Tea Party Politician Exhibits the Guts to Take on the Trump Disaster in the Republican Primary

Ex-Congressman Joe Walsh

Back in 2016, Relation State refused to endorse Hillary Clinton.  The Democratic National Committee along with the Clinton Campaign had demonstrated that they were corrupt as they were in cahoots to coronate Clinton as the nominee come hell or high water.. The DNC was even sued for fraud.

Endorsing Donald Trump was a non-starter. RS knew that he would be an embarrassment to the country with his juvenile petulance and his obvious ignorance of how government actually works.

While staring at a binary choice, Hillary was the better of the two evils. RS is not totally averse to endorsing with prejudice the candidate that is the lesser of two evils, but exposed corruption is a deal breaker.  Therefore, Relation State was forced to endorse third party candidate, Jill Stein.  Stein was the least of the three evils, but at least she wasn't guilty of corruption.

One thing that we miscalculated was the courage and integrity of the Republican Party.  We figured that even if Donald Trump won, party leaders would keep him in check because they would want to preserve the dignity and reputation of the party. Since Trump would be the most unpopular president in recent history, according to the polls, the party would want to keep their distance. We. Were. Wrong.

The GOP became the party of the sycophant.  People who disparaged Trump and knew that he was bad news, suddenly sang his praises out of fear that he would tweet his displeasure at them and encourage someone to primary them.

"We need a commander in chief, not a Twitterer-in-chief. ... I don't know anyone who would be comfortable with someone who behaves this way having his finger on the button. I mean, we're liable to wake up one morning, and Donald, if he were president, would have nuked Denmark."

--Ted Cruz, February 2016

=======================

"While pundits obsessed over tweets, he worked with Congress to cut taxes for struggling families. While wealthy celebrities announced that they would flee the country, he fought to bring back jobs and industries to our shores. While talking heads predicted Armageddon, President Trump’s strong stand against North Korea put Kim Jong Un back on his heels." 

--Ted Cruz, April 2018

___________________________________________________________________________

Finally, SOME Republicans have realized that the deal they made with the devil has a cost.  Trump buddy, Anthony Scaramucci finally had enough of the nonsense and has publicly stated that Trump has to be defeated.  However, the guy that is turning the most heads these days is Tea Party member and FORMER demagogue Joe Walsh who announced his candidacy for the Republican nomination for president against Donald Trump on This Week with George Stephanopoulis..

Walsh did something that Trump would or could never do - own his mistakes.  He stated that he had a "come to Jesus" moment and realized that his positions demonizing his political adversaries were wrong. He took responsibility for paving the way for Trump and has pledged to hammer the president everyday to remove the power from the bully he states that he helped put there.

Walsh may not be the only Republican opposing Trump in the primary.  Former Massachusetts governor, Bill Weld is in and former South Carolina governor and congressman Mark Sanford is expected to announce his candidacy.  Neither has attacked Trump's character in the way that Walsh has.  Sanford indicates that his main issue will be fiscal responsibility and that has been the source of his opposition of Trump.Weld mentions both policy and character, but  Walsh makes no bones about his attacks.  He is running on the idea that Trump is unfit to be president..

While Relation State does not embrace Walsh's politics, we do endorse his courage and his new found conscience.  We will not ask anyone to vote for Walsh, but we would not be averse to our readers writing a check to his campaign.

Buttigieg Looking to Capitalize on the 2020 Version of Democratic Primary Shenanigans

Seven months before the first primary election date, Pete Buttigieg is already courting superdelegates. In other news, Donald Trump just moved one step closer to seizing his second term.

When a candidate is already looking to capitalize on a system that short circuits the democratic process, you have to wonder if there is a hidden ethical problem.

For those who don't know, the superdelegates do not vote until the second ballot in 2020 if necessary. Unless the field is pared down quite a bit when the voting starts, a second ballot is going to happen. If you remember 2016, it was the superdelegates that gave Bernie Sanders too much of an uphill battle to win the nomination. They are party insiders that favor establishment candidates that have their hand in the corporate till which buys influence with politicians. A simple check of Buttigieg's contributors (compliments of Open Secrets), we already see that he is immersed in corporate money.

When the loudest messages on the campaign come from Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, there will be trouble if there is an establishment takeover on the second ballot. It will cause a rebellion with the progressive wing of the party because the message from Warren and Sanders is that the corporate establishment is corrupt. 

The establishment took over to a certain extent in 2016, and we got Donald Trump. If it happens again, get ready for four more years of ridiculous tweets and xenophobic policy.

Conventional wisdom says that the superdelegates will not pick Buttigieg this time. They will court Elizabeth Warren instead. She has been known to play ball with the establishment from time to time and would be more likely to spark a rebellion. They certainly aren't going to pick Bernie Sanders. They might have to settle for Bernie light.  In the meantime, Buttigieg is showing some colors that a lot of voters aren't fond of.

Establishment Dems are Blaming the Wrong People for Tarnishing Obama

On every news channel, the mantra has been.  The Democratic candidates are offensive.  How dare they tarnish the legacy of the great Barack Obama! I agree to a point.  Obama was a president that unified the party and blazed a couple of trails that were previously too tough to venture.  However, their ire is pointed at the wrong people.  This unfortunate turn of events should be pinned on Joe Biden and his campaign and perhaps they need to look into the mirror.

One of the worst aspects of street fights is that innocents get hurt. When people find themselves in the wrong place at the wrong time, they stumble into harm's way.  However, when one of the combatants use an innocent as a shield, then where does most of the responsibility lie?

Biden has used the "Barack and I" line so much, that I am just waiting to hear about some mole President Obama has on his body that only Biden (and perhaps Michelle) knows about. This notion that Biden can use Obama's name as a magic word where no one is allowed to touch him, isn't going to fly. One of the lessons that should have been learned in 2016 was that when you try to coronate someone before the nomination process, it doesn't end well.  Therefore, no magic words allowed!

All candidates have to run on their records and no one's should be exempt.  It is arguable that a policy that may be undesirable now was understandable in context when it was enacted.  As far as that applying the Obama administration, that is up to Biden to clear up, not his opponents.  If  Joe Biden is going to invoke Obama's name, then he has to be the one to protect it.  Biden has to have a better defense of his and his soul mate's decisions than, "I can't believe you went there!" 

The Democratic party isn't getting any help from the mainstream media either.  The establishment news channels fume about how the Dem candidates are giving fodder to Trump to justify his attacks on Obama.  They are wrong; the media is the one doing that.  Our TV bug of a president doesn't have original ideas.  He gets all his ideas from television. Can you guess who already used that info at his rally in Cincinnati?

Logic tells us that before we can pin blame on Cory Booker or Kamala Harris for hurting Obama's legacy, we have to get through Biden and the media first. However, I don't expect a light bulb moment to happen to either of those players.

Pelosi, and Trump do the Impeachment Dance to the Mueller Orchestra

THE AFTERMATH OF THE MUELLER TESTIMONY
Impeachment is unlikely. Nancy Pelosi doesn't have the stomach for it. She thinks it is a bad political move and she is probably correct because people will not read the Mueller Report. Mueller's congressional testimony didn't help much either because it was dry and Americans tend to have the attention span of gnats. They are now and will continue to be - at least during this administration, an uninformed people.

Americans are tribal and no one will hear anything that is bad for the their tribe. It is true to a certain extent for Dems, but it is even worse for Trump Republicans. For that bunch, there are only two types of information: pro Trump facts, or fake news.

However, RELATION STATE thinks the impeachment inquiry must go on anyway. If Pelosi and the Dems are making decisions totally based on politics, then they have no claim to the ethical high road any more than Trump and the Republicans. The Congress is there to safeguard the country and fulfill their Constitutional duty of checks and balances. If they allow Trump to be above the law because of a fear of political consequence, then they are complicit in the corruption.

Seldom are there situations where the ends justify the means and this is definitely not one of those times. If we allow the Constitution to fail, then what do we really have?

Therefore, Pelosi and the House should take up impeachment inquiry and reveal to the world whatever grounds there are for impeachment. The Mueller Report suggests that there are plenty. They cannot fear that it will fall on deaf ears in the other chamber. If the senate does not convict, then that is on Mitch McConnell and the senate Republicans to wear the mantle of corruptness. They can't wear it if the House keeps it for themselves.

Handicapping the Field - Joe Biden

Now that the debates are here, I thought I would produce a series of posts that look at that Democrats applying for the nomination and try to summarize the outlook.  I am not going to predict the winner; that would be naive.  However, I am going to opine on who has the better paths to win.  Of course I am not going to go through all of the candidates because that would take longer than some will be in the race.  However, I will take a look at some that I think will last the longest.  First up, Joe Biden.

Biden is the front runner for a number of reasons - the most obvious is name recognition.  Everyone knows Biden's name because he has been around forever and his most recent gig was vice president for Barack Obama.  I remember that because Biden won't let anyone forget it.  He is always name dropping "Barack" anytime he gets a chance.  I am surprised that he doesn't call him "Barry" at this point.

Advantages:  In addition to name recognition, Biden has the advantage of having the image of bringing normalcy back to the White House.  He is genuinely a nice guy and is a safe, moderate pick for people who have political fatigue. He also has the DNC stamp of approval because he is the darling of the establishment.  That means he will be protected to a certain extent by the mainstream media and will have built-in surrogates every hour on CNN and MSNBC.

Disadvantages:  Nice guys finish last - particularly in this country. Four years, ago at this point in the election process, Jeb Bush was the huge front runner for the Republicans.  He was also a nice guy.

More specifically, Biden doesn't have anything new to offer.  His platform so far is that Donald Trump is a bad guy and that he is no Donald Trump.  The policies that he has hinted at seem to be retreads of old policies that he and Barry put together.  That isn't going to fly with the party that falls in love as opposed to one that falls in line.

Being the establishment darling and moderate will ensure he will get no support from a faction of the party. He is seen by some as the Hilary of 2020 and that leaves a bad taste for those that feel like Bernie Sanders got hosed.

Biden is also a gaffe machine.  He will, undoubtedly, say some things that he should not.

He is also dealing with old baggage.  He has been on the wrong side of things that have the woke Democrats up in arms.  He wasn't very accommodating to Anita Hill during the Clarence Thomas hearings. In addition, he earned a reputation of being pretty handsy.  He was also an architect of the controversial Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 which has earned the ire of the African American community.

In addition, Biden has to carry the baggage of being an old white guy.  In this election season, it is perfectly acceptable to hold age, race, and sex against an individual as long as it is elderly, male, and white.  That isn't to say that white males haven't had a power lock on positions of political power that must be addressed; I am merely speaking of how it will affect individuals in this particular election - for right or for wrong.

Outlook: Although Biden looks strong in the polls now, like Jeb Bush did, it is a long shot in my mind that he can take this LONG campaign wire to wire.  People have short attention spans and they are going to jump to the next shiny thing sooner or later because they get bored easily. The front runner is the big target and Biden will take a beating from other Dems and Trump.

Biden's only hope is to parlay political fatigue, establishment coddling, and his "nice guy-ness" to the nomination.  He must hope that a lot of people will latch on to him and tune out of the election process due to fatigue.  If the establishment dems and media come to his defense like they have so far when he is attacked, that will help establish him as a sympathetic candidate and also allow him to hold on to freshness.

If He Says It, It Must Be True - Trump's Morally Bankrupt Budget

President Trump's tax cut for the wealthy and corporate America helped raise the deficit and debt to astronomical levels.  So how are we going to pay for it?  According to Trump's budget. We are going to cut Medicare and Medicaid (and decimate the ACA) among other programs that the poor and middle class depend on. By cutting all medical programs, some of us may not survive - literally.

We don't have to be humanists or religious to see that the values of this White House lack in humanity.  The president talked a good game on the campaign trail by saying that he would never cut Medicare or Medicaid and that he stands with the everyday folks in the country as opposed to the wealthy. Talk is cheap, but tax cuts and walls are not.

Trump said that his rich friends wouldn't like his "middle class tax cut."  He was right, THEY LOVED IT.   The middle class?  Not so much.  Now the regular folks are going to have another hardship thanks to the president that was elected because too many people wanted to "really shake things up."  Consider yourselves shook.

Trump's "Promises Kept" Budget. 

If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it,

and you will even come to believe it yourself.

--Attributed to Joseph Goebbels, Hitler's Propaganda Specialist

So why do so many of us STILL believe him?  My guess is that some of us are already too emotionally invested.  Plus, we generally lack the humility to even consider admitting when we were wrong.  We can't expect our leaders to be better if we as citizens are not wise enough to tell when we are being lied to or if we don't care when it becomes obvious.

Let there be no confusion:  As a country we were wrong.  For some of us, unfortunately we were dead wrong.

"Budgets are moral documents: They signal what and who we prioritize and seek to protect or uplift. As Christians we can disagree on many issues, but it should be hard to argue that there is an overriding call in the Bible to demonstrate a particular concern for the poor and prioritize the welfare of the vulnerable. This is the moral test by which we must evaluate every budget, perhaps most importantly the federal budget. Based on this test, the Trump administration’s proposed budget priorities for Fiscal Year 2020 fail miserably and must be rejected."

--Rev Adam R. Taylor, Executive Director of Sojourners

The NRA Cult and the New Normal

I am sick of seeing this Florida high school shooting tragedy all over the news.  Let's move on!  Why? Because this is our new normal.I have accepted it. The NRA cult has seen to it that guns will forever be available to whoever has a notion to kill.

They claim that it isn't the guns but mental health or Hollywood that is really to blame while not lifting a finger to do anything about those things, either. I think they know better.

No nation on Earth has a shortage of the mentally ill. They all have access to Hollywood's most violent films. Yet, the USA is the only advanced country with this problem.

So, that is it, then. We have cowards in Washington that do not want to stand up to the NRA because they are afraid they will have to get a real job if NRA money defeats them at the polls. Then there is the NRA cult following that parrot their master's mantra while more and more kids get killed.

There is nothing left to argue. If the killing of twenty kids (only six and seven years old) at Sandy Hook is not going to prompt action, another high school shooting will surely not do it. We can just train ourselves to say, "That's a shame," when these things happen from now on - if we try hard enough.

We can know these things for certain:

1. The 2nd Amendment is more important that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
2. People are mentally weak and have higher priorities than the lives of their neighbors or their neighbor's children; and
3. School shootings are the new normal.

So, let's get it off the news and turn the station to watch old episodes of Duck Dynasty. God Bless America!

Bill Maher Missed the Plot About Progressive Purity

I am sure that Bill Maher tries to be on the good side of issues, but he seems to not be a deep thinker - only bein able to analyze the top layer. His "New Rules" in his recent show is an example. His thesis was pointing out that the people who refused to vote for Hillary in the election were idiots because Trump is a lot worse - as if anyone didn't know that would be the case before the election.

Relation State endorsed Jill Stein for president. It wasn't because RS believed that Stein had a chance to win. It wasn't that we believed that Hillary was as bad as Trump. Relation State endorsed Stein because what was wrong with Hillary was disqualifying.

What Maher doesn't get is that those with progressive leanings refused to consider the "lesser of evils" mentality in allocating their sacred votes. If we go though our lives making decisions based on the lesser of evils, we will find ourselves never selecting the good.

Not only did progressives not want to vote for the lesser of two evils, they hope that if Trump did win, that perhaps people could see the consequences of their choices. However, they perhaps gave Democrats more credit than they deserved. Hillary and her followers refuse to look in the mirror concerning their failures. Instead they choose to blame FBI Director James Comey, Bernie Sanders, Jill Stein, and even - if you can believe this, the media. I am not one to defend the media, but my gosh . . .

So yes, Mr. Maher, you are correct. Hillary would have been a better president than Trump. Everyone knew this in advance. However, you have completely missed the plot. There are many progressives who care more about winning the war than they do about winning a battle - even if a battle is very consequential.

The Democrats, using sleazy tactics, were hell bent on coronating a bad candidate that had no message. Those tactics, when exposed, cost a number of DNC employees their jobs and put the DNC, itself, into court. There is no wonder this had a lot to do with disqualifying their party and their candidate in the general election to a lot of people. The lesson learned here is that selecting a president doesn't start in the first week of November; it starts in late winter.

The moral of this little tale is this: If Democrats didn't want a Donald Trump to win the presidency, they shouldn't be hell bent on nominating someone who can't beat him. Mr. Maher, if you could just peel back your sanctimonious onion another layer, you could have easily seen this. Maybe at this point of your life, for a number of reasons, you are not capable of doing that (insert your own pot joke here).

Don't Waste Your Activism!

As I write this, Donald Trump is still a couple of hours away from being sworn in as President of the United States.  While I disagree with a vast majority of the things he seems to stand for, I must say that he is indeed going to be the president of the United States.  He will be the president of ANYONE who is a citizen of the United States, whether you like it or not. That is not my opinion; it is a simple fact.

However, I applaud those who feel compelled to stand up for issues that they believe in.  The March for Women is relevant today because the threat that many people feel from Mr. Trump in the area of women's rights and dignity.  These type of demonstrations, rallies, and protests are as much a part of this country's make-up as the inauguration and the peaceful transfer of power.

I do have to say that if your protest is centered on "Trump is not my president," I believe you are in error. Here is why. For eight years, we had similar reactions from the right.  We had people pushing forward the idea that Barack Obama was not a legitimate president.  It did great damage when a cluster of Republicans, led by Mitch McConnell, was meeting at this time eight years ago saying that their number one concern was to make Obama a one-term president.  It was outrageous then, and guess what; it is outrageous now.

Remember this?  Don't sink to this level.

You demonstrate against the legitimacy of the Trump presidency for what purpose?  To send a message?  To who?  Trump doesn't care.  He and his supporters just do their version of the chant student sections at basketball games do in response to criticism of the other side:  "Scoreboard!  Scoreboard!"  That indicates that you can whine or mock all you want to, but it doesn't affect the score of the game.  So I ask those who challenge the legitimacy of the Trump presidency, to what end?

Let me encourage you instead to do this:  Keep fighting, but fight for the right things!  Fight against prejudice.  Fight against social and financial injustice.  Fight for policies that benefit ALL Americans. BUT PLEASE, don't fight against our constitutional system.  Don't be the voice of obstruction no matter the issue.  We had obstructionism far too long and it will never stop if progressives don't take the higher road.

It is now imperative that good Americans not wash our hands of the constitutional system that we have lived under since 1787.  It is our job to hold our politicians' feet to the fire and make sure they work for us - whether that is Donald Trump or the congressman in most remote district in the country. Don't copy the GOP and be the party of "No."  Instead, be the party of "Let's Go!"

Relation State FINALLY endorses . . .

I have been putting off this post because it has probably been the most difficult piece to write. This election illustrates how dire our situation is in the United States. With this cast of characters running for the highest office in the land, the future looks bleak no matter what happens on election day.

First, allow me to define the term according to

the Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

Endorse:  to approve openly <endorse an idea>; especially :  to express support or approval of publicly and definitely <endorse a mayoral candidate>

Keep that definition in mind as we go through the candidates.  I will cover each one in reverse order of popularity as measured by the Real Clear Politics composite poll.

Jill Stein (Green Party) - Stein has no relevant experience in governing - especially for a national office.  She has run for president twice (2012, and presently), governor of Massachusetts twice, and has also ran for other down ballot offices.

Stein’s platform is basically the same one that Bernie Sanders ran on in the Democratic Primary.  In fact, she requested that Sanders become the Green Party candidate when he fell short of getting the nomination.  I have no issues with Stein’s platform as I endorsed Sanders in that primary because of his platform.

The negatives that Stein brings to the table are inexperience and judgment. She hasn’t held any public office of note and starting out as POTUS is an example of one's dreams outreaching one's arm span.  That concept paints this candidate as kooky among other adjectives in that vein. In addition, her selection of Ajamu Baraka shows poor judgment. Baraka is a controversial figure who has said a lot of things that are not conducive to running for office. He is a drag on the ticket and encourages people to not take the ticket seriously.

Gary Johnson (Libertarian) - Johnson has relevant experience.  He was governor of New Mexico as a Republican. He has also run for president twice as the Libertarian candidate (this year and in 2012).

Although Johnson is a Libertarian; he is also a corporatist. Other than personal liberty issues, he tends to remain Republican in his fiscal policies. 

The problem with Johnson is he doesn't come off like a serious candidate.  His pro marijuana stance is so well known it is associated with his personal choices.  He is practically the Bill Maher of the presidential candidates.  He doesn't seem to know or to be interested in knowing basic world happenings like “What is Aleppo?”  In addition, his running mate, former Massachusetts governor, William Weld has already shown support for Hillary Clinton.  Ron Paul, probably the most popular Libertarian in the country, chose to endorse Jill Stein over Johnson, if that tells you anything.

Donald Trump (Republican) - Trump has no experience in public office and is proud of that fact.  He touts his business acumen and deal making as being some of his positive points. His biggest positive, however, is that he presents himself as being anti-establishment.

I am not going to get into a lot of details on Trump’s policies for a couple of reasons. For one, he doesn't have a lot of details other than he is going to “make America great again.” His methodology for doing that is a little cloudy but he insists that we should just trust him to do it.  He does promise to secure the border by building a wall and also to cut taxes.  He vows to bring industry back to the country by threatening tariffs.

Trump’s negatives are almost too many to mention.  He lacks transparency as he is the first president in recent history to refuse to release his tax returns.  He has alienated Mexicans, Muslims, and women.  He is charged with horrendous deeds by women and has also made money off scams such as Trump University.  Pardon me now while I sigh.

Hillary Clinton (Democrat) - Clinton is obviously the most qualified when looking at all the candidates' resumes. Her experience in the executive branch as first lady is unlike any other first lady we have had since Eleanor Roosevelt.  She actually worked on policy, namely health care. She also has legislative experience as a popular senator from New York.  Finally, she has foreign policy experience as secretary of state for Barack Obama.

Clinton’s original platform is a moderate, corporatist Democratic one.  Since Bernie Sanders worked out his endorsement deal with her, she has adopted about 70% of his policy initiatives that brings her platform to one of the most progressive in history.

Clinton brings a ton of negatives into the contest, however.  She is allegedly involved or associated with a number of scandals.  The first one being her poor judgment in having her own server in her home to do State Department business. The FBI investigation showed extreme carelessness and FBI Director James Comey even revealed her dishonesty as she discussed her emails with the public and to Congress.  In addition, the Clinton Foundation is being investigated for shady dealings - to which Clinton’s State Department may be a party. Also, there is evidence showing that collusion existed between the DNC and the Clinton campaign during the primary. Even more, WIkileaks has released emails that apparently show the Clinton campaign was coordinating with supporting PACs which is illegal.  Double sigh.

On to the Endorsement

Trump’s problems are too big to ignore.  His rhetoric suggests that he will not represent all Americans; that is disqualifying.  The fact that he isn't transparent with his taxes (the first candidate in five decades) and that he has no detailed plan to institute anything we can see as positive change takes him out of serious consideration.

Clinton’s legal problems, trustworthy issues, and lack of good judgment is ALSO disqualifying for her. I went back and forth between Clinton and . . . ANYTHING ELSE (other than Trump) for a long time before making my decision.  It is the reason this endorsement post is so late in the game. However, when playing out the scenarios to their logical conclusions, I have determined that I cannot endorse this candidate.  

A Hillary Clinton administration will be bogged down in investigations and hearings for perhaps her entire term. Representative Jason Chaffetz (R) of Utah, the head of the House Oversight Committee, has already stated that there is enough evidence to look into her activities for years - and he is determined to do so.  The reality of that is deterrent enough, but the knowledge (via WikiLeaks and FBI investigations) that there is some legitimacy to these investigations makes it that much worse.  The country doesn't need an administration with this much of an albatross hanging around its neck.  

I have heard from a number of people when discussing Clinton’s alleged corruption say that it is just the reality of politics.  However when we support and elect these candidates, we are saying that we care nothing about the integrity of our government.  Wink wink, nudge nudge is not the methodology of a government that is supposed to be a beacon of democracy. Politics is only dirty because we allow it to be.  Count me as one that will no longer be apathetic to a system that represents big money and special interests rather than the people who dutifully exercise their franchise.

Thus, the only candidate that can possibly be deemed worthy of endorsement is Green Party Candidate, Jill Stein.  Sure, she is short on experience, but that doesn't seem to be a concern to half the country supporting Donald Trump.  While examining both candidates, Stein seems to be much more versed in policy and how government works compared to Trump.  

She fails to have anything close to the resume qualifications of Clinton, but she has nowhere near the baggage either.  She has a solid core of values that she puts on the line by actually showing up places where she finds injustice.  Her only legal baggage is a misdemeanor charge against her in North Dakota for standing up against the North Dakota Access Pipeline that threatens to desecrate sacred lands of Native Americans and poison the drinking water - an issue on which Clinton hasn't had the courage to even comment.

Stein is honest and willing to put skin in the game to take the country out of the establishment muck that it is stuck in.  She has virtually the same progressive platform as the Bernie Sanders primary campaign which, in my opinion, puts her on the right side of history.  Her honesty and willingness to commit makes her a newbie president that we can work with. While every president shares the same observation that NOTHING can prepare someone for the presidency, I accept that Stein will happily fit into that scenario.

At the beginning of this piece, I defined the term “endorse” as to "express support or approval of publicly and definitely." I cannot do this for Trump, Clinton, or Johnson. However, I can for Jill Stein.  She isn’t perfect, but she is someone that Americans can be proud of as president.

I don't make any unrealistic assertions that Stein has a chance to pull a big upset in the election. However, there is an additional incentive to vote for Stein (or even Johnson). Enough support for the Green candidate will help take away the monopoly of power by the establishment two-party system. If five percent, or more, of the voters find it impossible to support Clinton or Trump and vote for Jill Stein, it will open up the process to the Green party in the next election. They will be eligible for matching funds which will help get their message out. Presently the two parties, as much as they show complete contempt for each other, collude to orchestrate that the two party system remains. We have seen the disaster that this system has become and we have an amazing opportunity to do something about it. The founding fathers warned us about it; perhaps now is the time we will listen.

There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.  --John Adams

Election 2016 Exposes the Media as Fraudulent

Nauseating has been the operative word for this election season. However, the one aspect of the season that is more than sickening is the fact that we can no longer trust what we see or read in the media anymore. There is too much coziness between the media's parent companies and presidential campaigns. Even the on screen talent and beat writers become "too familiar" with the candidates and their staffs. There is no wonder why the words "shill" and "rigged" are being thrown around so much this year.

Jordan Chariton, from The Young Turks Network and Mediaite, has painstakingly filtered through WikiLeaks for all the evidence illustrating that the mainstream media has descended to an aid to the powerful instead of the noble entity it once was.

Traditionally, the role of media has been to keep us informed and remain the watchdog over the authorities and ruling class. Today media follows a different model. For the most part it merely echoes the opinions of the elite.

In an article that Chariton wrote for Mediaite, he exposes the media bias for Hillary Clinton while covering the presidential election. In a section concerning CNN Contributor and DNC Chair Donna Brazile, he shows how she played an integral part in the campaign's “media division:”

"Brazile is joined by a long list of phony 'analysts' and 'strategists'—as well as anchors and reporters—who were clearly in-the-tank for Hillary Clinton all along . . . Brazile and those like her do what they do best: scheme to help get, and keep, their friends in power, and then go on TV and pretend to be on the level, offering their expert “analysis” on the same people. Does this make Brazile and other pundits bad people? No. But does it expose the platforms they operate on completely and utterly fraudulent."

This just isn't crooked, it is a cancer. We turn on the news and hope to get the unvarnished truth so we can make decisions about our lives. However, when I turned on MSNBC's Morning Joe this morning I saw a panel talking about how the WikiLeaks have nothing troubling for the Clinton campaign. They cited an email that talked about general campaign strategy when the panel said nothing of the numerous emails that show a direct cooperation between the Clinton Campaign and their PAC's, for example - which is explicitly illegal.

Case in point:

Credit: Wikileaks, and @JordanCharion on Twitter

This isn't meant to be an anti-Clinton rant.  No, not at all.  Clinton, Trump, and those who follow in the elections that have yet to come, will emerge and fade away.  This post is about something much more significant than who becomes the president in the remote year of 2016. The most frightening part of this election season is that we have discovered that we are manipulated into thinking whatever the mainstream media, and those who pull their strings want us to believe – true or not, in order to advance the corporate establishment agenda. Since this seems to be the model now, there is no reason to think that we will ever be able to count on knowing the truth about our world. We are now, and will undoubtedly continue  to have the "blue pill" shoved down our throats.

“When the people who control the political power in this country . . . can rig the media, they can wield absolute power over your life, your economy, and your country. They control what you hear and don’t hear, how its covered and even if it is covered at all.”

--Donald Trump

That just goes to show you, even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Open Memos to the Clinton and Trump Campaigns

Dear Hillary Camp:

We understand that the probability of Russia hacking into our national emails is problematic. We also understand that the troubling content of those emails paint a Jekyll and Hyde candidate. It also paints a campaign and political party that are not above collusion and dirty methodology. We have the ability to consider both of these issues at the same time and consider them separately. Please stop insulting our intelligence and pretend that we can't or shouldn't.

Dear Trump Camp:

We understand that all of the sexual accusations of your candidate are not confirmed by witnesses. We also understand that the probability that they are all false especially given the very words that come out of your candidate's mouth is practically nil. Please do not insult our intelligence by suggesting we ignore reality and ask us not to factor in the disgusting aspects of your candidate's existence.

Dear Hillary and Trump Camps:

The American people don't deserve either of you, but apparently you deserve each other.

Diverse Group Supports Miners at Capitol Hill Rally

The United Mine Workers of America and other labor unions were in full force - along with various organizations, activists, and concerned citizens - at a rally in Washington last week. They were there to press Congress to honor its 70 year old commitment.  A promise was made by the government in 1946 to always protect miner and retiree benefits. The details can be found in part one of the this series.

I was invited to ride along on a bus with a group from Henderson, KY on the 1470 mile round trip.  People from different unions and other backgrounds made the trip to support the miners who stand to lose quite a bit.

Tina McCormick. candidate for
Henderson County (KY) Judge Executive

Tina McCormick, who is the daughter of a miner - and a candidate

for the office of Henderson County Judge Executive - was aboard the bus as it headed towards the capital.  McCormick made an interesting choice to sign on to the trip. She decided to take three days away from her campaign to support the cause. 

“This is an issue that affects a lot of lives in our area,” said McCormick.  “I just want the miners and retirees to know that we in Henderson County will do more than give lip service.  We will actually stand with them.”

Ed Mellor also decided to support the miners.  At 82, he didn’t hesitate to climb aboard the Washington bound bus.  Mellor, a member of the Plumbers and Pipefitters union from Evansville, IN, is proud to fight alongside his union brothers of the UMWA.

“The union has been a blessing to me,” Mellor said. “I thank God for it.  Without the benefits the union got for us, I don’t know where I would be.  That is why it is important to stand in solidarity with all the unions.”

Jackie Condor and
Cecil Roberts, president of the UMWA

As Jackie Condor illustrates, one doesn’t have to be a member of a union to realize the importance of supporting the UMWA at the rally. She is a retired nurse with an activist’s heart.  Condor is proud that her grandfather was a miner under John L. Lewis.  Lewis was the president of the UMWA from 1920-1960 who negotiated the “the romise” from the federal government that now is in jeopardy. 

“I want to be a part of helping people,” Condor said. “We cannot change this country till we all pull together

For Greg King, the concern over the loss of benefits could be a matter of life or death.  He depends on those benefits now that he has been disabled from an accident while working in the mines.  If the benefits discontinue, he will not be able bear the cost of his meds for himself and his wife. King is heartened to see the diversity of people taking up the cause.

“I’m tickled to death to see folks from all walks of life standing up with us,” he said. “It shows everyone is concerned and not just us miners.”

No one had any misconceptions about the trip. They knew it was not going to be a picnic and it wasn’t. We spent most of rally day outside in the heat (with a heat index of about 100 degrees Fahrenheit). There was also a matter of a grueling 30 hour bus ride on a trip that lasted only three days from start to finish.  However, I didn’t see any complaints on the journey.  I only saw people rising up for a cause and enjoying the opportunity to spend time with others that were likeminded.  The group saw the importance of fighting to make sure that the government that represents all of us stands by its promises to each of us.

Coal Miners Take the District to Press Congress to Honor Promise

United Mine Workers Rallying
at the Capital Building.

Some things should transcend politics.  Honoring promises to hard working Americans should definitely be one of them. However, America’s coal miners are concerned that this simple and principled position is getting lost on our corporate billionaire class and some of the politicians that feed at their trough.  Unless Congress takes action, 22,000 coal miners will lose their health care coverage and over 90,000 retirees will have their pensions significantly cut.  That is why thousands of miners and other activists will descend on Washington D.C. Thursday at the Keep the Promise – Capitol Hill Rally.

The promise these miners are pointing to stemmed from a 1946 agreement between the executive branch of the government and the United Mine Workers of America (UMWA).  The Krug Lewis Agreement promised the UMWA membership that their health and retirement benefits would not be compromised.

A Little Background

Through the first half of the 20th century, there was no industry more important to the United States than the coal industry.  The country counted on the energy provided by coal through the hard work of the miners to power them to world heights of the industrial age.  So important was the coal mine industry that miners were asked to stay in the mines throughout World War II instead of fighting on the front lines.

At the conclusion of World War II, the UMWA went on strike because an agreement couldn’t be reached with the coal companies concerning their inadequate health benefits.  Industry had turned back to production of consumer goods and Americans were in the mood to consume. The country couldn’t afford a coal shortage because of the likelihood it would halt production. The stand-still would move the country back into the dire economy of the pre-war depression.

To avoid this crisis, President Harry Truman ordered the federal government to take over the mines and start negotiating with the union.  What emerged was the Krug Lewis Act which promised benefits would not be taken away from the coal miners.

What Happened?

The funds holding together the miners’ benefits were solvent up until the 2008 economic crisis.  At that time, abuses on Wall Street destroyed the pension funds of a lot of Americans. Also, the changing energy industry and the declining price of natural gas had an adverse effect on the number of employed coal miners.

In addition, corporate shenanigans such as the Peabody/Patriot Coal spinoff perpetuated the disaster.  Patriot spun off Peabody and acquired its liabilities including retiree health benefits.  When Patriot filed for bankruptcy in 2012, these benefits were in jeopardy. If it weren’t for a modest settlement between the company and the UMWA, the crisis would have hit crisis level much earlier.  However, this minor victory for the union did nothing to ensure future availability of these benefits.

The Solution

Last year, Senator Joe Manchin, (D) WV, introduced S. 1714 “The Miner’s Protection Act.” This legislation would essentially keep the promises that were made and protect the benefits of the miners, the retirees and their families.  It is a bi-partisan bill with 18 sponsors with nine being Democrats, eight Republicans and one independent.  There is an identical bill in the House that is also bi-partisan.  It has 47 Republican sponsors, and 36 Democrats.

“Our retirees suffering from black lung, who gave not only their years of service but also sacrificed their health, will be forced to choose between getting that oxygen tank they rely on to breathe or paying their electric bill. Surviving widows will be forced to choose between buying their blood pressure medicine or putting food on their tables.”

--Sen Joe Manchin, (D) WV

Senator Joe Manchin (D) WV, introduced the
Miners Protection Act to the US Senate

So what is the hold up? The leadership has not allowed the bills to progress to a vote on the floor.  Strangely enough, the majority leader of the Senate, Mitch McConnell is holding this bill up in the Senate.  As the senior senator from Kentucky, a big coal mine state, one can only conjecture why he hasn’t jumped to the aid of his constituents.

According to the AP, a McConnell spokesman said that the majority leader “has been and remains committed to helping ensure the retirement security of our nation’s retirees, including coal miners.”  Of course the UMWA and the many legislators that have signed on to support the Miners Protection Act logically respond, “Prove it!”

Relation State is firmly behind the UMWA and their membership. It was on the backs of coal miners that the US became the strongest, most industrialized nation in the world.  It was the energy driven by coal that pushed the factories that provided Americans jobs, but also automobiles, appliances, and other goods that kept the economy strong and created the middle class. Those that labored in the mines gave their bodies and health to push the nation forward.  Is it too much to ask that we honor our commitments and ensure that they get the benefits that they earned and were promised?  If Washington can bail out the Wall Street banks that caused the economic crisis, it is incomprehensible that the government could default on the promises made to the coal miners who were victims of it.

Should Voters Be Afraid of Trump Incompetence?

The Trump Team - (top) Donald ,
(from left to right) Paul Manafort,
 Melania, and Michael Glassner 

In the grand scheme of things, people do not have a reason to get bent out of shape over the the Melania Trump plagiarism scandal.  It was a lovely speech and many people share the same sentiments that she shared from the podium. Whether she plagiarized part of her speech from Michelle Obama or not isn't the red flag. No, it emerged in observing how Trump and the campaign handled the scandal.

It didn't have to be as complicated as they made it out to be. They should have issued a simple statement and moved on. Something like: "Melania gave that speech in earnest and her heart was behind every word. We apologize for any similarity or appearance of it resembling other speeches that may or may not have had some influence in her remarks." That kind of response would have shown some competence in handling obstacles that may surface in a campaign, but more importantly, those that arise in an administration.

What was the response from the campaign?  First it was denial. All of us who saw the obvious reproduction were dubbed crazy. Two days later, which is two days too long, ANOTHER statement was released.  This time, it is from a family friend and staff aid, Meredith McIver, who took the blame.  In a TMI passage from the statement, she admits that Melania borrowed some sentiments from people she admired - one of those being Michelle Obama. McIver even offered to resign over it, but the Trumps nixed that idea.

At that point, the campaign made a fifteen minute story that could have been vanquished immediately into a three day story that now includes how Melania is inspired by current first lady and enemy of the party (just ask them), Michelle Obama.  That would still be the driving story of the convention if it weren't for Ted Cruz.

Cruz, who doesn't want to help Trump at all, did so much more. He flaunted a non-endorsement in a prime time speech, drew ire from the delegates, and unified the Republican party all in his attempt to put Trump in his place.  In other words, Trump's enemies do a better job of managing his campaign than he does - which brings us to the REAL story here, the potential disaster of a Trump administration.

The thought of a Donald Trump presidency becomes more alarming each day. If he can't handle the single-goal concept of a campaign, how will he fare in a multi-fronted responsibility of running the United States?  With domestic social policies, foreign affairs, the economy, etc., the presidency is one job that shouldn't have the "flying by the seat of your pants" approach.

Despite his success in the primaries, he looks like he hasn't used any of this campaign journey as a learning experience. Even though he was able to bluster and bully his way to a nomination, support from a fraction of the conservative minded is not going to pave a smooth road to the White House.

Trump has seemed to have taken his methodology from Kramer of Seinfeld fame. His life and subsequent campaign seems to be from a fantasy camp. Up till this point, he does what he wants and falls ass-backwards into success. However, that only works in the primary if you are a targeting only conservatives. In a world where Limbaugh and Fox News has shaped his audience, he can play to them in any obtrusive way he wants. They will applaud his defiance of political correctness and simplified solutions.

However, in the general election, he has to draw from a new audience. They are more complicated and discriminating than the primary crowd that readily gobbles up defecated propaganda that the Conservative Entertainment Complex produces. Trump seems to flirt with a pivot towards a general election message, but so far he has proven to be like the weak dieter who holds out as long as he can, but damn it, he is going to eat that piece of cake. He returns to his boorish ways to the cheers of his base, but also to the gagging sounds of those he now needs to win over.

Instead of Kramer, Trump should borrow from another Seinfeld character, George Costanza. George learned that his every inclination has been wrong so he endeavored to do the opposite of his urges. As Jerry told him, "If every instinct you have is wrong, then the opposite would have to be right." It worked for George. It could work for Trump.

The primary campaign and the general election campaign ARE opposites. That is why most politicians look like complete frauds. They tell their base one thing in the spring, and pivot in the fall. Or as Eric Fehrnstrom, Mitt Romney's senior adviser for his 2012 campaign, put it, "I think you hit a reset button for the fall campaign, Everything changes, It's almost like an Etch A Sketch, You can kind of shake it up, and we start all over again." Of course, as true as that statement is for campaign strategy, he probably needed to keep that truth to himself.

As part of his campaign shift, Trump needs to do the opposite of what all his impulses tell him to do. If he feels the need to double down on an issue, he probably actually needs to back up. We will see if he has much luck with that. He is the climax of the Republican National Convention Thursday night with his nomination acceptance speech. That speech will determine what kind of direction his campaign will go.

Will he get a bump or a crater? If he does the opposite of his impulses, he will probably be okay.
However his gut is probably telling him not to take the opposite strategy to heart. Someone over at the campaign should probably hide the cake.