American Political Dynasties

Family dynasties in politics goes back to our second president, John Adams. His son, John Quincy Adams was the 6th president. John Quincy was an early proponent of Manifest Destiny, an American expansionist policy popular in the 19th century. He changed his position when the expansion of American territory also meant the expansion of slavery. What was he most noted for? He supported infrastructural and educational improvements in the shape of federal projects like road and canal building, a national university, and a national bank, but met with stiff opposition from supporters of Andrew Jackson in Congress. He is renowned as one of America’s greatest diplomats before his presidency and one of American’s greatest congressmen after his presidency, but was not a particularly effective president. Source: http://us-presidents.insidegov.com/q/27/9699/What-were-President-John-Quincy-Adams-s-accomplishments, www.john-adams-heritage.com/john-quincy-adams-facts/

Then there were the Roosevelts. Theodore (Teddy) Roosevelt was a republican (In office September 14, 1901 – March 4, 1909) with a liberal view who started our national park system and the first anti- trust laws. He began construction of the Panama Canal. Later his famous young nephew Franklin Roosevelt who led America out of the Great Depression and through most of WWII.

The Kennedy Family was famous even before John F. Kennedy became president.

The Bayh family of Indiana consists of two representatives Birch Bayh and most recently his son Evan Bayh.

The Brown family of California. The father was Pat Brown who is famous for building the California aqueduct that helped to distribute northern California water to southern California. His daughter Kathleen served as the state’s Treasurer and son Jerry who is now serving his fourth term as governor.

The Bush family starting with Prescott Bush (1895–1972) brought us George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush as presidents. Today George W. Bush’s brother, for Florida governor Jeb is running for president.

The Gore’s of Tennessee, and the Dodd’s of Connecticut are two other families that also come to mind.

Last but hardly least is Hillary Clinton who would like to be remembered for more than being a former First Lady.

There are many other political families listed in Wikipedia.

The question is have these families really harmed America? I believe the answer, for some of them is Yes. They see politics as a business to earn money for themselves and their families at the expense of society. Here in Los Angeles at least two families were instrumental in the incorporation of separate small towns that were manipulated to purchase services from their private companies.

These situations should be a reason for more Americans to be involved in the political system.

“Peace for Our Time”

The phrase “Peace for Our Time” was spoken on 30 September 1938 by British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain in his speech concerning the Munich Agreement and the Anglo-German Declaration.^[1] The phrase echoed Benjamin Disraeli, who upon returning from the Congress of Berlin in 1878 stated “I have returned from Germany with peace for our time.” It is primarily remembered for its ironic value: less than a year after the agreement, following continued aggression from Hitler and his invasion of Poland, Europe was plunged into World War II.

In an exclusive interview with Thomas L. Friedman, a columnist in the New York Times, the president explains why he has no second thoughts about the accord with Iran. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/15/opinion/thomas-friedman-obama-makes-his-case-on-iran-nuclear-deal.html?_r=0

In my opinion President Obama has provided the world “Peace for Our Time.” He offers a series of explanations justifying his decision to reach a deal with Iran. The problem is that Iran has a history of supporting terrorists throughout the Middle East. The agreement does not stop Iran from obtaining conventional weapons that are used against everyone they consider an enemy. Iranians gather in their streets to yell “Death to America.” Is that the sign of a new friendlier Iran? We will live to rue the day this agreement was put in play.

How Changing Demographics could change America’s Politics!

Could White People be the New Minority?

Opposition to immigration has a history going back to our second president, John Adams. The Alien and Sedition Acts were passed by the Federalist Congress in 1798 and signed into law by President Adams. These laws included new powers to deport foreigners as well as making it harder for new immigrants to vote. Previously a new immigrant would have to reside in the United States for five years before becoming eligible to vote, but a new law raised this to 14 years. In essence, this Act prohibited public opposition to the government. Fines and imprisonment could be used against those who “write, print, utter, or publish . . . any false, scandalous and malicious writing” against the government. (source: http://www.ushistory.org/us/19e.asp)

At the end of 2014 California’s population exceeded 38 million people and was on its way to 40 million in 2015.

A new tally, released in late June, shows that as of July 1, 2014, about 14.99 million Latinos live in California, edging out the 14.92 million whites in the state.

Asians account for more than 14% of our population. That equals more than 5 million people. Almost 1.5 million are Filipino.

Walk through your neighborhood mall and you will appreciate the large number of Non-White Americans living here.

This is bad news for the Republican Party. According to a Gallup poll taken in 2012 “Republicans are overwhelmingly non-Hispanic white, at a level that is significantly higher than the self-identified white percentage of the national adult population. Just 2% of Republicans are black, and 6% are Hispanic.”

Failure of the GOP controlled Congress to pass revised immigration laws along with their new idea of limiting legal immigration to a greater extent almost guarantees that Non-White Americans will be voting Democratic in the next national election. The Democratic Party is depending on that outcome. They have every reason to expect the turnout will be in their favor when you listen to GOP candidate talking points.

Donald Trump stands for a shrinking White minority. Google the views of the Republican candidates and you realize they do not have a solution for the 12 million illegal immigrants in this country. They oppose amnesty and none wants to grant any recognition to those people. Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker has even discussed limiting legal immigration.

Not one candidate, neither Democrat nor Republican, for president has voiced the idea of enforcing current law that would result in penalties for hiring illegal immigrants.

Hillary Clinton sees a path to the White House by emphasizing the Republican opposition to any legal solution.

Unless the Republican Party changes in a dramatic way it will become part of America’s history.

Another Effort to Reduce Competition

Over the past 35 years since Ronald Reagan became president we have seen a decline in competition in the United States. His words “Government is the problem” was a signal to those who could accumulate more wealth and control of businesses at the expense of America’s general welfare. Reagan’s philosophy was government should not interfere with business. Thus we now have just four banking companies that control most finance. There is a handful of pharmacy chains, and a handful of supermarket chains spread across the nation that set the price you will pay for eggs, meat, and everything other food product.

List of largest banks in the United States

Rank	Bank name	Headquarters
1	JPMorgan Chase	New York City, NY
2	Bank of America	Charlotte, North Carolina
3	Citigroup	New York City, NY
4	Wells Fargo	San Francisco, California

Chances are you do your banking at one of the branches of these companies.

List of largest drug store chains in the United States

Walgreens
CVS
Rite Aid
Walmart

Chances are you are buying some part of your drug supplies from one of these companies. Go into any of them and you will find their prices to be almost the same.

Now imagine what the cost of health care will be when the number of insurance providers is reduced. Did you know that Blue Cross and Blue Shield are both owned by Anthem? This is not a new fact.

Yesterday Centene said it will spend $6.3 billion to buy fellow insurer Health Net. Today Hartford, Conn.-based Aetna will spend about $35 billion to buy rival Humana. Now Health insurance giant Anthem presses for Cigna takeover at $54 billion.

Of course these companies argue that their consolidation will lower costs. For Who?

Will the federal government stop these consolidations? Who are the major contributors to presidential campaigns? Who provides the money to help your congressional representative and senator? Small donations are accepted but the big donors aren’t supporting those elected officials without receiving something in return.

A Less Than United Nation

The rift between rural America and urban America reached its peak when the South declared itself a separate country. Many differences were not resolved with the end of the Civil War. Yes slavery was ended but the bitterness remains palpable. This issue really revolves around the choice of change or keep things the way they have always been. Conservatives abhor change. “(Give Me That) Old-Time Religion” is a traditional Gospel song dating from 1873.

It was good for our mothers,…
It was good for our fathers,…
It will take us all to heaven,…

The song and its sentiments have been recited in many movies because they are, in my opinion, the beliefs and philosophy of most southern and mid-western families. “Inherit the Wind” really does tell us the differences between the big city view of the world and the small town/country view.

“Five days after the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark ruling on same-sex marriage, a federal judge for the Southern District of Alabama on Wednesday clarified that such couples should be granted licenses to marry. But neither judicial action cuts much ice in parts of Alabama and in other devout areas of the South where same-sex marriage is looked on as anathema. In Kentucky, four county clerks were refusing to issue licenses to same-sex couples and one in Louisiana was refusing, according to a count by Amanda Snipes, campaign manager for Southerners for Freedom to Marry. In Hood County, south of Ft. Worth, County Clerk Katie Lang initially posted a statement saying she would not issue same-sex marriage licenses due to her religious beliefs, but she posted another statement online late Tuesday saying her office will issue them.”

“The Supreme Court by a 5-4 vote blocked the state of Texas, at least for now, from enforcing a strict new abortion law that was likely to close most of the state’s remaining abortion clinics. Gov. Greg Abbott had defended the abortion restrictions as Texas’ then-attorney general, and continued to support the restrictions after winning the gubernatorial election in November. He described HB 2 as “a constitutional exercise of Texas’ lawmaking authority,” and said in a statement Monday that he is “confident the Supreme Court will ultimately uphold this law.” An abortion bill that would require women in North Carolina to wait 72 hours before having the procedure cleared the state Legislature on Wednesday June 1 and is now heading to the desk of Gov. Pat McCrory.”

The above were copied from the Los Angeles Times. They accurately report the difference between Southern and Mid-Western states compared to the North East and West Coast states. The views on gay marriage and abortion are 180 degrees from each other. Those are the two most significant differences that really separate Americans. There are other issue that separate Americans too. Right-to-work states are primarily those in the South but include many mid-western states.

The above map of the Right-to-work states is similar to the maps of those states that have been more likely to oppose abortions. The also happen to be the states that fought the Affordable Care Act and other more progressive (liberal) laws.

I am not convinced America is really the united States.

The Supreme Court Under Attack

Once again and for the umpteenth time there are many people unhappy with Supreme Court decisions. This probably goes back to the beginnings of America. Every time there is a major decision handed down the opposition wants to modify the Supreme Court in some manner. Happily those unhappy people have never managed to change the roll of the Supreme Court in any way. The reason may be that every proposed modification has a serious downside.

In 1937 President Franklin Roosevelt attempted to circumvent the court by proposing an enlargement to 15 justices. It was his intention to add justices that would favor his new deal legislation. Before the bill came to a vote in Congress, two Supreme Court justices came over to the liberal side and the FDR plan was dropped.

Brown v. Board of Education in my memory brought on the greatest resistance. The result of that decision was forced busing and that created more turmoil in the schools without a significant improvement to education.

Following is a list of some of the most significant cases before the Supreme Court. In most cases the losers believed that the court was wrong and wanted to change the rules governing the court.

Marbury v. Madison, 1803 (4-0 decision)

Established the Supreme Court’s power of judicial review over Congress.

McCulloch v. Maryland, 1819 (7-0 decision)

Established the federal government’s implied powers over the states.

Dred Scott v. Sandford, 1857 (7-2 decision)

Denied citizenship to African American slaves.

Plessy v. Ferguson, 1896 (7-1 decision)

Upheld “separate but equal” segregation laws in states.

Brown v. Board of Education, 1954 (9-0 decision)

Separating black and white students in public schools is unconstitutional.

Massive resistance was a strategy declared by U.S. Senator Harry F. Byrd, Sr. of Virginia to unite white politicians and leaders in Virginia in a campaign of new state laws and policies to prevent public school desegregation, particularly after the Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court decision in 1954.^[1] Many schools, and even an entire school system, were shut down in 1958 and 1959 in attempts to block integration, before both the Virginia Supreme Court and a special three-judge panel of Federal District judges from the Eastern District of Virginia, sitting at Norfolk, declared those policies unconstitutional.

On February 24, 1956, Byrd declared a campaign which became known as “Massive Resistance” to avoid implementing public school integration in Virginia. Leading the state’s Conservative Democrats, he proclaimed “If we can organize the Southern States for massive resistance to this order I think that in time the rest of the country will realize that racial integration is not going to be accepted in the South.”^[7] Within a month, Senator Byrd and 100 other conservative Southern politicians signed what became known as the “Southern Manifesto,” condemning the Supreme Court’s decisions concerning racial integration in public places as violating States’ Rights.

Gideon v. Wainwright, 1963 (9-0 decision)

Criminal defendants have a right to an attorney even if they cannot afford one.

Miranda v. Arizona, 1966 (5-4 decision)

Prisoners must be advised of their rights before being questioned by police.

Loving v. Virginia, 1967 (9-0 decision)

Invalidated state laws prohibiting interracial marriage.

Roe v. Wade, 1973 (7-2 decision)

Women have a constitutional right to an abortion during the first two trimesters.

This ruling continues to be the victim of efforts by politically conservative states to evade the decision.

District of Columbia v. Heller, 2008 (5-4 decision)

Citizens have a right to possess firearms at home for self-defense.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 2010 (5-4 decision)

Corporations and unions can spend unlimited amounts in elections.

Obergefell v. Hodges, 2015 (5-4 decision)

Same-sex marriage is legalized across all 50 states.

In an article posted on the National Review Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) wrote the following:

“This must stop. Liberty is in the balance. Not only are the Court’s opinions untethered to reason and logic, they are also alien to our constitutional system of limited and divided government. By redefining the meaning of common words, and redesigning the most basic human institutions, this Court has crossed from the realm of activism into the arena of oligarchy. This week’s opinions are but the latest in a long line of judicial assaults on our Constitution and the common-sense values that have made America great. During the past 50 years, the Court has condemned millions of innocent unborn children to death, banished God from our schools and public squares, extended constitutional protections to prisoners of war on foreign soil, authorized the confiscation of property from one private owner to transfer it to another, and has now required all Americans to purchase a specific product, and to accept the redefinition of an institution ordained by God and long predating the formation of the Court. Enough is enough.”

“I am proposing an amendment to the United States Constitution that would subject the justices of the Supreme Court to periodic judicial-retention elections. Every justice, beginning with the second national election after his or her appointment, will answer to the American people and the states in a retention election every eight years. Those justices deemed unfit for retention by both a majority of the American people as a whole and by majorities of the electorates in at least half of the 50 states will be removed from office and disqualified from future service on the Court.”

Read his entire article at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/420409/ted-cruz-supreme-court-constitutional-amendment. Some of what he wrote does make sense. Changes to the constitution with one exception (The Eighteenth Amendment effectively established the prohibition of alcoholic beverages) have been wisely made.

Hillary Clinton is NOT the Best Choice for President

THE MESSAGE – “Middle-class economics a focus of Clinton’s bid,” by AP White House Correspondent Julie Pace: “Boosting economic security for the middle class and expanding opportunities for working families, key issues that her campaign says will be heralded by a results-oriented ‘tenacious fighter.’ … If Clinton’s strategy sounds familiar, it might be because … Obama framed the choice for voters in 2012 as between Democrats focused on the middle class and Republicans wanting to protect the wealthy and return to policies that led to the Great Recession.”

I am an un-loyal Democrat. I re-registered as an Independent in about the year 2000. That was before Arnold Schwarzenegger ran for governor of California (2003). To my Democratic friends I was disloyal. I voted to remove the Democratic governor, Gray Davis, and install Schwarzenegger. I believe there was one other time I voted for a Republican.

Hillary Clinton is not the best choice for the Democratic Party. She represents positions and behavior that are not in keeping with my views.

My arguments with her are as follows:

Voted for the invasion of Iraq. That country has been in chaos ever since.
Convinced President Obama that the disposal of Muammar Gaddafi as leader of Libya was the right thing to do. That country has been in chaos ever since.
Refuses to provide an explanation of her role in the Benghazi attack. The remark, “What difference does it make?” does not reveal what she knew and when she knew it.
Kept all of her e-mail on a separate private e-mail server. She has deleted at least 30,000 messages without any outside review.

Add to that she was intimately involved in her husband’s presidency. That was a presidency that took specific actions that were not in the best interest of the American people.

NAFTA was the free trade agreement that was supposed to bring more jobs to the United States. It has not worked out that way. Whirlpool and Technicolor both moved their manufacturing facilities to Mexico. Honda built a new assembly plant in Mexico for sales of their cars in the United States. Mexican agriculture now exports their products to the United States. Every one of those Mexican industries has reduced the number of American jobs. The seeds of NAFTA were planted during the George H. W. Bush administration.
It was President Bill Clinton who signed the repeal of the Glass–Steagall Act. Two provisions of that 1933 law restricted affiliations between commercial banks and securities firms. The consequence was greater growth of American banks and ultimately the Great Recession of 2008.
China-PNTR Enacted in October 2000. This Act was a crucial step to complete a major trade goal of the Clinton-Gore Administration, opening China’s markets to American manufactured goods, farm products and services by allowing China to become part of the WTO, forcing it to slash import barriers against American goods and services. The act also opened China’s ability to become a prime exporter of their manufactured goods to the United States without tariff barriers.

Has any of the laws she and her husband supported benefited middle class Americans? The answer is obvious. Yes the Republicans do support business over working Americans with arguments that don’t hold water. The problem for Hillary Clinton is that her ideas are no better than those of GOP candidates. Simply saying she wants all children to have the same opportunities as her new granddaughter, Charlotte, does not make it so. She is linked to the wealthy and Wall Street. Her willingness to take America into war is unacceptable.

Ethical Behavior

This is all about politicians. The issue revolves around the words “Everything I have done is within the law.” Former President Bill Clinton asked for a definition of the word “is.” Going back in time former president Richard Nixon said that by definition everything he did was within the law simply because he was president. Clinton was impeached but not found guilty. Nixon didn’t wait to be impeached and simply resigned.

Most recently the questions surrounding Benghazi have continued to haunt Hillary Rodham Clinton. Her refusal to explain what she knew and when she knew it pertaining to the attack on the U.S. consular facility there, continues to be a source of doubt that will only grow more pronounced if she announces her candidacy for president. Why can’t she simply explain her knowledge of the facts? Mrs. Clinton’s use of a private e-mail server only adds to questions about her honesty.

Robert “Bob” Menendez is the senior United States Senator from New Jersey. He is a member of the Democratic Party. The Justice Department is preparing to bring criminal corruption charges against the senator. Menendez told reporters last Friday night he has “always conducted myself appropriately and in accordance with the law.”

Events in Ferguson, Missouri have resulted in a federal report alleging racially biased policing but the mayor, James Knowles III said that the resignations or firings of six city officials implicated in the scandal have given the troubled city the clean slate it needs to begin the reforming itself. Some in the community have demanded a recall election. He refuses to resign.

Relatives on campaign payrolls? Now, a bill recently introduced by US Representative Jackie Speier, a California Democrat, would prohibit members of Congress from hiring family members through their campaign committees or political action committees and set strict disclosure requirements, as well as other reforms. My guess is that even if passed into law our representatives will find a way to evade such a regulation and claim they are “within the law.”

Will this evasion of the law and a lack of ethical behavior end any time soon? Anyone reading this will not see a change in their life time.

Mexico Needs a New Government

Best Director Oscar for “Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance),” Alejandro G. Iñarritu

As reported in the Los Angeles Times. From the Oscars in Hollywood, to the pope in Rome, Mexico is receiving some rather unflattering attention, a reversal of the image that the government has spent millions to cultivate.

It started as a celebration of Mexicanness, with Academy Award glory being heaped on Mexican director Alejandro G. Iñarritu, who took three Oscar statuettes in Sunday night’s ceremony. It turned when he made a plea for better treatment of Mexican immigrants and took a sharp dig at President Enrique Peña Nieto.

“I want to dedicate this prize for my fellow Mexicans,” he said when his film “Birdman” was named best picture at the 87th Academy Awards in Hollywood. “I pray that we might find and build a government that we deserve.”

Peña Nieto ignored the slight and congratulated the director via his Twitter account. But many newspapers in Mexico on Monday carried a front-page photo of a jubilant Iñarritu and highlighted his remarks. And social media was aflame with reaction, a hashtag using “the government we deserve” (#ElGobiernoQueMerecemos) soaring to the top of things that trend.

When I visited Mexico City and Acapulco over 40 years ago they were exciting places where both citizens and tourists could comfortably walk down the boulevards and streets without fear of gang violence. Advertising in the Los Angeles Times Travel section was all about visiting those cities and many other places in Mexico. About the only thing you had to fear was the water. – Not any more. Water quality is the least of your worries in Mexico today.

It is sad to write that the tourist population has declined as the level of gangs and other criminal activity has grown dramatically. It is no wonder that the poor of Mexico try to sneak into the United States. The oligarchs of Mexico have no problem with today’s Mexico.

Sadly Peña Nieto is not the answer to their prayers.

Oregon’s New Governor is Bisexual

Who cares? Why should anyone care?

Reported in the Los Angeles Times: “Advocates for the LGBTQ community cheer the milestone. Libertarian-leaning Oregon — liberal in Portland, conservative elsewhere — mostly yawns.”

And I must agree. Why do I need to know that Kate Brown is a homosexual? Will she do her job differently because of her sexual orientation? Isn’t her sexual orientation her private business?

The news media’s desire to tell me every detail of every politician’s personal life that has no bearing on their job is a true shame. It appears to me that mainstream media has descended into the area usually covered by the tabloids like The Globe and The Examiner and television programs like TMZ.

This situation is the consequence of the 24 hour news cycle. I am going back to sleep.