Wednesday, July 6, 2016


Has America Become an Oligarchy? 


Yes, America has indeed become an oligarchy, by badly mixing democracy and oligarchy! Hear me out …
One of the biggest educational benefits for American voters throughout the 2016 Presidential election so far has, hopefully, been an improved understanding of how oligarchic, and rigged, our political system has become.

Simply put, it is heavily in favor of establishment candidates, and specifically against outsiders, with some party elites having profound influence over the outcome of an election, sometimes decisively!
1. What is an oligarchy?
Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia - Oligarchy:
Oligarchy (from Greek ὀλιγαρχία (oligarkhía); from ὀλίγος (olígos), meaning "few", and ἄρχω (arkho), meaning "to rule or to command")[1][2][3] is a form of power structure in which power effectively rests with a small number of people. These people might be distinguished by royalty, wealth, family ties, education, corporate, religious or military control. Such states are often controlled by a few prominent families who typically pass their influence from one generation to the next, but inheritance is not a necessary condition for the application of this term.
Throughout history, oligarchies have often been tyrannical, relying on public obedience or oppression to exist. Aristotle pioneered the use of the term as a synonym for rule by the rich,[4] for which another term commonly used today is plutocracy.
2. Who are the oligarchs in America?
Some elected officials and some elites in the political parties! Many candidates are chosen by the oligarchs, and become oligarchs themselves over time. It's the elites choosing the future elites who will dictate how we, the people, will be allowed to vote and live! THE BUSH's THE CLINTONS, THE OBAMA'S AND THEIR SYCOPHANTS. IT LIKE THE MOB FAMILIES !!

3. Oligarch vs. democracy
In a nutshell, democracy simply means one person, one vote. Americans naively believed they had finally achieved this ideal in 1965 (Voting Rights Act of 1965).
Unlike a parliamentary system (e.g. the U.K., Japan, and Canada), in which the majority party of the parliament (via a coalition if necessary) elects the head of the government, Americans elect their President directly via a democratic process (with the electoral-college system notwithstanding), as clearly defined in the U.S. Constitution.
It turns out that American voters no longer really elect the President directly, at all. Instead, the two major parties each offer their choice of candidate, selectively chosen via their own primary processes. Worse yet, neither of the primary processes are truly democratic. Rather, they are oligarchic, with some party elites having profound influence over the outcome, sometimes decisively. Worst of all, there is no direct relationship between the primary voters and the party elites, because many primary elections are open, with no party affiliation required!
In short, the election process for American President is not truly democratic. Rather, it is a bad mixture of democracy and oligarchy!

4. America's 2-party system
Like Yin and Yang, it was natural for America to end up with two major political parties, currently the Democratic Party and the Republican Party.
Both parties are private, like elite private clubs, with their own rules, hierarchies, and steep entrance dues to become elites. For example, Senator Ted Cruz, just like Senator Obama, promised heavy future favors for support of his presidential run. American taxpayers would have to pay hugely to cover his campaign promises, just as we did after Senator Obama won the Presidency. Both of them are obviously top elites in their respective parties!
However, unlike private clubs with exclusive memberships, both parties are “open”, with arbitrary party memberships. For example, an Independent (who belongs to neither party) may choose to participate in the Democratic primary (in states with open primaries), but eventually vote for the Republican nominee in the general election. He (or she) may never have voted for either party before, thus having nothing to do, previously, with the elites of either party.

In short, democratically speaking, the oligarchs in America are not legitimate, because of the disconnection between them and the voters!

5. How do the two parties choose their respective Presidential nominee?
Each party has its own primary elections, which vary from state to state, to select a party nominee. Basically, a nominee is selected by the delegates, who are not necessarily directly chosen, even proportionately, by the voters.
On the Republican side, the problem is less obvious this year, because Donald Trump is already the presumptive nominee, thanks to an overwhelmingly large number of votes he has received.
In contrast, the Democratic Party may have a big problem coming up, if Bernie Sanders ends up with more "pledged delegates" via public voting than Hillary Clinton, who obviously has far more super-delegates to eventually out-number him!
What, then, is a super-delegate?
Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia - Super-delegate:
In American politics, a "super-delegate" is a delegate to the Democratic National Convention who is seated automatically and chooses for whom they want to vote. These Democratic Party super-delegates include distinguished party leaders, and elected officials, including all Democratic members of the House and Senate and sitting Democratic governors.
Note: Many voted for Bernie Sanders in the primaries for the person, not the party! Some of them may have never voted before, let alone voted Democrat. So they had zero input as to who would become a super-delegate, who could not therefore possibly represent them in any way!

Bottom line: How could our political system have devolved to the point that some party elites end up with so much more power than the people, deviating from the ideal of "one person, one vote"?
"They know what's better for the party" is obviously the pretended logic behind the set-up. In reality, however, it's just another power grab by the elite few: the oligarchs!
6. Do they know better, really?
Yes, they do, as most of them are career politicians!
What, then, is the problem? Most of them work primarily for their own benefit (aka "getting re-elected ad nauseam"), with their party a distant second, their constituents a remote third, and their country dead last!
To know what a typical Congressman like David Jolly does on daily basis, read: Republican congressman exposes one of Congress' dirty little secrets on '60 Minutes'. Here is an excerpt:
Jolly said, as a member of Congress, entire schedules work around making time to fundraise, in his case $18,000 per day, for their reelection campaign.
"Republicans, Democrats and Independents can all agree on one thing - the public did not elect Members of Congress to go to Washington and spend their time raising money for their re-election," Jolly said. "They are not paying members $174,000 a year to spend, in some cases 20 or 30 hours a week, on the phone dialing for dollars. But that is exactly what is happening."
Bottom line: In politics, money is not everything; money is the only thing!

7. What's the end result?
Because of the link between money and elections/re-elections, the two parties often end up with similar candidates, especially in terms of ferocious spending and the resultant requisite taxation and borrowing! Specifically,
  1. The Democrats tax-borrow-&-spend for entitlements. For more, read: Democratic Socialism.
  2. The Republicans tax-borrow-&-spend for wars, for more, read: Democratic Imperialism.

Still wondering why our national debt already exceeds $19 trillion, and continues to rise rapidly?
Wonder not! It's the political system, stupid!

8. Discussion
Both parties are oligarchic, but the Democratic Party seems much worse. For more on the history of “super-delegates” and its implications this year, read: No, Sanders doesn’t stand much chance.
Now, why the Democratic Party is more oligarchic than the Republican Party? Maybe it has something to do with the nature of the Democratic Party? Three informative readings:
  1. The Democratic Party is the Party of New Slavery!
  2. Stupid Voters.
  3. Stupid Media.

For those “intelligent” Sanders voters, if you feel disenfranchised by his party, it’s time to board the Trump train for one main reason, at least: Trump is the candidate best at addressing your critical issues, such as fair trade and anti-war!
More profoundly, electing Donald Trump may be a unique opportunity for us to break the cycle of money and politics by both parties!
Yes, Trump, a de facto Libertarian (Who is Donald Trump, Anyway?), has already hijacked the Republican Party, by beating all its establishment candidates! He will hopefully unite, reform, and expand the GOP in the coming weeks and months, leading to a victory in November.
On the Democratic side, Sanders is unlikely to beat the Democratic establishment. So Hillary Clinton will certainly be the nominee, thanks to the super-delegates!
Between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in the general election, here is a basic question for all Americans: America: Are We Still A Republic?

9. Closing
Give Donald Trump a chance to "make America great again", which may include changes to campaign financing and even the oligarchic system!

HILLARY EMAIL LIES DOCUMENTED.. and the time line too!






In a statement made by FBI Director James Comey, the Bureau will recommend to the Justice Department that no charges be filed against Hillary Clinton in light of the FBI’s investigation into her usage of a private email server during her tenure as Secretary of State.

The details revealed by Director Comey in his statement today, however, draw attention to a few inaccuracies made by Secretary Clinton regarding the email controversy since the New York Times first broke the story in March 2015.
The following is a timeline of the 5 most egregious inaccuracies, alongside Director Comey’s new information revealed today:
Hillary Clinton answers questions from reporters March 10, 2015 at the United Nations in New York. Clinton admitted Tuesday that she made a mistake in choosing for convenience not to use an official email account when she was secretary of state. But, in remarks to reporters after attending a United Nations event, she insisted that her email set-up had been properly secure and that she had turned over all professional communications to the State Department. AFP PHOTO/DON EMMERT (Photo credit should read DON EMMERT/AFP/Getty Images)

Date: March 10, 2015, United Nations Press Conference

LIE #1: “I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email.”
TRUTH: As FBI Director James Comey revealed in the press conference today, 108 of the emails in more than 52 chains she sent were, in fact, considered classified. And 8 of those chains contained a “Top Secret” classification.
From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent
LIE #2: “First, when I got to work as Secretary of State, I opted for convenience to use my personal email account, which was allowed by the State Department, because I thought it would be easier to carry just one device for my work and for my personal emails instead of two.”
TRUTH: The Director pointed out that Hillary Clinton used “numerous mobile devices to view and send email on that personal domain.”
Secretary Clinton used several different servers and administrators of those servers during her four years at the State Department, and used numerous mobile devices to view and send e-mail on that personal domain. As new servers and equipment were employed, older servers were taken out of service, stored, and decommissioned in various ways. Piecing all of that back together—to gain as full an understanding as possible of the ways in which personal e-mail was used for government work—has been a painstaking undertaking, requiring thousands of hours of effort.
LIE #3: “It [her email system] was on property guarded by the Secret Service. And there were no security breaches.”
TRUTH: It turns out, however, there might have been a successful security breach on Secretary Clinton’s email. While the FBI Director that this is “unlikely,” he states that “it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account.”
We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account.
US secretary of state Hillary Clinton (C) looks at her mobile phone after attending a Russia - US meeting on the sidelines of the 43rd annual Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) Ministering Meeting in Hanoi on July 23, 2010. Asia-Pacific's biggest security dialogue convenes in Vietnam with ructions over North Korea and friction between the United States and China likely to dominate proceedings. AFP PHOTO / POOL / Na Son Nguyen (Photo credit should read Na Son Nguyen/AFP/Getty Images)

Date: August 8, 2015, Signed Declaration to Federal Judge

LIE #4: “While I do not know what information may be ‘responsive’ for purposes of this lawsuit, I have directed that all my e-mails on in my custody that were or potentially were federal records be provided to the Department of State, and on information and belief, this has been done.”
TRUTH: According to FBI Director James Comey’s statement today, “several thousand work-related e-mails that were not in the group of 30,000 that were returned by Secretary Clinton to State in 2014.”
The FBI also discovered several thousand work-related e-mails that were not in the group of 30,000 that were returned by Secretary Clinton to State in 2014. We found those additional e-mails in a variety of ways. Some had been deleted over the years and we found traces of them on devices that supported or were connected to the private e-mail domain. Others we found by reviewing the archived government e-mail accounts of people who had been government employees at the same time as Secretary Clinton, including high-ranking officials at other agencies, people with whom a Secretary of State might naturally correspond.
KINGSTREE, SC - FEBRUARY 25: Democratic presidential candidate, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton speaks to guests gathered for a town hall meeting at the Williamsburg County Recreation Center on February 25, 2016 in Kingstree, South Carolina. The South Carolina Democratic primary is scheduled to take place on February 27. (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)

Date: September 7, 2015, Interview with Associated Press

LIE #5: “What I did was allowed. It was allowed by the State Department. The State Department has confirmed that.”
TRUTH: According to an official report released in May by the State Department Office of the Inspector General, the department “found no evidence that the Secretary requested or obtained guidance or approval to conduct official business via a personal email account on her private server.”
OIG found no evidence that the Secretary requested or obtained guidance or approval to conduct official business via a personal email account on her private server. According to the current CIO and Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic Security, Secretary Clinton had an obligation to discuss using her personal email account to conduct official business with their offices, who in turn would have attempted to provide her with approved and secured means that met her business needs. However, according to these officials, DS and IRM did not—and would not—approve her exclusive reliance on a personal email account to conduct Department business, because of the restrictions in the FAM [Foriegn Affairs Manuel] and the security risks in doing so.
FBI Director Comey said the followed regarding the issue:
“Any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation.”
WASHINGTON, DC - JUNE 23: FBI Director James Comey participates in a news conference on child sex trafficking, at FBI headquarters, June 23, 2014 in Washington, DC. Director Comey said that 168 juveniles have been recovered in a nationwide operation targeting commercial child sex trafficking. (Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images)

In conclusion…

“Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information,” said Director Comey in his statement today, “our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.”
He closed his statement with the following:
“I know there were many opinions expressed by people who were not part of the investigation—including people in government—but none of that mattered to us. Opinions are irrelevant, and they were all uninformed by insight into our investigation, because we did the investigation the right way. Only facts matter, and the FBI found them here in an entirely apolitical and professional way. I couldn’t be prouder to be part of this organization.”