How Millennials Could Determine the Next POTUS

The nation has a fixation with generations. The “Greatest Generation” (Born between 1927 to 1945) are dying off, “Baby Boomers” (Born between 1946 and 1964) are retiring in greater numbers, Generation X (Born between 1965 and 1980) are becoming the main force in our nation. And now having more influencing in our culture is Generation Y, also known as Millennials (Born between 1981 and 2000). Generation Z, also known as the Boomlets (born after 2001) are coming of age. Much have been said of the Millennials, both positive and negative.

The myth of the millennials is that they are often described as lazy and entitled by older generations. In reality, they’re just misunderstood. Armed with a record number of college degrees, they are often involved in good causes and volunteerism with statistics that rival the “Greatest Generation”. Despite economic problems based on our economy and the debt they incurred, their civic and nonprofit participation is unprecedented.

Why Millennials are the New Greatest Generation:

It is reasonable to assume that due to their age and participation in worthy causes, this generation is to a great extent idealistic. As a baby boomer myself coming of voting age in 1979, I too was idealistic and dissatisfied with the status quo. The Millennials at this point in their lives are even more dissatisfied with the status quo (made up of people such as myself in their minds). It’s natural and to be expected.

As a result, they question the current system that only allows someone from the two major parties to have a chance of becoming president. It is reasonable to assume that many of them see this trade off of parties occupying the White House and Congress (as well as State Houses) back and forth for decades as being what’s wrong with the current system in general and their debt specifically.

Although polling shows that they tend (as to be expected with those who give of themselves to others) to be Progressive, they don’t trust the Democratic Party. They see no true difference between either the Democratic or Republican Parties because both have been running the nation since the 1860’s and positive change is often slowed or stalled completely. They feel that things must be changed and since they are now of age and have the power, they can change it.

A major portion of the support behind Bernie Sanders were Millennials. To some extent even Donald Trump (seen as an outsider) gets support from this generation. With Bernie no longer an option and the view that Hillary Clinton is an insider/career Democrat, there is distrust. So a significant number of Millennials look to third party options such as Jill Stein or Gary Johnson. This is where things get tricky and frankly dangerous to the nation as a whole based on what the Millennials feel they must do to change the status quo.

Respectfully, despite their good intentions, Millennials often don’t have experience of age/history nor the ability to grasp the concept of unintended consequences. This comes with age and Millennials are only now are experiencing life and the consequences of their actions. They focus on what they see as the fault of previous generations and believe naively that any change, as long as it is massive and quick is what’s needed to change the status quo. They think is Hillary is establishment, the establishment is what’s responsible for their problems, so we need outsiders taking charge. They don’t take the extra step to examine who these outsiders are and what they plan to do. Being an outsider is not necessarily a good thing. You must examine the whole picture before deciding.

It is interesting to note that Gary Johnson, a Libertarian former Republican Governor of New Mexico nationally has 9% support. Half of his support comes from former Bernie Sanders supporters, most of them Millennials. This is interesting because as Progressives, how can Millennials support a Libertarian? Well he’s third party and he supports legalization of marijuana and prostitution. Sounds fairly liberal but the Millennials don’t look deeper into the Libertarian platform. The platform also supports eliminating government funding (both federal and State) and placing it solely on the individual to fund education, healthcare, social security (pensions) and they want to repeal of the income tax and replace it with a consumption (sales) tax. Such a tax is regressive placing a higher financial burden on those who earn the least. Libertarians also oppose the minimum wage. Libertarians want government out of the way and the private sector controlling all aspects of our society (Police, Prisons, Food and Water Inspection, Fire Departments, etc.). It’s right here in their party platform and is supported by Gary Johnson.

Now there’s Green Party Candidate Jill Stein. She currently is polling nationally at 4% and much of her platform being precisely what the Millennials demand. But here’s the problem with Jill. First of all the Green Party has no path to what is needed to win the White House. She is not on the ballots in enough states carrying enough Electoral College votes to get her the presidency. Let alone the fact she has never held office beyond being the Lexington Town Meeting Representative. She’s been running for higher office since 2002.  She has no business or leadership experience at all. Further, she’s close with Vladimir Putin. There is no chance a Stein candidacy is going anywhere.

The sad reality is there is currently no way a third party candidate can win in this election cycle because the system, (rigged or otherwise) will not permit anyone other than a Republican or Democrat to be President. You may not like it, (I don’t like it) but that is the system we have and it would literally take an act of Congress (amending the Constitution) to change it. You need a 50 -State organization getting out the vote to secure enough electoral college votes to win the presidency as spelled out in the Constitution. Only the Democratic and Republican Parties have that organization. Not the Green Party or Libertarian Party. The only thing a third party candidate can do is funnel votes away from either the Democratic Candidate or Republican Candidate. They cannot secure enough votes for themselves to win, but could influence who loses enough votes to give the office to the other candidate.

Many Millennials like the idea of a “Protest Vote” to show their disdain for the status quo. They don’t expect Gary Johnson or Jill Stein to win but they’ll vote for either one because it will show the major parties they need to change.

Here’s the problem with that. That was the thinking of Generation X in 2000 with a third party candidate named Ralph Nader, it was also the thinking with some Baby Boomers in 1992 with a candidate named Ross Perot. In 1992 Clinton did not have over 50% of the popular vote, but because enough Boomers took votes away from George HW Bush and gave them to Ross Perot, Clinton secured enough electoral College votes to win. In 2000, Generation X voters took enough votes away from Al Gore in swing states and gave them to Ralph Nader. So even though George W Bush actually lost the popular vote to Gore, he was able to win key swing states and secure the electoral college votes to win in 2000 with the help of the Supreme Court. This led to the worst “unintended consequence” in our country’s history.

We are only now recovering from the mess created by giving the presidency to George W Bush which was two illegal wars, decimation of the social safety net, cutting the taxes of the 1% and giving personhood to corporations, all things Millennials hate today.

In 2016, (like it or not) it’s going to be either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump being elected President. The system will not allow any other choice this year. Millennials have some concerns about Clinton and this Blog post won’t even try to dissuade their concerns. All I can say is that as bad as she is (or perceived to be), Donald Trump is provably far worse.

Yes, I’m advocating to Millennials who hate both candidates to consider the lesser of two evils because that is all we have.

Trump will make lives for all Americans, especially Millennials worse for the time he is in office with conservative Supreme Court nominees, pushing more tax cuts for the rich, slashing any social safety net program to pay for his tax cuts for the rich and corporations.

Bernie Sanders said it himself, Hillary Clinton on her worst day is better than Donald Trump on his best. This is true especially for a voter trying the make America a better country. It won’t happen with Trump, he will in fact make it worse. Clinton will work to make it better, just not as fast as many Millennials want, but she will try.

Millennials will decide this election. If they stay home or vote third party or even vote Trump, Trump will win, and for at least the next four years, those issues near and dear to Millennials will be in the hand of provably the most corrupt and narcissistic candidate for president ever. If you are a millennial, do your research and do what’s best for you and your belief system and the nation and vote for Clinton because with Trump, you do have everything to lose. Below are the platforms of both the Republican and Democratic Parties. I suggest you read both.

And here is what experts say could happen to our nation under a Trump Presidency:

How do Millennials currently view Trump and Clinton?

Was Donald Trump Born in the US?

The official biography reads that Donald John Trump was born June 14, 1946 to Fred and Mary Trump in Jamaica Estates, Queens, a neighborhood in New York City. His father was the son (some say anchor baby) to German born Fredrick Drumpf and his mother was Scottish born Mary MacLeod. It is important to note that Donald’s grandfather immigrated to this country from Germany, tried to return prior to World War 1 and was deported back to the United States because he illegally avoided mandatory military service and didn’t pay his taxes. However, is this bio actually true?

Here are Donald J. Trump’s alleged birth parents:


See the family resemblance? Neither do I.

It is important to note that the Trump family during the 1930’s and 1940’s denied their German Heritage. In fact as noted above the actual family name is Drumpf, it was changed to Trump and people were told they were from Sweden. Did Fred Trump, who was wealthy during World War II have (as did many rich American Businessmen at the time) financial and political ties to the Third Reich? Industrialists like Henry Ford admired Adolf Hitler and the Nazi regime. In fact Fred Koch, father of the Koch brothers also had ties to Nazi Germany. Why wouldn’t a son of Germany not have deep seeded admiration of Germany during this time? Fred couldn’t make them clear or he would risk his growing financial empire.  

Fred Trump was a believer in White Supremacy and was even arrested along with Ku Klux Klan members in 1927. Why wouldn’t Fred not have sympathetic ties to the Nazi belief that the Aryan Race was superior?

Now before and during the War two prominent figures in Germany had a rather secret relationship from the public that wasn’t “legitimized” until the closing days of the war. They were Adolf Hitler and Eva Braun.


Donald Trump Addresses GOP Lincoln Day Event In Michigan

Look at these two and look at the facial features of Adolf. I suspect that in the closing days of the war Eva Braun was pregnant with Adolf’s child. There are no pictures of her in the nine months prior to her death in the bunker so who’s to say she wasn’t pregnant.

I suspect they were married to legitimize the birth of their child and the child along with other key members of Hitler’s inner circle were able to flee Berlin with the help of Odessa and the child made it to New York City where he was informally adopted by Fred and Mary Trump. I have as much evidence (if not more) to back this up than Trump’s assertion that Barack Obama was born in Kenya.

Now Trump presents a handwritten alleged birth certificate dated June 14, 1946 (over a year after the deaths of Hitler and Braun) from the Jamaican Hospital. Well look at this document. Clearly not a long form Birth Certificate and no record that this document was ever formally recorded with the Registrar of Vital Statistics in New York. Trump merely has this copy and claims it’s proof of his birth in this country.


Is this document to be believed? Is the Donald only 70 years old? It is very possible that it took a year to bring the infant child born to Adolf and Eva to New York, left with Nazi sympathizers to be transported via back channels to New York. This was planned a year in advance with Mary pretending to be pregnant so that when the child arrived, she could claim she gave birth.

Has there ever been a DNA match made between Donald Trump and his parents? No.

Has there ever been a DNA match made between Donald Trump and his siblings? No.

Based on this I (like Donald) sent investigators to New York and Berlin to do research and what they found (like Donald’s investigators in Hawaii) was “amazing”!

Now I’m not going to release what my investigators found about Donald Trump’s true birth until Donald Trump releases what his investigators found out about Barack Obama.

Trump, like Adolf Hitler is moody and prone to outbursts, both are alleged to have small hands and everything that goes with small hands, both have hatred of anything not Aryan, both have made millions on the misery and misfortunes of others, both practice gestures in front of a mirror. Too many facial and behavioral similarities exist to totally discount this theory.

So based on the same logic, reasoning and evidence (or lack thereof) that Trump used against President Obama, I say Trump is not a US citizen, he was born in Germany and is not Constitutionally eligible to be President of the United States. In fact, as with most things involving Trump, he utilizes projection on others for his shortcomings and issues and by saying Obama wasn’t born in this country he in fact him projecting the fact that he wasn’t born here.


Nearing the Finish of this Election

As we move closer to Election Day 2016 (as with every election in the last 50+ years) the polling is getting closer between Donald J. Trump and Hillary Rodham Clinton. This isn’t surprising especially in light of the fact that Americans tend to be limited in not only where they get not only their information, but their opinions, namely the mainstream media that includes FOX and MSNBC.

In this country, both candidates have high negative numbers. This can be easily explained. For over 25 years politicians with the help of the mainstream media, we have told what crooks and dishonest people the Clintons are. Mind you, nothing of any real substance has ever been proven against Hillary Clinton. Anything that has come close to being unsavory is also SOP (Standard Operational Procedure) for any successful politician. In short, there has and is a double standard that Clinton is held to and people on both the left and the right are too willing to hold her to it. So when media tells people an unsubstantiated scandal against Hillary, the people are predisposed to find her guilty until proven innocent. Often, she’s still guilty even after being proven innocent.

As for Donald J. Trump, his unfavorable ratings are high because of things he has actually done, said and continues to say. This is a man with a long history of discrimination against minorities. Starting with housing discrimination for which both he and his father were found guilty and fined, to calling for the execution of 5 Black teenagers for a crime they were proven not to have committed and refusing to own up to his mistake and apologize to them. Of course most recently he stated, without any factual basis, that immigrants across the southern border are mostly (“some I assume are good people”) rapists, robbers and murderers. The statistics are clear, they’re not. In fact first generation immigrants (legal or otherwise) are far more law abiding than native born Americans. That is demonstrably true and backed up by data spanning generations. Trump ignores it and continues to misrepresent the truth about immigration in order to secure the whole hearted support of those predisposed to believe these lies because they are fearful, angry and most importantly, racist. He’s using racist issues to get enthusiastic support and most of the nation sees it.

Hillary gets unfavorable ratings because she’s been involved in politics her entire adult life. People don’t look past that nor understand that this also means she’s experienced, tested and ready and able to take on the issues only an experienced politician with an even temperament can handle. People only see a “career politician” without understanding what that exactly means. Trump gets unfavorable ratings for his demonstrated lack of understanding of foreign affairs, military affairs, being thin skinned and ill-tempered. Trump is disliked for exactly who he is and Hillary is disliked for what she is perceived to be.

The media plays both sides of this in measured ways to get this race to be closer as we near the end. They give free coverage to every Trump event, but no analysis of what he just said and how factually wrong he is or the harm he creates. He’s received far more coverage than Clinton. At the same time, the media rarely covers Hillary herself, but gives plenty of coverage to those who have a dim view of her while providing little to no analysis as to why they are wrong. So instead of either candidate being given a balanced and equal assessment of their qualities or lack thereof, both are treated differently so the public sees them equally bad so there will be a horse race in November. It’s dishonest but makes for great ratings.

This was to be expected. It happened recently in 2012 when because of skewed media coverage of the facts and candidates, both Obama and Romney polled closer as Election Day drew closer. Obama did beat Romney in an electoral landslide. It happened in 2008 between Obama and McCain with the same results. Now more importantly, this also happened in 2000 between Bush and Gore. Media kept the race close by manipulating the facts between the two candidates to make them equally supported and despised coming up to Election Day. In doing so, despite have a higher popular vote total, Gore lost to Bush because of the Electoral College results (the Supreme Court helped also).

The polling will get closer and we cannot expect mainstream media to suddenly start doing their jobs and report on the candidates for what and who they are instead of how they want them perceived so media can get higher ratings.

As they get closer in the polls the risk of a Trump presidency increases. Experts from all fields say that a Trump presidency will tank ours and the world’s economy, would destabilize national security and our standing in the world, would harm our nation domestically even worse than what the Bush administration did. These people know from what they speak of and have the data to back it up.

Now if you hate Clinton for the unsubstantiated reasons floating around out there consider this, on her worst day, is she any worse than what Donald Trump? Consider what says he stands for, what says he will do while not presenting an iota of supporting facts or a plausible plan to do anything? If you can then you’re a smarter person than anybody else because not Trump or his supporters have been able to point out how he would do anything. In reality, what he wants to do would most likely lead to problems this nation has never experienced.

On another note, the reality of the situation is neither Johnson nor Stein have any chance of winning. They’re only running now to get that  10% of the vote in order to get matching funds from the Federal Government. They both know they can’t win and even if they could, both are totally unqualified or aware of what it takes to run a country and work with a Congress made up of two parties that they have nothing in common with.

You have to face reality whether you like it or not, a vote for Stein or Johnson is a wasted “protest vote” that serves no purpose other than to sway the election even closer to Trump.

The stakes are too high not to get out the true information regarding both main party candidates and to get out the vote to ensure the only qualified, experienced, intelligent and even tempered candidate wins. That is Hillary Clinton and for the sake of our economy, our social safety net, our standing in the world, our ability to continue to improve and increase our ability and obligation to assist the least among us, we all must make sure she wins soundly, despite what the polling says.



Maier’s Law and Right Wing Theory

In the American Psychologist, Vol 15(3) March 1960, N. R. Maier stated “If the facts do not conform to the theory, they must be disposed of.” This was a rather cynical statement he made reference psychologists and other scientists placing their theories over the evidence achieved during the research. 

“With Maier’s law ‘the theory supersedes the fact. It is the fact that must conform; and it is the theory that we must strive to nurture, develop, and abstract… . The method of how psychologists as scientists dispose of facts is of special interest. One of the most common is to give the facts a new name. In this way they are given a special compartment and therefore cease to infringe on the privacy of the theory… . Giving disturbing facts a name is almost as good as explaining them because a name supplies a useful answer to inquisitive people.” Other ways of disposing of facts are omitting them in reference books, and “the most efficient method… that of failing to report them… . Perhaps rats should be taught the theory they are to follow… . Any theory that cannot be quantified is inadequate, even if it works.’ 

The law is in full practice today when you examine the theories and rhetoric of the foremost views from the right-wing. Whether it be Climate Change, Gun Violence, Economics, Political Theory, History, it appears Maier’s Law applies to all that is Right-Wing conservative thinking:

Despite overwhelming evidence that trickledown economics doesn’t work the right-wing continues to deny the numbers and history. They discount the increasing wealth disparity between the 1% and 99% and the stagnate income that permeate our economy since its implementation over thirty years ago and hold to the theory that giving more to the wealthiest trickles down to the rest. 

Despite overwhelming evidence that higher minimum wages stimulate economic growth by providing more disposable income to those who will spend the case, the right-wing continues to hold to the disproven theory that higher minimum wages results in overall job losses. 

Despite overwhelming climate science that shows our climate is changing, weather patterns are being altered by increasing global temperatures leading to changing ocean and jet stream currents, they hold to the theory that the entire science is a hoax. 

Despite overwhelming evidence that coal and fossil fuels contribute to climate change and investments in clean, renewable energy actually creates jobs they hold to the theory that perpetuating clean energy production will kill jobs and harm the economy. 

Despite overwhelming evidence that more guns lead to more preventable gun deaths, that having a gun in the home increases the likelihood of being killed by that gun, they hold to the theory that more guns lead to less crime and safer streets and homes. 

Despite overwhelming evidence that there is no voter fraud that can impact an election they hold to the theory that voter fraud is rampant and access to voting must be made more difficult, especially to those who are minorities. 

What right-wing theory has in common is that what they hold to be true, despite lack of any substantial evidence to back it up, usually fills the coffers of Corporations and the 1%: 

Tax policies that divert more money to the wealthiest keeps them getting richer. 

Laws that prevent increases in the minimum wages keeps labor costs lower and increases the profit margins of the business owners. 

Calling Climate Change a hoax and discounting the positive impact of developing renewable energy sources keeps the established fossil fuel industry in control of nations and the world with their lock on energy production. 

Denying the facts that more guns lead to more death, adding the false unsubstantiated claim (not supported by any facts) that government is out to take all your guns away, spurs a panicked group to go out and buy more and more guns increasing the profit margins of the gun manufacturers. 

Holding to a theory that voter fraud is rampant reduces the ability of the public to vote their voice in sufficient numbers to be heard and properly be represented in the houses of government resulting in the money interests maintaining more control of government to enact laws and policies that increase their profit margins. 

As always follow the money to find the truth. No theory hold true if while trying to determine its validity you find that the facts don’t support the theory in question. That is a fundamental basis of true science and life in general. If the facts don’t support your theory, you need to amend and change your theory, not discount and throw of the facts. 

The theory of right-wing politics imposed on the people is not supported by the facts. Those who refuse to adjust their theories instead discount the facts. That is the failure of right-wing governance and the rest of us suffer due to our inability and/or failure to demand the facts be heard and given proper credence before a faulty theory creates even more damage.

Criminal Justice for Dummies (aka Republicans)

1)      When something occurs that is perceived to be wrongdoing on someone’s part, it is the duty of an investigatory agency, usually law enforcement to conduct an investigation.

2)      Determining harm is one thing, but the most important thing to determine is what did the “suspect” do or didn’t do in the course of events leading up to the alleged wrongdoing.

3)      Investigators must examine all avenues to include victims, witnesses and if possible the “suspect” to get a picture of what happened.

4)      Investigators then, if they feel charges should be filed need to cite what in criminal law they can use to say “This person broke this law”. Perceived criminal acts are not crimes if there is nothing on the books to allege the “suspect” did to break the law.

5)      If Investigators can complete the above, they forward their request for prosecution to the relevant prosecutorial agency.

6)      Attorneys then must sift through the information provided them by the investigators provided them as well as pertinent laws and legal precedent to determine first:

a.       Was a crime committed

b.      Did the accused act with criminal intent to commit the alleged crime

c.       Was there “concurrence”? Was “actus reus” (guilty action) and “mens rea” (guilty mind) in play to constitute a crime?

7)      Upon reviewing the above, if a prosecutor can make a prima facie case that can meet the three required elements of a crime, to the point there is a likelihood of a conviction, they will proceed with filing formal charges. If not, they’ll pass it on for further investigation to meet the burden of proof or drop the case all together.

Most unbiased and level headed experts in criminal law agreed that making a case against Secretary Clinton over her use of a private email server was difficult at best.

First of all, no actual federal, state or local criminal statute could be cited to accuse Clinton of breaking. Second, nothing gathered could indicate she purposefully, with malice of forethought acted out to purposefully break a law that has yet to be cited, for criminal intent.

If charges had been filed, this would have been laughed out of court at the preliminary hearing.

This is what FBI Director Comey has been trying to explain. Although he found carelessness in how the emails were handled, he couldn’t find anything to show, beyond all reasonable doubt that a crime was committed or that Secretary Clinton purposefully, with criminal intent broke the law.

At worst, she was careless. As careless as her predecessors Condi Rice and Colin Powell,;and as careless as two members of Congress holding hearing on this investigation Trey Gowdy and Jason Chaffetz who both use private email accounts to conduct their Congressional and often classified duties of business.

Can we finally move on to real issues?

An Opinion in Support of Profiling

Recently Donald J. Trump, the man who says that Mexico is sending over their rapists (despite conclusive data that immigrants are vastly more law abiding than 1st or 2nd Generation Americans ( opined that this nation should seriously consider profiling of Muslims to protect innocent lives   (

He has argued we should ban all travel of Muslims to this country until “we know what’s going on” and has even hinted at not only deporting 11 million “undocumented immigrants” but to deport Muslims too.

Let me reiterate, Trump wants to ban all Muslim travel until “we know what’s going on.” The problem with that statement is that it’s clear, it’s only Trump and his gullible and likely bigoted followers who don’t know what’s going on. If they did know, they wouldn’t support such a pathetic racist and bigoted proposal to protect lives in this country.

Well, let me clarify, if they knew “what’s going on” then perhaps they would support profiling. However not Muslims but rather White Males because the data doesn’t justify the threat Donald Trump and his minions claim.

Violence, crime, terrorism isn’t anything new in this country. It’s existed long before the founders ever met in Philadelphia and will go on long after Trump Tower is razed to make room for a national Mosque (as an apology to the 1.7 Billion Muslims maliciously libeled by the likes of Trump, the GOP and Bill Maher). In fact, violence, crime and terrorism has existed as long as the human race has existed and is world-wide.

Now from a historical perspective, those in power often point to a group to be afraid of regardless of the actual reality, relying more on anecdotal tales lacking statistical data to give the people somebody to be afraid of whether the data backed it up or not. It’s interesting to note that in 1915 before the United States entered The Great War in Europe, we were neutral. We were also supplying munitions to England and France who were fighting the Germans. At the time (and now) we had a significant German Population.

Well the country started fearing and hating those of German descent for many reasons, mostly because of exploitation in the Papers of the Time. When the Lusitania was torpedoed and sank on May 7, 1915; 114 Americans were killed. Further, German saboteurs were caught here. There was an angry outcry against Germans in this Country. Many changed their names so as to not sound so German.

In fact had President Woodrow Wilson followed the proposals offered today by Donald Trump towards the Muslims, against the Germans of that time, a certain German Immigrant, who had been expelled from Germany in 1905 by the name of Freiderich Trumpf may have been expelled from here to. Herr Trumpf in 1917 changed his surname to Trump and is the Grandfather of Donald J. Trump.

Were all German immigrants and descendants criminals, rapists, saboteurs, traitors as the papers of the time would have Americans believe? Of course not. The same is true about the Japanese, Italians and Germans in the country during World War II. The same is true today about Latinos and Muslims in this country. Trump ignores actual data and prefer to judge based on “stories” and anecdotal evidence from the “internet.” So who should we profile if we’re going to base it on actual data about who is behind violent crime in this nation more than of any segment of the population? Well, that would be White Conservative Native Born Americans.

As Van Jones pointed out recently, Americans are seven times more likely to be killed by a right-wing extremist than a Muslim. (

His assertion is based on actual data collected and analyze by Charles Kurzman and David Schanzer who gathered data from the Police Executive Research Forum, the United States Military Academy and Global Terrorism Data Base, among others. The data showed

“of 382 law enforcement agencies, 74 percent reported anti-government extremism as one of the top three terrorist threats in their jurisdiction; 39 percent listed extremism connected with Al Qaeda or like-minded terrorist organizations. And only 3 percent identified the threat from Muslim extremists as severe, compared with 7 percent for anti-government and other forms of extremism”

The fact of the matter is right-wing militias; people like the Oath Keepers, Sovereign Citizen, KKK, groups who claim a Christian heritage, call out for anti-government actions against not only Federal Officials, but State and local police. They have threatened and carried out attacks on police officers, judges, government officials, people of color, and people of faith not their own, abortion clinics, churches, The Murrah Building in Oklahoma City, etc.

These weren’t Latinos, they weren’t Black, they weren’t Asian, they weren’t Muslim; they were White Americans with an anger only satisfied by violence and death. And these attacks far outnumber the attacks in this nation by 7 times all other groups combined. Further, this is considered a “conservative” number (no pun intended but I’ll take it).

It’s interesting to note last year that the TSA failed to intercept weapons as part of a test 95% of the time. I submit that the reason the failure was so high was that the subjects used in the tests were White Americans. TSA failed to profile the right group.

If we, as Trump and his supporters demand, are going to have law enforcement profile potential offenders, then based on the data it has to be Caucasian Males. They’re more of a threat here and now than any other group.

For further reading:

Is Secession a Legal Option?


In a word, No.

As we are yet again in an election year stories from Texas are again hitting the media regarding their secessionist movement. It’s as common and to be expected as the changing colors of the Donald’s face throughout the year. Knuckle dragging yahoos throw rallies adorned with Confederate battle flags (oblivious to what happened last time this was tried) and of course, to get the votes of these Neanderthals in this low voter turnout state, even the statewide politicians express their support of seceding from the United States once again. Well here are the problems they chose not to discuss when they discuss secession:

1)      It is illegal and unconstitutional as determined in Texas versus White (1869).  The Reconstructionist State of Texas sued because the Confederacy had sold United States Bonds that belonged to Texas. The Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution did not permit a State to unilaterally secede from the United States. As such, the Court ruled that the bonds were sold illicitly to finance the rebellion against the United States.

2)      Secession is rebellion and to talk about it is sedition, which is also illegal:

18 U.S. Code § 2384 – Seditious conspiracy: If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

3)      Despite polling showing some popular support in Texas for secession, the same polling also shows that even more Texans do not favor secession. How can the minority drag the majority into the illegal act of rebellion?

4)      Should the United States Government permit Texas to secede, all of Texas would lose all the money the federal government provides them and spends in their State. All military bases would close, all federal funding for infrastructure, healthcare, food stamps, Social Security would evaporate. The citizens of Texas would have to flip the bill for everything in the State. Considering the State Government opposes taxing the oil industry or any corporate interest, the full burden would fall on the people.

5)      As a separate nation, Texans would no longer enjoy travel outside the state. They would need passports and travel visas to go visit family and friends in New Mexico, Oklahoma, Louisiana, etc. They would be foreigners in the United States, no different from any other citizen of another country visiting here.

Whenever this comes up, you always hear, “let them go! Good riddance!” Well, let us not forget Austin and let us not forget there are some loyal Americans in that State who we shouldn’t deny the perks and privileges of American Citizenship to because their leaders and a handful a demented lead brains want to give up a good deal because they want all the privileges of US citizenship but none of the legal, moral and ethical responsibilities.

My solution is simple, legal and would make everybody happy. If you want to secede from the United States, give up what the nation provides you because you don’t want to be held to the responsibility of being an American, renounce your citizenship.

Now providing the government will allow you a tourist or business visa, you can remain here for up to 10 years. After the first year, you would no longer be required to pay Federal Income taxes. If you are worth more than $2 million you would need to pay an exit tax but how many of these nuts are worth $2 million?

Now if you remain in the United States you would be considered at best a “Resident Alien” meaning that as long as you are law abiding you can stay. However, if you commit and are convicted with a felony, you could face deportation. You would have to give up your guns because the 2nd Amendment is reserved for Citizens, but I’m sure gun ownership means nothing to these disgruntled Texans.

Fact is Texas is part of the United States and she and her citizens are bound by the laws of the United States. If being held accountable to those laws are so unpalatable to you, renounce your citizenship. If you declare rebellion, prepare to either go to prison or face the US military who just happen to be stationed in 11 bases in Texas. And active duty US military swear an oath to uphold and defend the US Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic which would be you if you declare rebellion.

Your choice dummies.

What’s Changed?

I’ve been on twitter six years this month. Within a few months of coming on Social Media for the first time I found myself expressing my political views to the point where my time line is almost exclusively political. In the past six years I’ve amassed over 13,000 followers and I have refused to follow-back, and I’ve even blocked follow attempts from “Right Wing Nut Jobs” who I really didn’t want to be bothered with. So I could only assume the bulk of my follows were of those who agreed with my politics, my sense of humor and my snark.

In the past six years I do not believe anything in my stated political views have changed:

My support for President Obama remains the same.

My distaste for the Republican Party and especially the Tea Party remains the same.

My support for equal rights for all regardless of race, gender, religion, background, sexual orientation remains the same.

My support for Justice Reform remains the same.

My support for the 99% over the 1% remains the same.

My support for overturning Citizens United remains the same.

My support for voting rights remains the same.

My distaste for Conservative Governors and Conservative State Legislatures imposing their own religious views on others remains the same.

My support for Pro-Choice remains the same.

My support for Gunsense clearly remains the same.

My support for compromise in the legislatures and executive branch remains the same.

My support for universal healthcare remains the same.

My support for the Progressive Cause remains the same.

My support for this country is unwavering.

However; in recent months, many who have followed me have since unfollowed or even blocked me. Periodically I will go through my follows line by line. I know they have programming for this but I’m old school and I like to look at the bios of those who follow me. Often seeing the name and bio reminds me of previous exchanges, support we gave each other, joining up to harass trolls, joking back and forth. It’s just one of the more mundane things I do. However in doing so, I see that many have unfollowed. The common denominator of those who have done so? Their support for Bernie Sanders often with the hashtag #BernieOrBust in their updated bios.

My views are the same; however, I look to who best has the ability to fulfill what I support in government. That person is Hillary Clinton, not Bernie Sanders. Bernie says all the things I agree with, but he has yet to release a viable plan for not only how he will deliver, but how he will work through a Congress not likely willing to move as quickly as he demands. Clinton on the other hand recognizes that change requires time, patience and compromise. Bernie openly rejects these concepts.

Those oppose to Hillary often do so citing innuendo and demonstrably false claims about her history and character. I find that to be expected from the Republicans and conservatives, but not Democrats and progressives. To find someone guilty with no evidence beyond innuendo, memes, rumors and false stories is the antithesis of being progressive.

So when I see the attacks on Hillary, I respond and I affirm my support for her. Again, my political views haven’t changed nor do I suspect the political views of my former followers, but the one issue where we can’t agree, who’s best to lead this nation, is enough to ignore years of enjoying each other on twitter going after the real enemy of what we all believe in, the Republican Party.

They say this election cycle between Clinton and Sanders isn’t as bad as it was in 2008. I wouldn’t know not being on Twitter back then (was there Twitter back then?) However, if the left is going to stand firm from those on the right it is incumbent upon us to work together for what we all believe in to push the agenda forward. Dividing ourselves over who’s best qualified to lead the change is counterproductive.

Oh, you’re all welcomed to follow back



Moving On to November

It’s early May and officially both the Republican and Democratic Primaries are still underway. However for the Democrats the math is clear. Hillary Clinton will be the nominee. As of today Bernie Sanders will need to obtain 107% of the remaining delegates to secure the nomination. At best, he can push for a contested convention. However the odds of that occurring get smaller as the weeks continue. Polling and voting trends clearly show that Clinton will lock up the nomination long before the convention. Besides a contested convention would still leave Sanders out as the nominee, lessen the chance of party unity and only aid the Republican to a win in November.

Sanders would be the first to admit that he has done better than expected. His primary focus for this candidacy was to insert a more progressive tone in the Democratic Platform. He and his followers wanted to stop the migration of the DNC towards the right and bring it back to center if not left. When you listen to the rhetoric between both campaigns, the differences in the goals are almost indistinguishable. In fact the only difference is in the method and time needed to accomplish these goals. Sanders and his followers want and expect it immediately, Clinton (from her experience and expertise) understands it will take time and maneuvering with the Republicans to accomplish what is needed.

Now Sander has brought many into the political process during his campaign. They are enthusiastic, loud and devoted to him and his message. However a significant number of his supporters (around a third) are only devoted to him. They haven’t and won’t register as Democrats. They are vocal in saying “Bernie or Bust” indicating that they see no difference in either the Democratic Party or Republican Party and would rather see a Trump or Cruz win instead of Clinton. If this is true; then had Sanders not ran, these people would have most likely stayed home anyway throughout the primary and still wouldn’t be voting in the general election. As many analysts contend, their loss is really no loss to the DNC odds of winning the White House and taking back the Senate. However; as I will explain later, their loss weakens the Progressive movement within the Democratic Party. 

Sanders zealots need to understand that although Bernie Sanders is a Democratic Socialist, he isn’t Jesus Christ. To not support Sanders for the presidency isn’t sacrilege of the Democratic Socialist/Progressive cause. Now they can stay home and everything they have contributed towards pushing for the demise of the Republican nihilistic cause will be lost. More important than who leads the party is who works within the party and who are in Congress, Governors’ mansions, State Houses, County Board of Supervisors, Cities, School Boards, etc. Just because you lost the presidential brass ring doesn’t mean you should stay home and gloat. You must remain active. 

Clinton will most likely be our next President. To keep her honest and to help her move the Federal Government more towards the left you need to remain involved. She will need a Democratic Senate and House to push what she already has agreed with you is needed. Further, as long as we have States under Republican Control, we have ALEC driven legislatures and Governors who are enacting local laws that defy Federal legislation to ensure all United States citizens experience full and equal civil, voting, and human rights. As Sanders supporters you don’t need to register as Democrats to change, though it would help. If you officially become the base of the Democratic Party, if you get involved in local Democratic precincts, if you run for office as Democrats at the lower level, then like the Tea Party you begin to take control of the agenda and timing. To place all your hopes and dreams in one man comes up tragically short. The important thing in down ticket. A dose of patience doesn’t hurt either. What we have today is over 30 years in the making. Expect some time before turning it back. You must work however to make the change, not stay at home and gloat.  

For better or worse, Hillary Clinton is the best shot of keeping matters from swinging back to the Reagan, Bush style of doing things. There is a difference between Republican rule and Democratic rule. You need only look to States to see. You want a revolution, work with what you have and move forward to change that which needs changing and persevere. Staying home and surrendering, or throwing your votes away for “symbolic” purposes only serves the nihilists on the right. 

Time to mature and move this country forward as adults. Get active, get involved and vote.

Tea Party 2.0

I hate to break this to those of you of the centrist or left wing point of view. I’ve seen the future of the Tea Party Movement and it is us. Well, that is to say some of us.

If you have read my Twitter Bio, I mention that I left the Republican Party due to the dominant influence of the Tea Party over party leadership and day to day operations. This “grassroots” movement funded by the Koch brothers began organizing to lower taxes and federal influence over “Murica”. This was around the time that this Black guy popped up in the White House. They were and remain a far right-wing extreme of the conservative movement. However, instead of true conservatism, they focus on taxes that are already lower than at any time in over 50 years and the feds doing the unthinkable, trying to ensure that local governments treat all United States citizens like; citizens regardless of race, religion, sex or sexual orientation (the bastards!).

Well as it always is for the angry, uneducated and impatient among us, the movement took hold. Despite representing a shrinking demographic of the population, they still influence tremendous power and fear in the GOP. Obstruction in Congress became a mantra. Government that does nothing is just fine with them, providing they still get their: social security checks, Medicare, Medicaid, Farm subsidies, etc., etc., etc. They also started to impose a “conservative litmus test”; enforced by purity and anger towards anyone not fitting their special conservative ideology. As a result, liberals and moderates such as myself were labeled RINOs and many left the party to become Independents or even Democrats.

Now as we are nearly finished with the Democratic Primary process that will determine who will be the Party’s nominee for President; between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, similar stirrings of a “liberal litmus test” are starting to manifest itself in social media. The core determination if you are truly a liberal or not? Who you support for the nomination. True Blue Bernie Sanders who can and will do it all, or that Republican in Democratic Clothing paid for by Wall Street and the Industrial Military Complex, Hillary Clinton. Yes, Hillary Clinton. That same woman the Republicans have attacked with lies, innuendos and investigations; starting with a Christmas card list to Emails and every kitchen sink in between. Forget that nothing of substance has ever been uncovered or verified in over 25 years. She’s not a true Democratic Liberal because at age 16 she was a Goldwater Girl (even though at 18 she registered Democratic and has served and supported the Party ever since). Yes, she’s sneaky.

So because Hillary is winning and Sanders is doing stronger than suspected, his followers are determining who on social media is a true Democrat and Liberal. Your views on liberal programs, LGBT, xenophobia, civil rights, unions, workers’ rights, taxing, etc. don’t matter. It’s who you support.

Let’s leave out the part that Bernie only recently declared as a Democrat after decades of ridiculing both parties, but caucuses with the Dems in order to get good committee assignments. No, he’s the true Dem and Hillary is Ronald Reagan in drag and not to be trusted. As a result, much like the early Tea Party, the Bernie or Bust Crowd will scope out those with positive views of Hillary Clinton from longtime Democratic supporters and fighters (such as yours truly) for being so destructive that they will support in the general, whoever wins the primary. Again, bastards!

To them, because only their view of what a Liberal and Democrat must be (mind you they vote but never were part of the party “establishment” because, you know, establishment) they are the only ones who have the say. If Bernie doesn’t win, we must allow a Republican to win because Hillary is one of them. (Yeah, that confuses me too).

Susan Sarandon has gone so far as to say Trump would be good because he would destroy the Republican Party. She leaves out the party that like Bush (whose win was also to destroy the Republican Party) did more to destroy the country than party. Who suffered? Minorities, workers, middle-class, indigent, etc. but not the Hollywood elites and those who were in the 1% like, Susan Sarandon. They made out fine and will again while Trump is destroying the country, I mean party.

As we near the end of the primaries, the anger and vitriol is getting worse. On Twitter many long time mutual follows aren’t mutually following anymore. The tactics that I personally find to be more from the Sanders’ supporters than Clinton’s are using long established “Tea Party Tactics” to make their angry divisive points made.

I’m not the only one noting this. A certain Black guy in the White House who inspired the first Generation of Tea Party has noted it too. He’s none too happy.

From The Hill:

I have been on Twitter for 6 years. I remember the “emoprog” wars among the left around 2010 by those pissed with Obama for not pushing for single payer in ACA, and the “UniteBlue” war among the left over whether to organize or not for “Blue Causes” outside of other organizations supporting and pushing Blue causes. This war is worse and it must end.

The President is correct, this is divisive. Too much at stake to allow it to continue too long endangering not only retaining the White House from the First Generation Tea Party, but limiting the chances of the Dems taking the Senate back. This must end.

The lesson from 150 years ago is that a House Divided Cannot Stand. Our House, our litmus test is not being part of the Republican Tea Party Litmus test of exclusion for the impure. The more this continues, the smaller, angrier and less effective the Democratic Cause becomes. It’s that simple.

Support anyone not running as a Republican and support and vote for whoever wins the Democratic Primary running against a Republican. You can’t change Washington if you’re not there to change it. Elect Dems to represent you and keep them motivated.