CPT Predictions Ten Years Ago - The People's Agenda for Change - Part 2

Over ten years ago I wrote the following article pointing out what was wrong in America.  At the time Hillary was leading Obama in the polls for the 2008 Presidential election.  Little has changed since.  Part 2 follows this story.  What do you think?


On January 31, 2008 the following article was published in the Coltons Point Times.

“WE THE PEOPLE!”

Part 2 – What are the targets for change?
1. Money Mongers of the Financial Institutions
2. Mortgage Lenders – Vampires of the Golden Dream
3. Credit Card Industry Standards, Fees and Collection Methods
4. Health Care Industry Cost, Insurance and Unnecessary Treatment
5. Pharmaceutical Industry Proliferation of Prescription Drugs
6. FDA (Food and Drug Administration) Drug Approval Process
7. Agriculture – Food Testing, Ingredients and Source
8. Campaign Reform – Empty Promises and Empty Wallets
9. Immigration Reform – The Slumbering Social Issue of the Day
10. Government Permits and Inspections – Protection or Payoffs

So there you have it, a concise list of the ten institutional bureaucracies that must be addressed by our candidates for president if those candidates truly want to be the flag bearers for change. Now a more detailed description of the targets follows but I want you to know what you are in for up front.

When you hear why they are on the list just ask yourself what my favorite candidate for president has had to say about these issues that wreak havoc on the public every day. For you see these thorny targets also represent some of the largest financial contributors to our candidates for change and the political parties of America.

So maybe when questioning the presidential candidates we should ask a series of qualifying questions. Do you want change? Do you take money from these special interest groups? Can you stand up to them and their financial power? How are you going to persuade the other members of congress to support you?

In politics promises are cheap, promises most often are forgotten after the election and careers can be cut short when promises threaten the golden goose that feeds off the unsuspecting public. What does that mean? It means we the people are the cash cow and the special interest groups are the beneficiary of decades of conflicts of interest, bribes and payoffs, greed and immorality and the hijacking of our political system.

Truth is it is hard to believe any candidate means what they say about change. They are all players to some degree or another of our political system or they would not be candidates. They are all dependent on millions and millions of dollars in contributions in order to play in the game. They all hire the same old staff members that have mastered the game of inside politics. And if they do mean what they say, well the odds of being able to deliver are about as good as us bringing peace to the Middle East.

Still, as an eternal optimist when it comes to public service I can only hope there are people out there who have not been compromised, who are sincere, who can withstand the temptations of the golden goose, and who will lead us in the direction of real change before it is too late. Now let us turn our attention to the targets for change in America and see if you don’t agree.

1. Money Mongers of the Financial Institutions

Who are these people and what threat do they represent? Well, the intricate web of interlocking ownership, access to media, control of pricing in stocks, currency, commodities and bonds, and insulation from scrutiny probably make this the single most powerful force on Earth, capable of controlling governments and destroying opposition without ever getting their own hands dirty. You see they are invisible to the general public.

While flying the banner of capitalism they are the masters of deceit as the last thing they want is open competition, public scrutiny, social justice or power to the people. Their’s is a world of opportunity, the opportunity to take what other people have regardless of the consequences in order to consolidate power, maximize control, accumulate wealth and squeeze every last bloody cent of profit from everyone else.

Does it sound extreme, only because it is extreme? Sound like a sinister plot to gain control of the world? They don’t need to gain what they have already got. Their mission is not to lose it. While we wave our flag of democracy and freedom and every generation or so Americans rise up and take on new challenges, they have been quietly working behind the scenes for centuries, yes centuries, to achieve their goals.

Enough pontificating. Financial institutions control the world simply put and they do not serve the world in the process, as serving is not a good return on investment. They set up mutual funds to consolidate investment power and get government to create more sources of funds and turn them over to the financiers to manage such as pension funds, 401K funds, IRAs and many others.

They create financial “experts” to tell us what is happening to our investment markets and how to invest what money we do control completely ignoring the conflicts of interest when the greatest beneficiaries of the advice are the market makers, the very financial institutions whose experts are giving supposedly objective market advice.

What does that mean? The media takes the advice of industry experts and tells us the price of oil is going up because of the potential for a hurricane in the gulf that may or may not disrupt supply lines and drilling operations. A suicide bombing in Iraq shows that the crude oil supply from that country is not stable so a shortage of future oil may result if a bombing of the oil pipelines is successful. Cold weather in American means there will be a shortage of heating oil no matter that there are sufficient inventories already in the country. So the price of oil goes up, and up and up.

Who benefits? The owners of the crude oil, the companies that pay them for the crude, the banks that finance the companies, the stockholders that own shares of the companies, the IRAs, 401Ks, pension funds and mutual funds that pump money into the companies, the companies selling and buying their stocks, or the companies setting market prices? Guess what, all of them could be part of the financial institutions benefiting from the market manipulations caused by the speculative reports on the industry by the media.

Where I come from that is a gross conflict of interest. Financial institutions can make money buying and selling stock with other people’s money, mutual funds, and retirement funds whether the stock goes up or down in value. They still get their commission. If they own stock in the companies, in the commodities market or in the banks financing the markets they also benefit.

So why does the Federal Trade Commission and Securities and Exchange Commission let them do this? The FTC and SEC are supposed to be our government watchdogs protecting the public from unscrupulous financial manipulators.

For two years the same financial sector was behind the unethical, immoral and often-illegal manipulation of the sub-prime mortgage markets as well which nearly sent the USA into recession and certainly left millions of homeowners in foreclosure. Where were the federal regulators?

How these people got away with it was tragic yet amazing to watch, and the fact they were rewarded for their disastrous actions is astounding since the same institutions were able to write off billions of dollars in losses on their own taxes, thus benefiting from the fees, the commissions, the collections and the tax write offs leaving the consumer high, dry and broke.

So candidates, what are you going to do to stop this? What are your plans to reform and better regulate the financial institutions? How can you stop the media from glamorizing industry experts whose employers directly benefit from their words of wisdom? How can you break up the inter-locking ownership inherent in the world? How can you protect he retirement nest eggs of the public that are being sucked dry by the money managers?

2. Mortgage Lenders – Vampires of the Golden Dream

Even though mortgage lenders can be owned, controlled or manipulated by the financial sector and banking institutions they are often set up independently until they finish preying on an unsuspecting public, having got caught using questionable practices (sub-prime loans for example), using heavy handed tactics, misleading consumers and initiating mortgage foreclosures.

When this happens the lenders now approaching bankruptcy get bought out by the financial and banking sectors that are seeking to acquire real estate property at far below the loan value. So losses are written off, property is acquired far below the loan value, new mortgages are written to resell or refinance the property, a few million people lose their homes due to foreclosures, and the financial institutions now have a new division with secure assets and credit worthy clients.

Of course we then lose sight of the fact illegal mortgages and unethical selling practices caused the bail out cycle to take place. Or that mortgage lenders, sales people, lawyers and credit rating firms were all players in this billion-dollar scam. That closing fees, collection fees and late fees have made someone millions of dollars at the expense of the hapless homeowners.

Then there is the question of the post mortgage market. I mean how many people know who really holds their mortgage as it can be sold over and over to spread the risk, enable firms to dissolve to avoid liability, or a variety of other reasons. You can get a mortgage from a bank only to discover the mortgage was sold to a bankrupt lender.

Finally even the government backed mortgage programs like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, (what great names for federal backed mortgage players), not to mention the long list of programs such as VA, Indian, Rural, Low Income and other federal mortgage and housing programs must be ever more vigilant to root out corruption, contract fixing, slipshod construction and repair work, inefficient heating and utilities and other problems that beset our federal and state housing efforts.

So again we ask what are the presidential candidates saying about how they will change these institutional bureaucracies to serve the people? What is the new agenda to protect people and tax funds from these vampires? How will they be regulated, prosecuted and punished for any violations of the public trust?



3. Credit Card Industry Standards, Fees and Collection Methods
Now this is an area of regulatory meltdown and benign neglect involving federal and state agencies ranging from the FTC to Congress, from the SEC to Justice Department. There is a body of law at both the state and federal levels that regulates these practices but no one seems to pay attention.

The issuance of credit cards through the mail and Internet and the proliferation of offers from credit card companies are astounding. The never-ending changes in interest rates charged, the justification for such changes, the explanation of such practices and the downright deception in consumer information is appalling and predatory.

It is a wonder the nation is not drowning in credit card interest and collection activity with the elderly and youth being most likely to succumb to the offers that are too good to pass up. Fees change constantly for ATM charges, handling, processing, vendor, fraud, security, and any other excuse to stick it to the consumer.

Credit rating companies feed information to credit card companies and collection companies making the whole business of debt collection a financial windfall to lawyers, collection agencies, process servers and even the courts. Lies regarding the rights of the cardholder are overwhelming to most people, threatening to them and their credit, and fraught with heavy-handed tactics.

Simply stated there is no protection for people from getting the cards, understanding the changing fees, and especially getting caught in the late payment and collection process. Debts are written off yet collection efforts go full steam. When debts should be forgiven efforts are still made to scare the consumers into making payments. The credit collection industry is about as close as we come to the Gestapo in this country and the politicians are silent.

There is minimum at best consumer protection and maximum effort to throw the consumer to the dogs. State and federal laws can regulate the methods for offering cards, the message explaining the “wonderful” opportunity, the interest, and the fees, even the ways and means of collection.

If we allow a credit card company to write off the bad debt, then why is the collection industry pursuing the poor consumer with no money? Why are the bad debts written off years before the debt is forgiven to the consumer? If the credit card company realizes a tax deduction for bad debt, why are collectors threatening the consumer long after?

If credit card companies contract out for collection to private businesses, are those private businesses subject to government regulation meant for the credit card companies? If the USA is drowning in debt it is because the card companies and all those companies making money off the card companies are driven by greed.

There are many opportunities for the candidates to help the consumers in this area and it does not even require spending much money, just developing and enforcing meaningful legislation and regulations to truly control the sharks. So once again we ask where are the proposals for change from the candidates?


4. Health Care Industry Cost, Insurance and Unnecessary Treatment
Just look at the facts and there is no doubt this system is broken. In 2006 we spent $2.1 trillion on health care, over $7,026 for every person in the USA, and it took over 16% of our Gross Domestic Product. That is 4.3 times more money than we spent on defense. The cost of health care increases at more than double the inflation rate annually.

At 16% of GDP we have the highest health care costs of any developed nation with the next highest being Switzerland 10.9%, Germany 10.7%, Canada 9.7% and France 9.5%. Americans spent one third more on health care than any of these nations, and while 50 million Americans do not have health insurance all of the citizens in the other nations mentioned receive health care. At our current pace we will be spending $4 trillion on health care in just 7 years, by 2015.

With the war in Iraq one might expect the cost of health care for veterans to be substantial as treatment in the war zone is far improved from earlier wars and for every death of a soldier there are 9 wounded soldiers that return home. Yet the cost of veteran’s health care drops to $5,000 per person, $2,000 less per year than civilians.

What is causing these statistical aberrations? Are we much sicker than citizens of the other nations? Is there a greater medical risk to civilians in America than our soldiers in Iraq? Why are 50 million Americans uninsured when all of the citizens of other nations receive health care?

According to the latest statistics employer paid health insurance premiums in the USA were $11,500 for families and about $4,200 for individuals. That means annual health insurance premiums account for a substantial portion of health care costs. Something is very wrong with the system.

Doctors take payoffs from drug companies to promote treatments. Doctor’s own clinics that need to keep billing patients to make money. Hospitals need patients to pay the bills and keep the beds full. In the end, some estimates say 25% of all health care treatment is unnecessary and serves to generate money for clinics, doctors and hospitals and not cures for the patients.

Alternative medicines are blocked throughout the nation as they represent a major loss of revenue for traditional medicine. Most of the use of alternative and holistic treatment is not covered by insurance because it would mean a huge loss in revenue to traditional medicine. CAT scans, MRIs and many other very expensive tests are done without justification in order to generate billings.

Deaths from malpractice and the wrong drugs or drug overdoses can be as high as natural deaths in some medical facilities. Yet the medical money machine goes on and on at higher and higher costs with little effort to bring about meaningful reform.

So what is the average educational debt for new doctors coming into the market? According to the Association of American Medical Colleges, the average educational debt of indebted graduates of the class of 2006 (including pre-med borrowing) is $130,571. The average debt of graduating medical students increased in 2006 by 8.5 percent over the previous year. 72 percent of graduates have debt of at least $100,000. 86.6 percent of graduating medical students carry outstanding loans. 40.2 percent of 2006 graduates have non-educational debt, averaging $16,689. Source: AAMC 2006 Graduation Questionnaires.

So how much do they make when they graduate? Cardiologists were the most sought-after specialists last year, fetching salaries ranging from $234,000 to $525,000 and averaging $320,000 a year, according to surveys. Close behind cardiologists are radiologists and orthopedic surgeons. Other prime areas where salaries are among the highest in medicine include ophthalmology, anesthesiology, and dermatology. Salaries for some of these specialties range from about $250,000 to more than $600,000, never mind the lucrative signing bonuses, income guarantees, and vacation packages that can be counted in months, not weeks.

But you don't need an M.D. after your name for the offers to come in. Pharmacists, physician assistants, physical and occupational therapists, audiologists, nurse practitioners, and other advanced-practice nurses are all in demand, with a master's degree as a certified registered nurse anesthetist generating salary offers ranging from about $100,000 to $160,000.

How are the candidates going to address the many changes needed in health care costs, stop the unnecessary treatments, and allow for the alternative methods to be embraced? Is there a better way to manage student loans and loan repayment? What insurance reforms are needed to make the USA competitive with other developed nations in terms of health care costs? How can we stop malpractice and false billing against insurance companies?

5. Pharmaceutical Industry Proliferation of Prescription Drugs
This can be short and sweet. In 2002 we spent $162 billion on prescription drugs and in 2006 we spent $217 billion on prescription drugs. One out of every five Americans takes 5 or more prescriptions per day. All Americans average 2.9 prescriptions per day. Our senior citizens, who are increasing very rapidly with the aging of the Baby Boomers, averaged $559 for prescriptions in 1992, $1,205 for prescriptions in 2000, and $1,912 in 2005 with spending expected to reach $2,805 in 2010.

Every day it seems the health authorities announce yet another prescription drug that does not work, or whose long-term effects are determined to be more dangerous than expected. Yet every day it seems there are new prescriptions for new diseases. We live longer but spend far more. Kids are over-prescribed with Ritalin and other drugs. They are addicted to drugs they don’t even take raiding medicine cabinets for the new drug culture.

What will the candidates do to stop this nonsense? How will they reign in the drug companies to stop making false advertising claims? Will they call for truth in advertising, documentation for claims, clinical trials when needed, and a stop to the practice of over-prescribing drugs across the board?

6. FDA (Food and Drug Administration) Drug Approval Process
If drug prices in America have been rising almost five times as fast as inflation then the FDA must assume some of the responsibility as they are the regulatory agency charged with overseeing the over-the-counter and prescription drugs so abundant in our society.

The FDA new drug approval process with layers of clinical animal and human trials is the most costly, most lengthy and often most bizarre in terms of protocols and criteria for approval in the world. It is a process designed for the benefit of wealthy pharmaceutical companies, not for the small and independent research companies and laboratories.

Drug companies say it takes up to $500 million to bring a new drug through the FDA approval process. Small companies can do the same thing for about $10-25 million. Most small companies have to raise the money as they go through the process and will give up a major ownership position in their own company to afford the FDA process.

Major pharmaceutical firms have managed to negotiate with FDA for new drug approval even if the drug extends the life expectancy of the patient by just 30 days. Yet when these products are sold to the public no one seems to mention they might only be good for 30 days at a cost of thousands of dollars. Human clinical trials take place to see if there are any adverse reactions to the drugs. When you hear all the disclaimers in the ads for the approved drugs you wonder how they could ever get approval.

Things have gotten so ridiculous in the approval process that television ads for the drug Celebrex contain so many warnings of side effects and drug interactions that the ad actually states “the FDA says the benefits may outweigh the risks” when taking it. Are they crazy? It might be safe to take it?

Human trials approved by FDA require a protocol where half of the patients are given a placebo rather than the drug so results taking the drug can be measured against a control group not taking the drug. Not a bad practice unless the drug is experimental and the disease is going to kill the patient.

For example, stage 3 cancer patients have weeks or months to live. At stage 3 any normal and extremely expensive treatment like chemo, radiation or surgery has already failed. When they are offered a chance to participate in an experiment that might save their life and the option is certain death you might think they would jump at the chance, but that is not the case.

Why would they sign up when only half the people will even receive the treatment, with the other half getting meaningless placebos? If they are in the half that gets the candy and not the drug they die. If they get the drug there is a chance they might live. When you are facing death there should not be a 50-50 chance you won’t get the treatment.

Other problems with the industry include their price gouging, opposition to generic drugs selling for much less, opposition to foreign drugs also selling for much less, payments to doctors for prescribing their drugs, and unsubstantiated claims regarding over-the-counter drugs like cough syrup which has been proven to do no good.

Where do the candidates stand on the issues raised about the FDA and drug regulatory and approval process? How will they change the system to make it more responsive to patients, less costly for companies, and more beneficial for the public? How will false claims be dealt with and stopped?


7. Agriculture – Food Testing, Ingredients and Source
You go to the grocery store, check the fresh meat, see something that looks nice and red and fresh and buy it. Or maybe you buy the chicken to fry up for dinner. Then again you might buy pet food for your favorite dog or cat. Now did anyone tell you fresh meat like beef should not be red? Did they tell you color dyes and carbon monoxide are used to give the cuts of meat that color and they are injected in the butcher shop?

Did they tell you the chicken was raised in a hen house and pumped with hormones, steroids and God knows what else to fatten it up for the slaughter? Did they tell you about everything you just bought included rendered animal parts?

Did they mention rendering plants use raw product including thousands of dead dogs and cats; heads and hooves from cattle, sheep, pigs and horses; whole skunks; rats and raccoons? Did they mention the millions of maggots swarming over the carcasses? Did they tell you the carcasses would be ground up and cooked to create batches of yellow grease, meal and bone meal, and that the meat and bone meal would be used as a source of protein and other nutrients in poultry, swine and pet foods?

That the animal fat is used as an “energy source” and millions of tons will be trucked to poultry ranches, cattle feed-lots, dairy and hog farms, fish-feed plants and pet-food manufacturers where it is mixed with other ingredients to feed the billions of animals that meat-eating humans, in turn, will eat.

When you look at the ingredient label and it says the meat included protein it sounds good but is that protein from the rendered carcasses and what are the health consequences of eating a standard diet of rendered byproduct? The deadly Mad Cow disease was caused by feeding rendered products to cattle.

In food labeling what do the terms “natural” and “organic” really mean? Does that mean they were not genetically engineered? Are they free of the carbon monoxide used to make it appear fresh? Unless you grow all your food in your own garden and prepare all your meals from scratch, it's almost impossible to eat food without preservatives added.

The bottom line is we have a lot of explaining to do about food, what is in it, where it comes from, and what it will do to us over the years. So just where do the candidates stand on this critical consumer health and survival issue? What are their proposals to fix things?

8. Campaign Reform – Empty Promises and Empty Wallets

For the first time in our history the presidential campaign alone in 2008 is expected to cost over one billion dollars. Now that is a whole lot of money being spent to win a job that pays $400,000 a year and only lasts four years. One billion dollars spent to make $1,600,000. If that is the result of capitalism then we might have a problem.

Campaign reform has been talked about more and acted upon less than any other issue facing congress and the president. Political advertising costs are criminal. Some campaigns spend more money raising money than they do getting elected. Special interest groups give to candidates, give more to national political parties, more to state political parties and then spend money themselves to influence elections.

If $1 billion is spent in the race for the White House and there are 121 million votes cast like in 2004 then each vote will cost about $9 for president. When you add to that the cost for federal congressmen and senators, governors, state legislators and local races it is a pretty expensive freedom we exercise.

It can be changed if the president and congress have the guts. Paid ads can be stopped, special interest funding can be stopped, and a logical schedule for primaries can be held. Candidates can receive free media time since all the airways are government regulated. Voter registration can be increased.

There are about 226 million people eligible to vote in the USA and about 142 million are registered to vote. In 2004 about 121 million did vote for president. That means about 53% of the eligible voters participated in the last presidential election, a pretty weak total for the citadel of democracy in the world. That needs to be fixed. Require automatic voter registration with social security cards or drivers licenses if need be but get people back involved in the process. We can’t make people vote but we can make sure they have the opportunity to vote.

There is a lot the candidates can do to introduce meaningful campaign reform and the lack of proposals offered is troubling at best.


9. Immigration Reform – The Slumbering Social Issue of the Day
So far the candidates have done a masterful job of avoiding the issue of Immigration reform although before the campaign heated up they had a variety of ideas to offer. Now it seems the ideas have been taken off the table in hopes no one noticed they flip flopped on an issue.

There are a few areas of agreement. For one everyone agrees we need to strengthen border security on both the Canadian and Mexican borders. We also acknowledge that there are millions of Mexican workers illegally in the USA gainfully employed at jobs typically not wanted by Americans. What to do about them is a huge problem.

Since there is widespread opposition to any kind of amnesty program allowing them to remain without consequence perhaps a better alternative would be to allow those illegal immigrants and their families to remain with a permanent work visa if they are gainfully employed and have paid taxes in the United States.

They are here and they pay our income and sales taxes. They have cars and drivers licenses. They are making a substantial contribution to Social Security even though they cannot draw benefits. What amnesty are we giving them? If we throw them out don’t we owe them back their income, sales and social security payments? I say they have paid enough already for a permanent visa and they should be welcomed if they complete our citizenship requirements.

If the illegal immigrants that are gainfully employed and contributing to our tax and social security system are granted permanent work visas, overnight we will reduce the border security issues saving substantial money and improving relations between our two countries. This will free up resources to pursue the criminal elements from foreign countries that come illegally for far more sinister reasons.

Not only do millions of illegal immigrants pay taxes and provide services we would not otherwise have but they are also victims to hordes of unscrupulous people involved in car sales and repair, medical treatment, legal assistance, and many other areas because they have no way to protect themselves. They cannot go to law enforcement agencies for help, as they would be prosecuted. The simple act of granting well-earned permanent work visas would stop predators from taking advantage of their status.

So the candidates owe us their positions on the immigration reform issue and don’t just tell us they support the Great Wall of Mexico now being constructed. We all know how even the greatest and most feared of walls cannot stop people from seeking social justice and freedom, remember the Iron Curtain and Berlin Wall? Give us substance.

10. Government Permits and Inspections – Protection or Payoffs
Whenever corruption is uncovered at the state or local government level the odds are it is tied to the permits and inspection activities of the locality. Permits are required for new and renovation construction, whether it is housing, commercial, industrial or public. A complex combination of federal, state and local statutes dictate the construction standards to be followed.

Federal standards are set but states, counties or localities can add to the standards and the result can be a tremendous burden to the public. Inspections are required for the issuance of building permits and therein lays the gateway to potential corruption. Since inspections cover all aspects of construction from foundations to floors and walls, electrical to plumbing, there are many ways the process can be compromised.

Beyond that unique local codes can further complicate the process such as areas without public water or sewer lines, environmentally sensitive areas, watersheds, aquifers, wetlands, water front and on and on. In some cases the intent of building codes may be good but the result may be counterproductive. For example, we have water shortages but block the recycling of gray water. We require septic mound systems when we have no long term testing to show it even works.

Energy conservation and recycling efforts can be discouraged because of code problems and interpretations and the most cost effective and environmentally friendly materials may be prohibited by outdated building codes. Housing is a critical element of our nation’s economy and anything that restricts our ability to renovate, rebuild, or undertake new construction, to use new energy and environmental materials and techniques, or that offers opportunities for corruption is in need of reform.

The federal government is the only legislative authority that can override the archaic codes or practices of state and local government, that can encourage the use of new materials and techniques to help our energy, environmental and water needs, and can work with state attorney generals to assure the process is not corrupt.

Because this process can impact on anyone living in our nation it would behoove the candidates to address this issue and offer recommendations on how to protect our citizens, encourage the economic activity resulting from housing construction, and make certain the codes are enforced in a lawful and just manner.


Summary
There you have it, ten areas in need of reform to help the people of America, the People’s Agenda for Change. We The People, yes the same We The People first mentioned as the first words of our Constitution, expect leaders to lead and to better understand what type of leadership we can expect from the candidates and we need to know what they intend to do about these issues. Sound bites or silence do you no justice and are a disservice to us.

These issues affect every American and will dramatically effect our future generations. History can be made this election but it will have to be earned by a meaningful discussion of how candidates intend to serve. It is time to silence the swords and get on with the substance. We have waited patiently; now give us the reasons to support you.

Establishment Democrats and News Media still do not get it as Trump juggernaut buries them in Chaos

.

One day, most likely far into the future, the American Democratic party and the national news media may step back and say, "what did we do wrong?" as Trump is finishing his second term as President of the United States.

You see, the news media, liberal world, and to some extent the conservative world in the USA find each other in the midst of a non-stop political maelstrom and the source of the political potpourri is none other than the most unlikely president in our history, Donald Trump.

All of these potential enemies of our new president share a few common bonds called conceit, arrogance, elitism, a holier than thou attitude, and a serious lack of historical knowledge and common sense.

"MSNBC Is 'Shocked' That Donald Trump Followed Through on His Campaign Promises"

As a result, they fail to understand that President Trump is not of the same mold, cloth, or temperament of any of them.  Oh, he graduated from an Ivy League School, Wharton, but he did not receive the same indoctrination those other elitists absorbed.

No, President Trump learned the game of life and survival in the school of hard knocks, the streets of New York City, where winners survive and losers just disappear.  In my years in New York and New Jersey, after growing up in the Midwest and college in Arizona, I came to understand the incredible disenfranchisement between the grass roots American and the eastern elitist.

In the Midwest, public service was an honorable activity but was seldom a career.  Out East, the political parties and politicians tried to make it a dominant force over society.  Money ruled the hallways of government out East while patriotism ruled in the Midwest.

Call it an attitude, a superiority complex, or putting on airs, as far back as the 1960's it was well established and obvious and the result was those out East took themselves far more seriously than the typical Midwestern American.

When I traveled more extensively over the years, I noticed the same detachment between the East and South, Great Lakes, and Southwest.

All the while, the political and news media elitists out East became more alike than dissimilar except over a few basic issues while becoming more and more ideologically polarized.  Political party platforms became a joke never to be seriously pursued once one was elected president.

Among the greatest mistakes of the elitist politicians and news media are they continually underestimated the knowledge and wisdom of Americans outside the Northeast corridor, the area from Washington, DC to Boston where 54 million people live.

Long ago, the silent majority of Americans saw the growth of money and corruption in politics and government.  As the two political parties fought it out for the minds and votes of Americans, the people were deserting the parties in record numbers.

So dramatic was this ignorance by the elitists they did not notice in 2016 when for the first time in our history there were more voters registered as Independents than either Democrats or Republicans.  Even more ominous for the elitists, almost 50 percent of the eligible voters did not even register to vote.

For those pollsters and political pundits too blind to see the truth, that means nearly two-thirds of all the eligible voters in America were fed up with the political system as presented by the news media and two political parties.

At the very same time the polarization in politics and the parallel rise of ideological bias in the news media caused a disastrous collapse of trust in that most sacred of US protected classes, the news media.  By the time the 2016 election was in full swing, just six percent of the public trusted the news media.

"Is the Liberal Media Trump trashing finally over, or is it now destined for oblivion?"

Again, for the benefit of the brain dead media and pundits who failed to read the tea leaves, that means ninety-four out of every one hundred Americans did NOT trust the news media.  Yet the media arrogance continued to grow as they tried to project their bias into all aspects of reporting and Trump was the target of the growing venom of the media.

Donald Trump sensed this frustration, dissolution, and disgust of the forgotten Americans that was accelerating as the Obama years ground to an end and once again, the agenda of another political leader had failed to materialize.

Here is the real news Trump was not an ideological candidate.  Trump was not a politician.  Trump was not even a real Republican.  He was not interested in being politically correct and he sure hated the status quo.  Because he was rich, he did not need to sell his body and soul to the financially powerful.  Each of these characteristics made him more and more valuable to the vast and growing silent majority.

In the end, the vast majority of the people who voted to elect Trump did not vote for Donald Trump, they voted for a voice, an ear, a doer, an outsider, a disrupter, a person who just wanted to make America Great Again.

Whether he registered as a Republican or Democrat mattered not because he was certain to alienate anyone standing for the status quo, for preserving the establishment, for accepting the dominant rule of political parties, or one who catered to the needs of a needy news media.

People did not have to like him to vote for him, they just had to believe he would fight for change, disrupt the Establishment, and in the end fix the many problems now facing our nation.

Donald Trump understood his strange bond with the silent majority where a billionaire becomes the ombudsman for the ignored masses.  There are no favorites in Trump's worldview, only those willing to play.

Trump believes in a world that leaves no one behind.  That including those many voters lied to and mislead by the political parties over the years.  Trump recognizes everyone is a victim of a failing political system and a biased news media establishment.

   

The Trump juggernaut is dominating the establishment politicians and news media because they insist on playing by their own rules (he does not), and because urgency is not a part of the bureaucratic way in our nation's capitol.  President Trump, on the other hand, thrives on action and chaos.

One day the politicians and news media may realize that Trump is not the favorite, but is certainly the chosen, to do what American citizens believe is necessary to save our American institution.

     .

The Presidential Election - Clinton or Trump - The World Watches in Fascination

.

As we countdown to the day of reckoning when half of the voters in America will be squealing for joy while the other half prepare to move to Canada, or perhaps Newfoundland, where will you be?

Down to forty-five days and counting and by anyone's measure once you toss out the radical right and radical left predictions, the election is still too close to call.  No matter how hard the desperate liberal media try to stack the polls and purloin the Trump, it matters not.

You may have noticed how NBC and other leading liberal networks are using the 2012 election results for the demographic distribution of the 2016 polls.  The conservatives have their own distorted results to offset the liberals, proof intellectual constipation is rampant.

For the record, there is no possible way the 2016 carnage will resemble the 2012 results.  Just the obvious would tell you so since no matter how hard they try to make us believe it, Hillary Clinton is not and never will be Barack Obama and she really is white.  For that matter, there is no way an entire generation of millennial who backed Bernie Sanders will transfer their vote to the Queen of the Establishment.

Barack Obama was off the charts with his support from Blacks and youth in 2008 and 2012, as much as 25-30% higher than Hillary's support.  Hello political pundits, that means, overall, there may well be a twenty-five percent lower turnout of Blacks and youth for Hillary.

Trump, on the other hand, has a huge advantage in enthusiasm.  Where Clinton is a practicing member of the establishment since she married Bill in 1975 and his election as state attorney general of Arkansas in 1976, Trump has never been involved in holding political office.

That makes her a card-carrying establishment leader for forty-one years, longer than the oldest millennial alive.  It makes Trump about the second oldest revolutionary in our history next to the ageless Benjamin Franklin.

As for her agenda, Hillary offers the most aggressive progressive liberal platform since George McGovern in 1972 and he lost 49 out of 50 states.  In world politics, the pendulum is swinging conservative so she must also buck the trends.

This year The Federalist, a wholly independent division of FDRLST Media, reported the following.

"But any intelligent discussion of 2016 must begin with the fact that history is very strongly against the Democrats in 2016.  In the modern two-party era (beginning with the first Republican Party presidential campaign in 1856), there have been 16 elections following the re-election of an incumbent president; in 11 of those races, there was no incumbent on the ballot.  An analysis of those elections shows a startlingly uniform pattern over time: the incumbent party (i.e., the party that won the last election) consistently lost ground relative to the challenger party (the party out of power), especially when running without an incumbent on the ballot.  And in nearly every such election, that loss of popular support was evident in closely divided battleground states, rather than confined to uncompetitive states.  The trend has persisted in winning and losing elections, in elections with and without third-party challengers, in times of war and peace, booms and depressions.  It has become more, rather than less, pronounced in the years since World War II, and at all times has been more pronounced when the incumbent party is the Democrats."

Thus, Hillary is also battling history.

Trump, the political neophyte, has no history, no record of accomplishment, and no one really cares what he had to say back when he was a talk show host and not a political candidate.  To his supporters and right now he has the same level of support as Hillary, Trump is their champion.

He is the Chosen One to lead America out of the dark and out of the control of the dastardly establishment.  If it is determined if he is a billionaire, he will be the first to be president if elected.  If not he will rank among the richest ever.  Yet he is the voice of the silent majority, the Independent, the forgotten, the disappearing Middle Class, and the one trusted to bring about radical change to our system.

Hillary and her minions believe he is a Demon determined to undermine our way of life but a whole lot of voters believe he is the crusader to bring back the life our politicians sold out to the rich and powerful.

Has there ever been a more divisive election in our history, of course if you know history, which has seemed to escape the minds of most political reporters in America.  Reporters of today think the 1990's the most important decade the last century but our political history transcends not just decades, but centuries.

In 1788, George Washington became our first president in history.  That was 228 years ago not two decades ago.  This year marks the 58th quadrennial presidential election in America and we will be electing the 45th person to serve as president.  Of course, neither Blacks nor women could vote in George's election, very different from today.

Many times over the past two centuries the polarization was worse, the language was more vulgar, the animosity more intense, the attacks more personal, the deplorable nature more severe, the lies more extreme, yet somehow, our nation survived.

Therein lays the miracle of our nation and the wisdom of our Founding Fathers.  Our Constitution and Bill of Rights has endured the test of time, the treachery of politicians, the greed of capitalists, the distortion of the news media, and the suffocation of special interests.

This year the news media, politicians, political pundits, and even the historians seem to be suffering from collective brain-dead syndrome.  The partisanship, the intolerance of the opinion of others, and the downright bias of the media has fed an enormous appetite of polarizing mania.

At first, I thought it was the result of nearly eight years of the Obama Administration failure to deliver on many of the key promises of 2008 and 2012.  When Trump struck a responsive chord with far more of the public than the so-called experts expected, it was clear there was much more to his campaign.

The media, politicians, and political pundits first ridiculed, then gave extraordinary attention to the neophyte they knew never had a chance to be elected.  In time this free media coverage became obsessive and helped Trump drown out all the highly regarded competition.

When he stunned the experts and emerged as winner of the GOP primary campaign, they made light of the stupidity of the Republicans in nominating Trump.  However, as the Democrats finished their convention and as the Clinton campaign outspent Trump five to ten to one depending on television and the Internet, a strange result started to emerge.

Hillary could not put Trump away as expected.

Now here we are, just 45 days from the end, and nothing seems settled like expected.  The bombastic billionaire will not go away.  No matter what he says or does, no matter how juvenile or odd his perspective on the world, he is headed for a photo finish with Clinton.

No matter what happens on Election Day, over 50% of the voters will disagree with the choice.  That is because both candidates have the worst favorable rating in history, with each hovering around 60% unfavorable.

Forgotten in the race to capture the hearts of America were the Independents and once again due to the lack of due diligence by the news media, there could be a tsunami building across the land.  People have had it with both political parties.  Both parties are beholden to big money.  No matter who wins, the rich keep getting richer at the expense of the people.

Not even the election of Barack Obama in 2008, the first Black president in our history, could break the stranglehold of big money control of our government.  Members of the two parties might not have noticed, but the Independents did as well as seniors and the millennial youth.

When you consider a significant number of party members are fed up with the lack of progress, along with a lack of interest in the election by both Black and Hispanic voters, you have a groundswell of dissention.

Add to that the astonishing fact that for the first time in our nation's history there are more registered Independents than members of either political party and you have the ingredients of that elusive tsunami.

Eight years ago, in the last great recession brought about by the greed of big money, financial, banking, political, and government officials assured us all was well.  Financial rating services said things were fine and major financial institutions were too busy preparing for a financial meltdown to warn us of impending doom.

Nearly every expert from finance, banks, political polls, and rating agencies were wrong and the result was the near destruction of the American economy.  The lives, jobs, and retirement assets of the public were left shattered.

No matter what anyone says, we have not recovered from that unnecessary tragedy and not a single major executive of any of the financial institutions that raped and pillaged our economy is in jail.  The result is the slowest recovery in history with the vast economic benefits going to less than one percent of the rich.  That is the memory of the public.

Add to this condition a sinking feeling in the public regarding their safety from racial strife, an understandable fear of terrorist attacks, awareness that American foreign policy is a disaster, and a huge increase in the distrust of the establishment, and logic would dictate the results fail to conform to any past elections in the modern era.

My sense is the polls are 5-7% wrong, they under-represent the potential for new voters for Trump, and misrepresent the number and distribution of Independent votes.  If the polls remain within the margin of error like today through Election Day, Trump could most likely triumph.

The next election article will be life under a Clinton versus a Trump presidency.  Stay tuned.

     

Riots with most property damage in America                

1. LA Riots, 1992: $1.268 billion

2. The Los Angeles Watts Riots, 1965: $321 million

3. 12th Street Riot, Detroit 1967: $289 million

4. Miami Riots, 1980: $181 million

5. 1968 Holy Week Uprising—Washington, D.C.: $158 million

6. New York City Blackout of 1977: $106 million

7. Newark Riots, 1967: $103 million

8. 1968 Holy Week Uprising, Baltimore: $92 million

9. 1968 Holy Week Uprising, Chicago: $86 million

10. 1968 Holy Week Uprising, New York City: $26 million

http://coltonspointtimes.blogspot.com/2016/09/the-day-of-reckoning-is-nearly-at-hand.html

.

American Elections 7 - Tips for International Followers - Why the media and political parties have it all wrong - they forgot about Independents

Sometimes the most obvious is the most difficult to see and when it comes to the American media the most obvious and most logical is most often overlooked.  Ever since Obama first ran for office there has been a peculiar Main Street media fascination with the Tea Party movement and when it comes to the liberal media, it became an obsession.

For some odd reason the Lame Street media has been afraid, fearful, and terrorized by the thought that the Tea Party and its seemingly radical right wing supporters represents a grave threat to the American political process.

If the media wants to condemn a conservative commentator they label them "Tea Party" whether they have any affiliation with the Tea Party or not.  It is the liberal way to stigmatize the on air personalities that cause so much havoc in their lives.

Yet most conservative commentators have never joined the Tea Party and view it as an element of the Republican party, not a separate institution.  So the Democrats have tried to diminish any threat from the Tea Party by talking about the splintering effect the Tea Party has on the Republicans.

I suspect they just don't get it.

The only threat to the two party system in America is their arrogance in thinking there really is just two parties in the country and their failure to see we are rapidly approaching the point of no return when more American are alienated by both political parties and their partisan nonsense when in truth there is little difference between them.

Every election we get closer to the point when there are going to be more Independents than BOTH Democrats and Republicans.  When over 50% of the public believes neither party serves the public but both parties have become their own Special Interests.

With the continuing decline in public confidence in our political parties, politicians and media and with the continued ignorance or deliberate effort by the media to disregard the growing number of Americans rejecting both political parties that day we cross the 50% threshold is rapidly approaching and will most certainly be here by 2016 or 2020.

The following is a Gallup Poll which most media failed to report on the continuing surge in the number of Independents in America.  They are the real danger to the two party system and the real hope for healing our Nation.

January 8, 2014 (first published)

Record-High 42% of Americans Identify as Independents

Republican identification lowest in at least 25 years

by Jeffrey M. Jones

PRINCETON, NJ -- Forty-two percent of Americans, on average, identified as political independents in 2013, the highest Gallup has measured since it began conducting interviews by telephone 25 years ago. Meanwhile, Republican identification fell to 25%, the lowest over that time span. At 31%, Democratic identification is unchanged from the last four years but down from 36% in 2008.

The results are based on more than 18,000 interviews with Americans from 13 separate Gallup multiple-day polls conducted in 2013.

In each of the last three years, at least 40% of Americans have identified as independents. These are also the only years in Gallup's records that the percentage of independents has reached that level.

Americans' increasing shift to independent status has come more at the expense of the Republican Party than the Democratic Party. Republican identification peaked at 34% in 2004, the year George W. Bush won a second term in office. Since then, it has fallen nine percentage points, with most of that decline coming during Bush's troubled second term. When he left office, Republican identification was down to 28%. It has declined or stagnated since then, improving only slightly to 29% in 2010, the year Republicans "shellacked" Democrats in the midterm elections.

Not since 1983, when Gallup was still conducting interviews face to face, has a lower percentage of Americans, 24%, identified as Republicans than is the case now. That year, President Ronald Reagan remained unpopular as the economy struggled to emerge from recession. By the following year, amid an improving economy and re-election for the increasingly popular incumbent president, Republican identification jumped to 30%, a level generally maintained until 2007.

Democratic identification has also declined in recent years, falling five points from its recent high of 36% in 2008, the year President Barack Obama was elected. The current 31% of Americans identifying as Democrats matches the lowest annual average in the last 25 years.

Fourth Quarter Surge in Independence

The percentage of Americans identifying as independents grew over the course of 2013, surging to 46% in the fourth quarter. That coincided with the partial government shutdown in October and the problematic rollout of major provisions of the healthcare law, commonly known as "Obamacare."

The 46% independent identification in the fourth quarter is a full three percentage points higher than Gallup has measured in any quarter during its telephone polling era.

Democrats Maintain Edge in Party Identification

Democrats maintain their six-point edge in party identification when independents' "partisan leanings" are taken into account. In addition to the 31% of Americans who identify as Democrats, another 16% initially say they are independents but when probed say they lean to the Democratic Party. An equivalent percentage, 16%, say they are independent but lean to the Republican Party, on top of the 25% of Americans identifying as Republicans. All told, then, 47% of Americans identify as Democrats or lean to the Democratic Party, and 41% identify as Republicans or lean to the Republican Party.

Democrats have held at least a nominal advantage on this measure of party affiliation in all but three years since Gallup began asking the "partisan lean" follow-up in 1991. During this time, Democrats' advantage has been as high as 12 points, in 2008. However, that lead virtually disappeared by 2010, although Democrats have re-established an edge in the last two years.

Implications

Americans are increasingly declaring independence from the political parties. It is not uncommon for the percentage of independents to rise in a non-election year, as 2013 was. Still, the general trend in recent years, including the 2012 election year, has been toward greater percentages of Americans identifying with neither the Republican Party nor the Democratic Party, although most still admit to leaning toward one of the parties.

The rise in political independence is likely an outgrowth of Americans' record or near-record negative views of the two major U.S. parties, of Congress, and their low level of trust in government more generally.

The increased independence adds a greater level of unpredictability to this year's presidential election. Because U.S. voters are less anchored to the parties than ever before, it's not clear what kind of appeals may be most effective to winning votes. But with Americans increasingly eschewing party labels for themselves, candidates who are less closely aligned to their party or its prevailing doctrine may benefit.

Now that we are halfway through the 2016 election cycle it is clear that the Independent will dominate in the general election, and the "outsider" candidates have demonstrated tremendous strength in the primary elections.  Both political parties are actively trying to stop the outsiders and protect the political establishment and status quo, but Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump may be more resilient than expected by the media.  

Survey Methods

Results are based on aggregated telephone interviews from 13 separate Gallup polls conducted in 2013, with a random sample of 18,871 adults, aged 18 and older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia.

For results based on the total sample of national adults, the margin of sampling error is ±1 percentage point at the 95% confidence level.

Interviews are conducted with respondents on landline telephones and cellular phones, with interviews conducted in Spanish for respondents who are primarily Spanish-speaking. Each sample of national adults includes a minimum quota of 50% cellphone respondents and 50% landline respondents, with additional minimum quotas by region. Landline and cell telephone numbers are selected using random-digit-dial methods. Landline respondents are chosen at random within each household on the basis of which member had the most recent birthday.

Samples are weighted to correct for unequal selection probability, nonresponse, and double coverage of landline and cell users in the two sampling frames. They are also weighted to match the national demographics of gender, age, race, Hispanic ethnicity, education, region, population density, and phone status (cellphone only/landline only/both, and cellphone mostly). Demographic weighting targets are based on the March 2012 Current Population Survey figures for the aged 18 and older U.S. population. Phone status targets are based on the July-December 2011 National Health Interview Survey. Population density targets are based on the 2010 census. All reported margins of sampling error include the computed design effects for weighting.

In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.

For more details on Gallup's polling methodology, visit www.gallup.com.

.