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!"

Bernie Takes on Establishment, Media in Election Post Mortem

     Bernie Sanders in Wisconsin - Progressives note that 

     Hillary Clinton lost the state and others with similar 
     demographics to Donald Trump.

Bernie Sanders has been making the rounds in the media with the release of his book, Our Revolution.  Most of the interviews have been about what you would expect.  They ask if he thought he would have beaten Trump among other Trump related questions.  Inevitably they get around to the question of why Hillary lost the election.

Bernie always figures out a way to fit in all the issues that working families are concerned about in every answer.  He also manages to mention how the media never talks about those issues.  A good time is usually had by all.

However, when CBS's Nora O'Donnell asked Bernie if he is any to blame for Hillary losing, Bernie couldn't hold in his contempt for the question and the whole idea of establishment entitlement.

Unless the Democratic Party and their media sycophants stop playing the blame game, they are going to be doomed to repeat this election every four years.  The political climate is changing and Donald Trump tuned into it and ran away with the electoral college.  In the meantime, Hillary and the establishment Dems are blaming FBI Director, James Comey, or  Bernie Sanders, or even the African-American community for not getting to the polls.  The most recent scapegoat is the electoral college - a system that has been around since the inception of the Constitution. Until there is some ownership within the party, they are going to be left behind or will have another party splinter away from them as Robert Reich suggested according to The Hill.

This whole episode reminded me of a time when I used to coach Little League. One year, my team finished the regular season undefeated beating the overwhelming favorite of the league twice.  In the championship game of the playoffs, we had to play them again.  In that game, there were a number of bad calls favoring our opponent and we came up short.

After the game, as I gathered the team to address them, the parents came out of the woodwork exclaiming "We wuz robbed!"  They encouraged the boys with statements like, "You really won this game; the umpires just stole it from you," and similar messages.  I put a stop to it and told my row of 30 tear filled eyes that I was proud of them and that I loved them.  However, I made one point very clear:  "You can't go through life blaming someone else for your defeats and disappointments. Sure, the umpires had an effect on the game, but what could WE have done to change the outcome?  What could we have done to take away the power of any bad call?"  I talked about the few errors that we made and the number of times we swung at bad pitches.  I finished my speech with, "I want you to go through your life knowing that you have the power to win or lose. Concentrate on what you can control and not the things that you can't."

Going forward, this is the same message the Democratic Party must learn. Otherwise, they will take the same tack, make the same mistakes, and only hope that it works out.  But most importantly, they have to understand what those mistakes are. Many now are agreeing with Sanders that the party has to change its focus. If show that they care about the people, the people will care about the party's agenda - because it will be THE PEOPLE'S agenda.

As Sanders told Wolf Blitzer on CNN, “There are millions of families in this country where people are working two or three jobs, where people can’t afford childcare, they can’t afford to send their kids to college, they’ve seen their jobs go to China or Mexico. They’re hurting."

He went on to say that the Democrats have become “more concerned about raising money from wealthy individuals than they have been about bringing working people into the party and taking on the billionaire class, taking on Wall Street, the drug companies or the insurance companies,”

Donald Trump was able to tap into that angst.  The Democrats didn't. And as they sit in the dugout crying about their defeat, they better be prepared to do things differently from now on.

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.