www.opensecrets.org) there exist in America today 2,197 groups which are classified as Super PACs! There is no limit on how much money I can give a Super PAC. And of the top 20 Super PACs you have to go all the way down to number 20 to find the first one which supports liberal candidates. But to be fair, of those 20 top Super PACs, one claims no political persuation.

The number 1 Super PAC, which happens to support Bush (Right to Rise USA), has raised a whopping $118,300,000!

According to Forbes Magazine (October 2, 2015) Super PACs have raised over ½ billion dollars for this election cycle. The Forbes 400 estimates the contribution by those 400 to be approximately $66.5 million. But there is a problem with these figures. Like dark matter which is undetectable, Forbes has deemed this sort of giving to be “Dark Money.” It effectively challenges anyone to figure out how much it is and who exactly is giving it.

The original political action committees were formed in the 19th Century to lobby Congress for their various projects and desires. And for all of the 19th Century and a good part of the 20th Century these groups stayed away from political campaigns. It was deemed dishonorable but as soon as campaign finance reform became an idea, certain large industrial groups fearing heavier regulation, transparency of operation and being held accountable, brought the Super PAC into existence.

I am not a supporter of Bernie Sanders but God bless Bernie Sanders because he has done something no one else has had the courage to do. He has flatly refused all PAC money and is at this point running a very successful campaign for president. Bernie has flatly stated that if we want our government back we have to turn away the PACs.

Without regard to party, our Congress has abdicated its obligation to the citizens of the United States favoring the opinion of the PACs and the corporations behind those PACs. Every candidate will make the claim that he, or she, promises to do the will of the people. A multitude of polls have shown the will of the people includes, legalized abortion, tougher gun laws and controls, a higher minimum wage, a better health system (we are 37th in the world just ahead of Slovenia and behind Morocco and Colombia to name a few). Americans want a curb put on jobs being sent overseas, want their roads fixed, their water systems made safe, and their voice heard!

Sadly, America is run by about 1000 people total and not a single one is an elected official. How can I say that? The phrase Political Action Committee is merely a euphemism for political control. The majority of the most power PACs are conservative in nature but there are many liberal PACs as well.

Well, why don’t we just outlaw PACs? Seems like a reasonable solution however it would unconstitutional. It comes under protected speech of the 1st Amendment.

I believe the most reasonable solution is the enacting of term limits for members of Congress limiting any member of Congress to a total of 20 years. That would mean 3 terms for senators and 5 for representatives.

There is no simple solution to the afore-mentioned problems but Americans are going to have to come to terms with these problems if they care to regain control of their government. But until that day, regardless of your political persuasion, the person you put in office will do the bidding of the PACs they are beholding to.