Is Reading Steinbeck an Antidote to Donald Trump?

A rotten egg incubated by reality television and hatched by retrograde thinking about women and the world, the presidency of Donald Trump is creating anxiety, fear, and a growing sense among progressives that an American psycho now occupies the White House. Many, like me, are turning to John Steinbeck for understanding. But that consolation has its limits.

As Francis Cline observed recently in The New York Times, one positive result of the groundswell of bad feeling about Trump is that “[q]uality reading has become an angst-driven upside.” Anxious Americans yearning to feel at home in their own country have a rekindled interest in exploring their identity through great literature: “Headlines from the Trump White House keep feeding a reader’s need for fresh escape.” “Alternate facts,” when “presented by a literary truthteller” like John Steinbeck, are “a welcome antidote to the alarming versions of reality generated by President Donald Trump.”

The literary tonic recommended by Cline may or may not have the power to clear the morning-after pall of Trump-facts and Trump-schisms (the two sometimes interchangeable) afflicting our panicked public dialogue, our beleaguered press, and, for those as apprehensive as I am, the American-psycho recesses of our collective mind. Perhaps counter-intuitively, his prescription for mental wellness includes works by a group of novelists with a far darker worldview than that of Steinbeck, who felt an obligation to his readers to remain optimistic about the future whenever possible.

The writers mentioned by Cline include Sinclair Lewis (It Can’t Happen Here), George Orwell (1984), Aldous Huxley (Brave New World), William Faulkner (The Mansion), Jerzy Kosinski (Being There), Philip Roth (The Plot Against America), and Philip Dick (The Man In The High Castle). As an antidote to Donald Trump, they are bitter medicine. Is Steinbeck’s better?

As the Trump administration pushes plans to litter federally protected Indian land with pipelines (“black snakes”) that threaten to pollute the water used by millions of Americans, John Steinbeck’s writing about the dangers of environmental degradation seems more relevant, and more urgent, than ever. To mark the 100th anniversary of Steinbeck’s birth in 2002, the award-winning author and journalist Bil Gilbert wrote an insightful article on the subject for The Smithsonian entitled “Prince of Tides.” In it he notes that “Steinbeck’s powerful social realism is by no means his only claim to greatness. He has also significantly influenced the way we see and think about the environment, an accomplishment for which he seldom receives the recognition he deserves.”

Judging from “The Literature of Environmental Crisis,” a course at New York University, Gilbert’s point about Steinbeck’s stature as an environmental writer of major consequence is now more generally accepted than he thinks. Studying what “it mean[s] for literature to engage with political and ethical concerns about the degradation of the environment” the class will read “such literary and environmental classics as Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring and John Steinbeck’s The Grapes of Wrath” to “look at the way literature changes when it addresses unfolding environmental crisis.”

“Before ‘ecology’ became a buzzword,” Gilbert adds, “John Steinbeck preached that man is related to the whole thing,” noting that Steinbeck’s holistic sermonizing about nature’s sanctity reached its peak in Sea of Cortez, the literary record of Steinbeck’s 1940 expedition to Baja California with his friend and collaborator Ed Ricketts, the ingenious marine biologist he later profiled in Log from the Sea of Cortez. In it Steinbeck seems to foresee how America’s precious national resources—and collective soul—could one day become susceptible to the manipulations of an amoral leader like Donald Trump:

There is a strange duality in the human which makes for an ethical paradox. We have definitions of good qualities and of bad; not changing things, but generally considered good and bad throughout the ages and throughout the species. Of the good, we think always of wisdom, tolerance, kindness, generosity, humility; and the qualities of cruelty, greed, self-interest, graspingness, and rapacity are universally considered undesirable.

And yet in our structure of society, the so-called and considered good qualities are invariable concomitants of failure, while the bad ones are the cornerstones of success. A man – a viewing-point man – while he will nevertheless envy or admire the person who through possessing the bad qualities has succeeded economically and socially, and will hold in contempt that person whose good qualities have caused failure.

“Donald Trump has been in office for four days,” observes Michael Brune, the national director of the Sierra Club, “and he’s already proving to be the dangerous threat to our climate we feared he would be.” The executive actions taken by Trump in his first week as president (“I am, to a large extent, an environmentalist, I believe in it. But it’s out of control”) appear to fulfill Steinbeck’s prophecy about the triumph of self-interest over social good. That’s a hard pill to swallow for anyone who cares about the planet.

Whether Trump becomes the kind of full-throttle fascist described in It Can’t Happen Here remains to be seen. Sinclair Lewis’s fantasy of a future fascist in the White House appeared the same year as Tortilla Flat, Steinbeck’s sunny ode to multiculturalism and the common man. Unfortunately, I’m not as optimistic about the American spirit as John Steinbeck felt obliged to be when he wrote that book more than 80 years ago. I’m afraid that the man occupying the high castle in Washington today is an American psycho with the capacity to do permanent harm, not only to the environment, but to the American soul Steinbeck celebrated in his greatest fiction.

This piece was written for Steinbeck Now. It is being published here with the author’s permission.

Trump Votes For Hillary

hillary-the-rapist-2Yes that’s right.  Regardless of how one dismisses Trump’s latest revelation of demeaning women in order to justify the ends, a Republican President, Trump can no longer win the election.

Perhaps that was the plan from the beginning, to prop up Trump because he was the only Republican Candidate Hillarydonald-and-bill Clinton could defeat.  If it was it worked to perfection.

Even if there were no conspiracy to sabotage the Republicans and regardless of what Trump says to his supporters, (He’s a salesman telling them what they want to hear), Trump’s actions clearly show that he wants Hillary to win the election for President of the United States instead of a Republican.

donald-and-hillaryIf Trump obstinately remains in the race than Hillary will win and he knows it and therefore wants Hillary to win.

Are they laughing at us?

If Trump wants to defeat Hillary he would step aside and allow Pence or someone else like Paul Ryan to challenge Hillary.  By refusing to step down Trump is declaring by his actions that he wants Hillary and the Democrats to win.

If you are a Republican and the last thing you want is Hillary to be President you can no longer justify supporting Trump’s Titanic.

To Vote For Trump Is To Vote For Hillary.

Senator John McCain has rebuked Trump and will no longer support his candidacy.  What is astounding is that rather than vote for the most viable small government candidate in the race, Libertarian Gary Johnson, whose on the ballot in all 50 states McCain will write in the name of someone who has absolutely no chance of winning and thereby give the White House to Hillary and Bill.  McCain wants Hillary to win more than he wants Trump to lose.

What is baffling is how evangelical Christians can support Hillary Clinton, who has their worst interest at heart, but cannot support Gary Johnson whose social policies on thepolls divisive abortion and gay marriage are the same as Clinton’s but who seeks greater freedom and prosperity in every other way than Clinton does.

If McCain is not capable of leaving the heard of lemmings following the pied-piper than no wonder the vast majority of Americans would rather stick to that which is not working expecting a different result.

“Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”  Albert Einstein
Related Articles:

Hillary’s Hypocrisy

clinton-pic-3Oh the deception and hypocrisy of Hillary Clinton and the Democrats.

The New York Times determined that Trump could have taken a $916 million loss in his 1995 tax return enabling him to take advantage of an IRS tax law which would allow him to avoid paying taxes for up to 18 years due to the loss.

Clinton blasted Trump at a campaign rally in Toledo, Ohio over the revelation of Trump’s tax deduction from 1995.

“While millions of American families, including mine and yours, were working hard and paying our fair share, it seems he was contributing nothing to our nation. Imagine that,” Clinton said. “In other words, Trump was taking from America with both hands and leaving the rest of us with the bill.”  Hillary Clinton

Did Hillary pay one more dime to the IRS than was required of her over the last 20 years?  I think not.

Who among the 250 million citizens in the United States eligible to pay taxes would willingly not take advantage of any tax deduction to lower the amount they have to pay to the IRS?  Hillary needs to name one U.S. Citizen that knowingly and willingly paid more in taxes to the IRS than was required of him or her by the IRS.

Who among the millions of democrats would willingly pay more to the IRS than they have too, including the billionaires and millionaires, (Mark Cuban, Tom Steyer, George Soros, Warren Buffett, Sigourney Weaver, Meryl Streep, Robert De Nero, etc…), who are supporting Clinton?

Clinton is denigrating Trump for doing what she and her supporters do and that is to pay as little to the IRS as possible.

Bill and Hillary made $109,000 in interest and dividends from 2015 and took advantage of $3,000 in capital losses carried over from prior years in order to pay as little to the IRS as possible.

Even Warren Buffet, $60 Billion net worth, who pays a lower tax rate than his secretary calls for higher taxes on himself and his billionaire peers does not pay more to the IRS than he is required too.  Instead he gives his money to charity like his peers.  Hmm, could that be because they know that the government would waste a good portion of their money on needless jobs before a tiny percentage ended up where all of it was supposed to go?

Proof is in the pudding as they say.

Hillary Clinton wants to create a 4 percent surcharge on every dollar earned beyond the first $5 million regardless of how the income was earned.

How many actors, actresses and professional athletes are going to like that?  How many of Mark Cuban’s Dallas Maverick’s basketball players earning over $5 million a year will be voting for Hillary?

Since Clinton claims that raising more money for more government run services by increasing the tax rate on Americans is the way to fix society’s economic ills surely she should be willing to retroactively pay this higher tax rate on the money she earned the last two years to set an example for the rest of us.

Hillary has a net worth anywhere is $31.3 million and Bill’s is at $80 million.  Bill and Hillary made $10.6 million in 2015 and $28 million in 2014 with a tax rate of 30.2% or 2015 and 32% for 2014.

Applying the 4% surcharge that Hillary desires to implement both her and Bill should pay an additional $224,000 for 2015 to the IRS and an additional $920,000 for 2014 to the IRS.  Paying a little higher tax bill will not harm their standard of living therefore there is no excuse for Hillary and Bill not to pay more to the IRS for the last two years the same way Hillary wants everyone else to pay more.

Hillary and the Democrats believe that they can tax and spend their way out of the problems vexing the nation but that is not how economies are fixed.  Unchecked socialism always fails by collapsing in on itself unable to pay for the ever increasing demand for services from an ever decreasing revenue stream regardless of how much you tax the people.

“Obamacare is the Craziest Thing  Bill Clinton

Bill Clinton acknowledges that Obamacare works for the poor who are on government subsidies, who historically would have received Medicaid to begin with, because they cannot work or afford health care on their own but that Obamacare doesn’t work for the millions of other families struggling to make ends meet.

“So you’ve got this crazy system where all of a sudden 25 bill-clintonmillion more people have health care and then the people who are out there busting it, sometimes 60 hours a week, wind up with their premiums doubled and their coverage cut in half. It’s the craziest thing in the world,” Bill Clinton said.

What Hillary said about Trump taking from America could also be applied to the millions who are receiving Obamacare at the expense of hard the hard working poor.

“While millions of American families, including mine and yours, (are) working hard and paying our fair share, it seems (they) are contributing nothing to our nation. Imagine that,” Clinton said. “In other words, (these people) are taking from America with both hands and leaving the rest of us with the bill.”

The question is, why do Bill and Hillary not want to raise the income levels of the poor so that they can afford health care on their own without the need of becoming dependent upon the government and dependent upon those working 60 hours a week?  Why does Hillary want you to work an additional 20 hours a week to pay the healthcare costs for someone else when that health care could be provided by decreasing costs and increasing the living wage?

The true solution to societies’ economic ills is to create an economic game which increases competition between the highest number of competitors.  Teddy Roosevelt understood this principle.

“As the United States became increasingly urban and industrial, it acquired many of the attributes common to industrial nations—overcrowded cities, poor working conditions, great economic disparity, and the political dominance of big business. At the turn of the twentieth century, Americans had begun to look for ways to address some of these problems. As chief executive, Roosevelt felt empowered by the people to help ensure social justice and economic opportunity through government regulation…. he often stated that there must be reform in order to stave off socialism; if government did not act, the people would turn to more extreme measures to seek remedies.”  Teddy Roosevelt

Rather than create a welfare state by taxing the wealthy coal companies to provide government services for the striking coal workers Teddy used the government’s hammer to force the companies and the workers to settle their differences whichteddy became known as the “Square Deal.”  The Square Deal worked to balance competing interests to create a fair deal for all sides: labor and management, consumer and business, developer and conservationist.”

By dismantling the too big to fail banks that are teetering once again and by breaking up the corporate monopolies that the Clinton’s helped create the economy will swing back into the sweet spot of highest competition which benefits everyone

Greater competition forces businesses to pay more in wages and health care to their workers which removes any necessity for the government to step in with its inefficient and ineffective services.  By freeing up developers’ tax burdens and other associated costs they can produce a greater supply of housing to the market and thereby decrease the skyrocketing housing costs that are plaguing the poor and middle class.  There is no tax policy that can fix the lack of housing in the job centric areas of the nation only economic rules and stimulation to those who build housing.  All one needs to do to is look back in time to when there was a surplus of housing in the 1950s to 1970s to understand how this works.

Hillary and Bill’s past policies of decreasing competition and the buying power of average Americans reveals that they do not want to increase competition by eliminating the monopolies from the market, for they are for the ultra wealthy monopolies that exist in the world and when they say they are for the average American they are lying to America.  They do not want to change the rules of the game to enable the average American worker to purchase, to build, their own housing; Hillary and Bill want the masses dependent upon the government for their housing through programs like Section 8, HUD and below market rate non-profit 501c3 organizations that exploit the poor for their own advantage.

Hillary does not want to increase competition in the insurance industry enabling more people to obtain healthcare through their own means and or collective bargaining with their employers; Hillary wants the people dependent upon the government for healthcare so that government can dictate what kind of medicines and treatment people receive.

Hillary and Bill are using the socioeconomic problems of our present to create a big government that will eventually control every aspect of every citizen’s life’ that is not the Land of Liberty which the Founding Fathers created.

If Hillary chooses not to pony up another million dollars to the IRS for the 2014 and 2015 tax years than we will know that she truly does not believe in her tax plan but is using it for some ulterior objective.

Socialism in a nutshell is the plumber that comes back time and again to mop up the puddle from the leaking pipe without ever fixing the leak ensuring a guaranteed job all the while the leak becomes worse and worse over time until the house finally floods.

Kaepernick Defends Retired Marine From Donald Trump

Donald Trump publicly castigated San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick for Kaepernick’s refusal to stand for the National Anthem and the American flag.

“I think it’s a terrible thing, and you know, maybe he, (Kenneth Chamberlain Sr.), should find a country that works better for him, let him try, it’s not gonna happen.”  Donald Trump  (parenthesis mine)

Mr. Trump, Kenneth Chamberlain Sr. a Marine Veteran will not chamberlainstand for the National Anthem or the U.S. Flag.  Should he leave America too?  Oh ya, that’s right he physically cannot do so because he was shot and killed by White Plains police officers and is lying  six feet under at a military cemetery.  And why did these officers, one of whom who was recorded using the “N-Word” just prior to Mr. Chamberlain being shot and killed?  They killed him because Mr. Chamberlain exercised his Constitutional Right to refuse medical attention.

Because of that White Plains police officers exerted themselves for an hour breaking down Mr. Chamberlain’s door all the while Mr. Chamberlain repeatedly and clearly informed them to go away; that he was physically and mentally fine.  But rather than leave as they were required to do according the law and the Constitution they broke into Mr. Chamberlain’s private residence under color of law and killed a man for defending his freedoms; a man who defended the very freedoms that the officers themselves enjoyed, including the right of privacy; of equal protection of law; and of free speech.

These officers committed breaking and entering, assault, battery, false imprisonment, excessive force and murder yet they were never charged with a crime by local or state prosecutors.  These White Plains police officers violated the Constitution that the officers swore and oath to protect, defend and uphold but the U.S. DOJ has refused to hold them accountable.

There are many radio tower, insulated critics denigrating Kaepernaick for not honoring the flag and the National Anthem which represent the Constitution and the freedoms and liberties that the Constitution is supposed to guarantee.

When the critics refer to the flag and the National Anthem they are actually referring to the U.S. Constitution for the flag and the National Anthem are nothing more than representations of the Constitution and the guarantees contained therein, thus anything asserted to about the flag and the National Anthem is an assertion about the Constitution.

The critics claim that the flag represents veterans who have put their lives on the line; who have died for the flag and that which the flag also represents, the Constitution, the liberties bestowed upon American citizens.  If veterans represent the flag and the flag represents the Constitution and the freedoms guaranteed to American citizens than Mr. Chamberlain is a representation of the flag.

Since the National Anthem and the flag are just representations of the freedoms of America  and the sacrifices that people have made to guarantee those freedoms; what is the more egregious offense to those freedoms; to those patriots; to the flag: sitting down during the National Anthem to bring attention to the fact that the Constitution is not living up to its word or saying nothing as the government covers up its murder of one of its own citizens who represents the very same Constitutional rights and freedoms that the flag does?

When those White Plains, NY police officers murdered Kenneth Chamberlain under Color of Law they did not just sit down when the Constitution was being honored for what it claims to be; those officers murdered the Constitution for Kenneth Chamberlain is the Constitution in living form, just as all citizens are.

I find these critics’ outrage toward Kaepernick hypocritical and disingenuous, they and the media give front page attention to Kaepernick for sitting down during the playing of the National Anthem yet  I heard not one word from these same people over how the justice system has covered up the murder of Kenneth Chamberlain.  Where was their outrage over the Unconstitutional, state condoned, execution of Kenneth Chamberlain?

These critics assert with their words that the flag is sacred yet their actions, or the lack there of, reveal that they don’t believe in that which they preach.  They arbitrarily decide when they are going to defend the Constitution based upon their personal bias just as the justice system does rendering the Constitution to inferior status; to a mere tool to be used to at the dictates of personal bias and prejudice.

They claim the flag is sacred, is Mr. Chamberlain’s life not sacred?    Why is the flag sacred; is it not because it recognizes the sacredness of human life and the liberty of human life?  If the flag did not uphold the sacredness of human life and the liberty of human life the so called “unalienable rights” would it still be sacred?

These critics put more value in a flag and a song than they do the human life whose value and sacredness imbue the flag and song with value and sacredness and without would render both meaningless.

Well did Jesus say: “Woe to you, blind guides! You say, ‘If anyone swears by the temple, it means nothing; but anyone who swears by the gold of the temple is bound by that oath.’ You blind fools! Which is greater: the gold, or the temple that makes the gold sacred?” 

For the Constitution, the flag, to be what it claims to be it must first and foremost be applied equally to all.  If the Constitution is not applied equally to all than it does not exist at all, for it no longer is that what it claims to be.

The evidence is overwhelming that the Constitution is not applied equally to all and therefore is not what it claims to be.  Kaepernick is revealing to his critics that they honor a flag that does not represent that which they claim it represents.  Rather than acknowledge this truth they brow beat him with their ire generated from living in an insulated world protected from the realities of which those without such protection are subjected to on a daily basis.

The Use of Force / Two heavy users of force end group’s night out on the town

“Brooke Duthie said he has completely rethought his view of police.”  “Being a white man who doesn’t live in the inner city,” he said, “you hear stories of injustice done to minorities and about people picked on by police, but I never understood it until after that night.”

Sean Connolly, a deputy city attorney who handled the case, pointed to another factor affecting the March 2003 settlement. “Most plaintiffs who sue the cops come out of a world that usually deals with cops,” Connolly said. “These were good-looking, middle-class folk, articulate. Two of them were models.”  “You always have to assess the credibility of the witnesses and how a jury will see their testimony,” Connolly said. “This was not a run-of-the-mill case.”

Hillary Clinton has said: “We have systemic racism that is really at work inside of the criminal justice system. And, we have got to be willing…To stand up – and question these inequities, and then go about the business of ridding them.” 

“…the states have proven themselves incapable of carrying out fair trials;…that give the defendant all the rights that the defendant should have…”  Hillary Clinton

Hillary’s husband Bill had eight years to remedy these problems and did not; President Obama, Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch have had eight years to fix the justice system and have not.  Hillary Clinton is not going to fix the justice system and she couldn’t even if she wanted to.

Cops Beat Man Bloody Then Arrest Him For Bleeding On Them

Police arrest and beat wrong man; destroy video and federal judge says perjury and injuries too minor to rise to constitutional violation.

Rosa Parks refused to stand up for the Constitutionally supported law of her day and she was vilified for doing so.  When marching in protest is not enough, when calling on elected officials who pay lip service is not enough, when seeking a redress in federal court has no affect the only place left is the silent majority who are resistant to have their comfortable lives invaded by the oppression of others.

“The ultimate tragedy is not the oppression and cruelty by the bad people but the silence over that by the good people.”  Martin Luther King, Jr.

Those who have criticized Kaepernick not for his message or motivation but for the method Kaepernick used to deliver the message to them just prior to playing a game; for interrupting their party and for rocking their sphere of comfort are completely ignorant to what the Frist Amendment of free speech means and guarantees.  It does not mean that you can say whatever you want so long as you say it somewhere else, where I don’t have to hear you.  The First Amendment guarantees the right to say what you want where you want so long what you say does not incite violence.  The First Amendment guarantees the right to say to others what they don’t want to hear and for that to happen the hearers need to be in ear shot.

When the critics of Kaepernick state that he should not be using the venue of the National Anthem and a stadium full of people to make his statement they are disagreeing with the First Amendment and are opposing the Constitution, they are opposing the flag and the National Anthem which they claim to honor.

If Kaepernick’s critics demonstrated just as much public outrage as to why the government whitewashed the murder of Kenneth Chamberlain by police officers as they have about Kaepernick sitting down during the National Anthem then the government could no longer sweep under the rug the thousands of Constitutional violations committed every day.

The University of Michigan’s National Registry of Exonerations has documented 1,874 people convicted of crimes they have not committed.

A study completed by Professor Marvin Zalman concluded that 5,000 to 10,000 people a year are wrongfully convicted each year.

If a prosecutor does not want to convict an innocent person of crime is it possible for him/her to do so?   Remember to convict someone of a crime a prosecutor needs enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.  It is obvious that the justice system relies on evidence that produces wrong convictions the same way that it uses evidence to exonerate guilty cops.

“For anyone who has practiced criminal law in the state or Federal courts, the disclosures about rampant police perjury cannot possibly come as a surprise. “Testilying” — as the police call it — has long been an open secret among prosecutors, defense lawyers and judges.”  “Without the complicity of judges, police perjury would be reduced considerably. Officers know that in many courtrooms they can get away with the most blatant perjury without judicial rebuke or prosecution.”  Alan M. Dershowitz

Kaepernick is speaking up for Mr. Chamberlain and those like Chamberlain who cannot speak for themselves for their 1st Amendments Right to free speech has been permanently stolen from them not by some other private citizens but by the government that is supposed to guarantee that freedom.

People debate back and forth whether or not Mr. Chamberlain was attacking the officers when he was shot, the evidence is coming out that he was not, but that is beside the point.  Mr. Chamberlain was never the aggressor, the police officers were.  The White Plains police officers laid siege to Mr. Chamberlain’s private property for an hour before they killed him, if any other citizens in America did what these officers did they would have been prosecuted and convicted of murder.  Mr. Chamberlain was exercising his Constitutional right to defend his life and his property and his free speech.

If these White Plains officers had done to Donald Trump or great americaMichael Jordan what they did to Mr. Chamberlain both Trump’s and Jordan’s children would ensure that the government would swiftly send the culpable officers to prison.  And it is this revelation that points to the solution.  If officers would simply enforce the law on everyone the same way they would enforce it upon Trump or Jordan the problem of bias policing, of selective enforcement and abuse would dramatically decrease.

(Police Beat Father to Death in Front of His Wife and Daughter, Steal Daughter’s Camera Afterwards)

Kaepernick’s stance most likely cost him of what remained of his NFL career.  If not, perhaps he could work with Drew Brees and others to set some goals in establishing the fundamental tenets of the flag/Constitution to the least powerful citizens of the nation.  Perhaps both could provide public attention to the Innocent Project and raise awareness about those who are unconstitutionally and wrongly convicted.

Kaepernick created a national commotion for being silent at time when everyone else expected him to speak up yet everyone else remains silent for very same reason they want Kaepernick to speak up.

The other day I heard a radio host criticize Kaepernick for his stance throwing out the challenge of just naming one person who was murdered by the police and not held accountable.  To that I say:   Kenneth Chamberlain Sr.

Kenneth Chamberlain Sr.


National Anthem






Related Article: Grand Jury Determines Not to Bring Charges Against White Plains Officers Who Killed Kenneth Chamberlain Sr. 

Liberated from Britain to be Bound Once Again

“Men fight for liberty and win it with hard knocks.  Their children, brought up easy, let it slip away again, poor fools.  And their grandchildren are once more slaves.”  D.H. Lawrence

240 years ago today the Declaration of Independence was adopted legally constitution 2severing all ties between the U.S. Colonies and the British government.  The main reason why the colonists bolted from their own government was that their own government refused them representation in Parliament, the equivalent of our Congress.  The British countered the colonists by asserting that the colonists had “virtual” representation through the men already elected to Parliament.

The colonists and their supporters in England responded by declaring that there is no representation if a man is not allowed to vote.

Fast forward to the present and we in America have a government in which most Americans do not have a vote over their affairs; their laws; their policies.

When America was created; when America was young, the people residing in the states and specific political/geographical locations, the Congressional Districts, shared common interests and values so that when they elected a person to the Senate and the House of Representatives the interests of most every individual of each Congressional District was represented in Congress.

When the Senator or Representative in Congress voted on a Bill he was voting exactly how the vast majority of his constituents would vote if they themselves were the person in Congress voting.

Today, due to the immense population growth, the interests of the people in every state as well as the majority of congressional districts are so diverse and in great degree opposite one another that it is impossible for two Senators and one Representative to represent the interests of a large percentage of their constituents and sometimes they don’t even represent the interests of the majority of the people of their particular states or districts.

In 1792 there was one Representative for every  33,000 persons.

In 1811 there was one Representative for every  42,613 persons.

In 1911 there was one Representative for every 238,230 persons.

In 2014 there was one Representative for every 733,333 persons.

One person cannot represent the widely varied interests of 733,333 persons.

For all intensive purposes, every given day close to 50% of the people of America are not represented in Congress.

There will be no Republican candidate running for Barbara Boxers’ California Senate seat this year.  There has not been one Republican Senator representing California’s Republicans in over 24 years, not since John F. Seymour.  Including Boxer’s Senate seat this year that tally increases to 30 years.  In 2013 there were 5.2 million registered Republicans in California, that’s approximately 5 million people who have not had representation in the Senate for 24 years.

If the person[s] elected to office from your Congressional District consistently and persistently vote against your interests year in and year out then you are not represented in Congress.  And that is the case for many Congressional Districts across the nation.

In the 2008 Minnesota Senate Race:

Democrat Al Franken received 1,212,629 votes 41.99%

Republican Norm Coleman received 1,212,317 votes 41.98%

Independent Dean Barkley received 437,505 votes, 15.15%

Franken beat Coleman by .01%, 312 votes out of  2,862,451 votes cast.

To put that in perspective:

1,649,822 Minnesotans voted against Franken and

1,212,629 Minnesotans voted for Franken.

For six years 57.13%, the majority of voting Minnesotans’ interests were not represented in the Senate

Most election results are not as extreme however this example illustrates the blatant problem with the current election process inherent in every state and district.

In the 2008 election for Senator of South Carolina :

Republican Graham received 1,076,534 votes and 58% of the votes cast.

Democrat Conly received 790,621 votes and 42% of the the votes cast.

For six years 790,000 South Carolina Democrats will not be represented by a Senator in the government.  That’s not Democracy nor a Republic.

Notable columnist Charley Reese penned a poetic farewell article titled, 545 people are responsible for the mess, but they unite in a common con,” 545 PEOPLE Vs 300 million” in which he points out the failures of Congress and that the solution is for the people to vote them out of office.

There is one major flaw with that logic, we could vote every Senator and Representative out of office but each and every one would be replaced by someone no better and possibly worse for what Mr. Reese fails to see is that it is impossible to eliminate the stranglehold that the special interest groups have over the 435 seats in Congress, the 100 seats in the Senate, the 9 seats on the Supreme Court bench and the 1 seat in the White House.

How did these special interest groups commandeer Congress in order to monopolize public policy; they did it by changing the Constitution without ever legally amending the Constitution.

In 1911 Congress enacted Public Law 62-5 which limited the number of Representatives to 435 and thereby destroyed the Republican and Democratic form of government the Founding Fathers envisioned and framed into the Constitution.  This law was cemented into existence with the Reapportionment Act of 1929.

Article IV Section 4 of the Constitution states:

“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government…

A Republican government is one in which a group of People with shared interests andconstitution 1 needs appoint one person from among the group to represent and advocate for all of the others members of the group in the government’s system.

Article I Section 2 of the Constitution states: “Representatives…shall be apportioned among the states…according to their respective numbers….”   “The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand.”

In 1792 President George Washington signed into law the “Apportionment Act of 1792” which set the number of Representatives at the ratio of 1 for every 33,000 persons in the respective states.”

In The Federalist, No. 57, James Madison wrote,

“The house of representatives … can make no law which will not have its full operation on themselves and their friends, as well as the great mass of society. This has always been deemed one of the strongest bonds by which human policy can connect the rulers and the people together. It creates between them that communion of interest, and sympathy of sentiments, of which few governments have furnished examples; but without which every government degenerates into tyranny.”

Elsewhere in the Federalist letter:

“The members of the legislative department … are numerous. They are distributed and dwell among the people at large. Their connections of blood, of friendship, and of acquaintance embrace a great proportion of the most influential part of the society…. They are more immediately the confidential guardians of their rights and liberties.”

The intent of the authors of the Constitution is clear in that they determined for there to be a high percentage of representatives per citizen.

“A pure democracy is a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person.”  John Adams

Public Law 62-5 violates Article IV Section 4 and Article I Section 2 of the Constitution eviscerating the representative form of government that was created.

Question: would the majority of the founding fathers look upon the present American government and its excessive power, taxation, corruption and lack of representation and approve of it or disapprove of it?

The answer is self-evident in the response given by Americans today.

90% of Americans give Congress a negative rating.

60% of Americans give the President a negative rating.

67% of Americans say the country is on the wrong track.

Both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, the two candidates that have been provided to the people to elect for president, have record high disapproval ratings.

This is nothing new; the majority of Americans’ approval rating of Congress has been negative for decades.

The only way to restore representation in Congress and eliminate the power that lobbyists and special interest groups hold over American politicians is to repeal Public Law 62-5 and the Reapportionment Act of 1929 and reenact proportional, Republican representation pursuant to Article IV Section 4 and Article I Section 2 of the Constitution.

The problem is the only people who can repeal these laws are the ones currently residing on Capitol Hill and they have absolutely no incentive to reduce the power they possess by sharing it with more American citizens which in and of itself reveals that they are not true Americans of and by and for the People for true Americans would do anything to increase democracy, to increase representation in government; not decrease democracy,  not eliminate representation in government as our Congress has done by enacting and perpetuating Public Law 62-5.

Just as the British Parliament once brushed off the Colonists’ grievance with “virtual representation” so too do today’s U.S. Congress toward the American people.  The lack of representation in government that existed in 1776 exists today.

Ponder this while you partake of this Independence Day’s festivities:

The National Debt is $19,338,225,000 and rising $1.68 million every minute.

A child born, today, on the 4th of July 2016 owes the U.S. government $59,977.74.

That is not liberty; that is perpetual servitude.

This is what happens when there is taxation without representation.  Do you think that if there were 1 Representative per every 30,000 citizens we would have a $19 trillion debt?  Do you believe that lobbyists and deep pocket special interest groups could dictate public policy if Congress was saturated with thousands of Representatives?

Contrary to Charley Reese’s assertion, we cannot vote out 435 seats of Congress but we can create 10,000 more seats if we so choose.  We’ve been riding this vehicle for 240 years perhaps it’s time to put in a new and more powerful engine.

Donald Trump wants to “Make America Great Again.”  Well here is a way to do it, if he is up to sharing the power of the government with more citizens.

A few more stats:

In the 2012 Congressional Election:

Democrat Julia Brownley received 52% of the vote

Republican Tony Strickland received 48% of the vote.

So 48% of the voters in the 26th District of California were NOT represented in Congress for at least 2 years.

That is not a Republican form of government.

Democrat Daniel Val Demings received 48.2% of the vote

Republican Daniel Webster received 51.8% of the vote.

So 48.2% of the voters in the 10th District of Florida were NOT represented in Congress for at least 2 years.

That is not a Republican form of government.

Democrat Sean Patrick Maloney received 51.7% of the vote

Republican Nan Hayworth received 48.3% of the vote.

So 48.2% of the voters in the 18th District of New York were NOT represented in Congress for at least 2 years.

That is not a Republican form of government.

America’s Democratic-Republic

Here we go again, another election cycle yet its the same ol’ song and dance.  Like any typical job applicant the Presidential candidates are telling the American people what they want to hear in order to get elected knowing full well that the promises they are making will never come to fruition.  Four years ago the candidates were saying the same things they said eight years ago which are the same things being repeated today and will be stated again four and eight years from now.

One thing we can count on is the choice for President has already been predetermined by those who control the Democratic and Republican parties. They throw in a dash of Bernie and some spice of Trump to deceive the people into believing that anyone can be elected but the fact is the two parties’ leaders decide who gets funding; who gets public exposure; who gets placed on primaries and into the conventions.

Once elected to office the President, like all Senators and Representatives, is beholden to his/her respective party leaders.  The party leaders are beholden to special interest groups comprised of a small minority of the people dictating to Congress what legislation will be enacted and what laws will not.

From this point on the left attacks the right and the right attacks the left but its all for show with the result ineffective and harmful policies.  Both parties fill the air waves with biased and incomplete information in order to secure public support for their legislative proposals rendering the masses dazed and confused as to what to do or worse, misled into supporting public policy that is harmful to their own interests.

Charley Reese was a nationally respected, syndicated columnist known for his plainspoken manner and conservative views.  His last article for the Orlando Sentinel in 2001 was titled: “545 v. 300,000,000 People” or “The 545 PEOPLE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL OF AMERICA’S WOES.”


Mr. Reese very amusingly describes the manner in which America’s elected officials have run America into the ground. His solution, “vote them out of office,” is not nearly as insightful as his ability of identifying the problem.  What Mr. Reese failed to ascertain is the U.S. system of government coupled with electoral process prevents the people from voting out the ineffective and corrupt alike for in reality the system has only two representatives, that being Ms. Democrat and Mr. Republican.

pres cand There are many faces to these two politicians but every two, four and six years that is all the people are provided to select from to represent their interests when neither truly does.  Like the strong men in the middle east, if you remove one you get three, four or five more that are worse than the one before.

The current system is structured to prevent citizens from electing fellow citizens who are capable and willing to represent their citizens’ interests. And even if such Representatives were to be elected the system’s hierarchy coerces said Representatives into the party line even if that means going against their own constituents’ interests.

Article IV Section 4 of the Constitution states:
“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government…”

A Republican government is one in which a group of People with shared interests and needs appoint one person from among the group to represent and advocate for all of the others members of the group in the government’s system.

Article I Section 2 of the Constitution states:  “Representatives…shall be apportioned among the states…according to their respective numbers….” “The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand.”

In 1792 President George Washington signed into law the Apportionment Act of 1792” which set the number of Representatives at the ratio of 1 for every 33,000 persons in the respective states.”

Washington vetoed a prior version of the Bill stating that, “there is no one proportion or divisor which, applied to the respective numbers of the States will yield the number and allotment of representatives proposed by the Bill,” and thereby violated the Constitution.

In 1911 Congress enacted Public Law 62-5 that fixed the number of Representatives at 435 effectively eliminating the Representative form of government that was created 120 years earlier contradicting the founding fathers’ Constitutional precept on how and how many Representatives should be elected.

In 1792 there was one Representative for every  33,000 persons.
In 1811 there was one Representative for every  42,613 persons.
In 1911 there was one Representative for every 238,230 persons.
In 2014 there was one Representative for every 733,333 persons.

One Representative cannot possibly serve the widely varied interests of all 733,333 persons.

According to the latest Rasmussen Reports:
1)     “Just 26% of voters think their own representative is the best possible person for the job which is the highest finding since March 2011”;
2)     “65%  of voters think it’s because the election rules are rigged to benefit incumbents.”;
3)     “Fifty-nine percent (59%) of all voters think most members of Congress are willing to sell their vote for either cash or a campaign contribution”;
4)     (9%) of Likely U.S. Voters think Congress is doing a good or excellent job overall, while 63% rate the current Congress poorly.”

According to Gallup’s Polls:
In 2010 83% of Americans disapproved of the job Congress was doing.
In 2012 86% of Americans disapproved of the job Congress was doing.
In 2015 83% of Americans disapproved of the job Congress was doing.
(Note: yearly highs)

Will electing new candidates to office rectify the inability of Congress to do a good job and improve America in the future?

If not then some other remedy should be implemented in order to effect true representation.  Perhaps it’s time to repeal Public Law 62-5 and implement the founding fathers’ Apportionment Act of 1792 increasing the number of Representatives to 1 for every 33,000 persons.

Where is the candidate who wants to increase democracy, representation in government and the Republican form of government instituted in the Constitution?  That would be the truest public servant and most legitimate candidate.

 “If, then, the control of the people over the organs of their government be the measure of its republicanism, and I confess I know no other measure, it must be agreed that our governments have much less of republicanism than ought to have been expected; in other words, that the people have less regular control over their agents, than their rights and their interests require.”  Thomas Jefferson

Open Challenge to Donald Trump

donald 3I challenge Donald Trump to fight ISIS for 30 days.

“Claiming that the Islamic State is competing with his wealth, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump said he will ‘bomb the hell’ out of the extremist group if elected to the White House in November 2016.”

“Nobody would be tougher on ISIS than Donald Trump. Nobody,” said Presidential candidate Donald Trump.

“I’ve been dealing with politicians all my life. They are all talk, no action,” Trump said.  “Never going to get done. They’re controlled by the lobbyists, they’re controlled by donors, and they’re controlled by special interests.”

Mr. Trump, “put your money where your mouth is.”

I challenge Donald Trump to go to the Middle East to fight ISIS for 30 days and to engage the enemy in a minimum of 10 fire fights during those 30 days.  Should he accept my challenge I will join him.  Furthermore I will find ten illegal immigrants willing to fight along side Trump and myself for freedom and security.

Ten illegal immigrants willing to put their lives on the line for freedom, prosperity and America. “Mr. Trump are you willing to put your life on the line for freedom, prosperity and America Mr. Trump or do you want the poor sons and daughters of Appalachia and inner city neighborhoods to put their lives on the line in order to increase your profit margin?”

Mr. Trump is 69 years old.  By all appearances he has lived an extremely prosperous and enjoyable life.  Why should an 18 or 20 year old who has not had the opportunity to reap the rewards of American freedom give up his/her life just so Trump can enjoy another 10 to 30 years of hedonistic living?

donald 1Furthermore, it appears that Trump dodged the Vietnam war through a medical deferment that topped off several student deferments.  Trump was an athlete who loves the military, surely the army could have stuck him in a helicopter as a door gunner.

Mr. Trump called Ms. Universe a hypocrite for keeping her crown in response to her disdain over his uninformed remarks regarding illegal immigrants.  Mr. Trump is on record wanting to put young American men and women’s lives on line by attacking ISIS in order to protect his wealth.  He is willing to sacrifice the lives of 18 and 20 year-olds so that he can continue to enjoy the pleasures of his wealth and the freedom and security which provides his ability to obtain that wealth.

Trump calls Miss Universe Paulina Vega a hypocrite “Miss Universe, Paulina Vega, criticized me for telling the truth about illegal immigration, but then said she would keep the crown-Hypocrite,” he wrote on Twitter Sunday.



First Mr. Trump blames Mexico for the loss of American jobs to Mexico and then he claims that illegal immigration from Mexico is destroying America with crime and drugs.

Trump opines, “They’re, (immigrants),”They’re bringing drugs, bringing crime; they’re rapists and some I assume are good people.”  “They’re (Mexico’s government) sending us not the right people.”  “The Mexican Government is forcing their most unwanted people into the United States.”  “They are, in many cases, criminals, drug dealers, rapists, etc.”

First off Mexico can only take that which America allows it to take.  American economic policies that stripped American workers of their power is what sent jobs to Mexico all in order to lower American corporations’ labor costs.  the failure of NAFTA and GATT to raise worker’s incomes and quality of life in the United States and other countries has been a colossal failure.

According to Pew Research there were 11.2 million unauthorized immigrants in the U.S. in 2012 5.9 million of whom were from Mexico.  Of that 11.2 million 8.1 million were working or looking for work in the U.S. labor force.  Given that a good percentage of the 3.1 million not looking for work are children a person must conclude that the vast majority of illegal immigrants are law abiding citizens.

At its core, Mr. Trump’s statement about illegal immigrants is false and therefore misleading.  Mr. Trump blatantly ignores decades of U.S. foreign, economic and drug policies as being the true cause of the cancers that are eating away the American dream for most.

“Harvest of Empire,” is a book and video documentary that examines the direct correlation between the exodus of people from Latin American countries to the United States and the U.S.’s direct intervention in those countries that has brought about that exodus.

The jobs that American corporations could not and cannot outsource to cheaper labor regions they have decreased costs by importing an over supply of labor to decrease labor costs and thereby increasing profits for the owners at the expense of workers here and abroad.

The net effect of these policies has been the loss of the living wage for the average U.S., Mexican and Latin American citizens resulting in the the widest income and wealth gap between CEOs/wealthy and workers/poor since 1928.

Awash in workers, employers have been able to rid themselves of the collective bargaining power that unions provided which not only raised compensation for their own members but those workers who worked at non-union jobs due to non-union employers being forced to compete with union compensation packages.  In the town that I live in there is a chain of a national retailer that has about a thirty to fifty percent turn-over of its work force every year.  How can it turn over the majority of its work force every two to three years?  It can because workers have absolutely zero power to negotiate with the owners for better, for living-wage compensation.

According to the Economic Policy Institute had the federal minimum wage kept pace with productivity as it relates to inflation over the last forty years it would have been $18.67 in 2013 and $18.97 or more today.  Had the median income kept pace with inflation over the last forty years it would be $28.87 today instead of the actual $16.56.

The bottom line is that workers are being paid half of what they were being paid in 1968 for producing the same amount of work.  Many Democratic and Republican businessmen/women and corporations have reaped the fruit of other people’s labor and therefor have an incentive to maintain the current status quo.

Democrats want to fix the problems by increasing the minimum wage and providing social services.  Republicans will correct the deficiencies by erecting a wall and enacting the Trans Pacific Partnership, TPP, economic policy.  Social services are nothing more than a double drain sucking money out of the economy and raising the minimum wage will have little lasting effect as those labor costs are summarily passed on to necessity costs, (housing, food transportation and medical), of the very workers who received the income increase.  As Bill O’Reilly has pointed out, a wall along the southern border will not keep out all of the illegal immigrants, most likely just the good ones, and the TPP will be another significant blow to workers bearing the fruit of their labor here in the Americas and the other half of the world around the Pacific.

It’s not that there are too many immigrants in the United States, it’s that the U.S. economic policy is built to ensure that there are more workers than living wage jobs.  Whoever has the courage to write an economic policy that ensures that every U.S. worker receives a living wage in the town and city they live then it wouldn’t matter if there were only 100 illegal immigrants in the U.S.  If someone had the courage to write up a living wage economic policy then the U.S. could actually absorb another 90 million immigrants and if someone doesn’t do this soon the U.S. will be supplanted by China as the world’s leader in GDP.

Bill O’Reilly said the United States’ major supplier of illegal drugs is from drug cartels in Mexico.  “So Trump is correct in saying that only a massive wall will stop the chaos and even then drugs and people will get through although not to the extent they do now,” O’Reilly explained.

Well Bill there wouldn’t be a supplier if there wasn’t a customer.  If the United States wasn’t demanding illicit drugs then there would be no Mexican drug cartels providing those drugs and therefore there wouldn’t be much of the violent and secondary crimes associated with drug cartels and gangs in Mexico and here in the U.S.  And I am not the one who says this, some of the United States’ and the world’s most distinguished law enforcement personnel, LAW ENFORCEMENT AGAINST PROHIBITION, LEAP, are the ones saying this.

With a stroke of a pen POTUS could legalize marijuana and decriminalize all other illicit drugs and thereby eliminate the drug cartels and all of their killings over night.  Drug users and addicts would be treated as if they strictly they had a medical problem, addiction, removing them from the severely over crowded and expensive justice system.  According to 1.5 million people were arrested for non-violent drug offenses 609,423 of whom were for marijuana possession.  The U.S. spends $51,000,000,000 a year on the drug war that the U.S. has lost.  Why keep throwing that money away and the lives of the innocents in the process?  Your own people are the ones saying it, not me.

According to LEAP there have been more than 39 million arrests for nonviolent drug offenses in the last 40 years. Those incarcerated over a 20-year period quadrupled so that now more than 2.3 million US citizens are in prison or jail. The US spends 70 billion dollars a year on incarcerating 22.5 percent of the entire world’s prisoners even though the U.S. only has 4.6 percent of the world’s population.  LEAP has concluded that not one U.S. drug policy goal of lowering crime, addiction, drug availability or juvenile drug use has been achieved over the last 40 years, but rather the drug war has exacerbated all of the problems associated with drug use. Drugs are cheaper, more potent and more accessible to adults and juveniles then what they were 40 years ago. Powerful drug cartels and inner city gangs are created due to the illegality of the drug trade which is beyond authorities’ supervision because it is not regulated. These cartels and gangs perpetrate all kinds of violent crimes against each other as well as innocent bystanders to maintain control over regions and aspects of the black market. Most of these unnecessary secondary crimes would disappear if drugs were legalized and regulated reducing the incidents of addiction in the process.

A new study, “The Criminalization of Immigration in the United States” released by the American Immigration Policy Center found that:
foreign born people are much less likely to commit crime than native born residents;
each successive generation becomes more likely to commit crimes;
foreign born people make up 17 percent of the prison population  yet are approximately 35 percent of California’s total adult population.

Lead researcher, Walter Ewing, concluded that immigrants, (legal or illegal), “is a group motivated to not get in trouble with the law and blow it all,” he said.

Despite the facts that contradict Trump, other anti-immigrant activists and politicians who justify their get tough on immigrants because they are dangerous criminals and steal Americans’ jobs by relying upon unsubstantiated information and the over sensationalism of uncommon events they are able to mislead the masses by repeating these fallacies over and over rather than address the true causes to the ailments of American society.

Those who hold to restrictive immigration policies because immigrants are stealing American jobs are often times the same people who are “pro-life” regarding abortion.

According to the “National Right to Life” organization there have been over 57 million abortions performed in the United States since 1973.

According to the United States Census Bureau there were approximately 54.5 million Hispanic or Latino people living in the United States in 2014 making up 17.1 percent of the 318.8 million total population.  Throw in the other 12 million undocumented immigrants and you have a total of 66.5 million Latino immigrants of first to fourth generation living in the United States.

There were approximately 30 million abortions from 1973 to 1993; assuming that half of these people would have entered into a marriage and had children of their own it wouldn’t be a stretch to say that another 10 million children would have been born to these 7.5 million married couples by today’s date.  So in reality there would be 67 million more citizen residents living in the United States if zero abortions had occurred over the last 43 years.  Statistically speaking, for every aborted child in the United States an immigrant took his/her place, no more no less.  The question I pose to those who claim that immigrants are stealing American jobs, “if there were zero immigration to the United States from Mexico and Latin America over the last 43 years and zero abortions over that same time period would you be blaming the 67 million un-aborted fetuses for taking your jobs and committing crime, or would you blame the failed economic, justice and drug policies instituted by the politicians whom you elected to office and who are running for office once again behind the facade of a different name and a different suit?”

It’s your move Donald.