Yes, Virginia, Journalism is Actually Dead.

In This Column, We Mourn the Death of Journalism...and Find Out Why the New York Times David Brooks is a Boob

I fully understand that among those reading this missive, there will be both good friends and strangers who cannot for the life of them understand why I would support Donald Trump for President.  They see him as a racist, a xenophobe, a demagogue, a fascist, misogynist and  a bigot. 

However, I’ve seen little evidence to support that position.  What I have seen, and what I have written about before, is how I have seen some of the worst, most inappropriate, unprofessional and manipulative journalism written about Trump that I have ever seen in my lifetime, much of it from so-called “established professionals” and even those who have purported to be conservatives, from whom I expect a much higher standard.

Yes, yes, like many of those reading, I have read that Trump hates Muslims.  I have read that Trump has lied. That Trump said Mexicans are rapists and he talked about Megyn Kelly’s menstrual cycle.  If any of that were true, it would reflect terribly on Trump.  Except, none of those things actually happened.  

What Trump did do is note that the Mexican government is allowing people to cross their border from all over the world, with little oversight.  They cross into the United States in the hundreds of thousands each year.  This accounts, for instance, into 38% of all homicides in the United States, annually, according to the Census Bureau.

Trump talked about Fox reporter Kelly as “…having blood coming out of her eyes, out of her wherever…”, but this is common figure of speech, not a reference to any particular bodily function.  These slights, along with many others, exist only in the imaginations of pundits trying deliberately to stir the flames.  None moreso than David Brooks of the New York Times. 

In his recent Op-ed, “No Trump, Not Ever.”, Brooks slimes through what can be best considered an unprofessional rant of namecalling without substance regarding Trump.  Now, nothing wrong with a little namecalling, for instance, David Brooks is boob.  That said, one should be able to back it up with some type of core causation as to why one would reach such conclusions.  Here, Brooks fails miserably.

Brooks in his New York Times piece, calls Trump unprepared, with no advisors or policies.  David Brooks is not stupid man, which I would not believe.  He knows full well that Trump is regularly advised by the likes of U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions, Billionaire CEO Carl Icahn and veteran campaigner Corey Lewandowski.  He must also know that Trump has policy positions laid out carefully on his website regarding health care, immigration, taxation, trade and a range of other subjects.  Trump has an entire book of these out since last fall.  No, Brooks knows these things, or he’s frankly not qualified to report for the Times.  What Brooks is, is a liar.

In the entire article, Brooks brings to the table only two points even approaching debatable saliency.  Firstly, he references a Politico article making the claim that Trump made over 60 untrue statements in just a few speeches.  The issue with that, is that many of the “untrue statements” so “fact-checked” aren’t really untrue at all, but are merely the writers disagreeing with Trump.  Trump did say “In trade, we lose to everybody”.  Sure, there are a few countries with whom we still have a trade surplus, but, the statement was understood to be hyperbolic as the United States does suffer an overall trade deficit of over $500 billion dollars, so the statement is actually true.

Another example from the Politico hit piece is that “untruth” that Trump is self-funding his campaign.  You see, Trump has merely “lent” his campaign $18 million dollars, or 93% of all campaign funds, rather than given it to himself.  This means, horrors! He can give it back to himself later, but this clearly makes him a liar, at least in Politico’s World.  So much for their integrity as a news source.

Secondly, Brooks points out that Trump is doomed to lose the general election, because he currently has a disapproval rate of 60% among the American people.  What he fails to mention is that Hillary Clinton has a disapproval of 53%.  That, and there’s eight months between now and voting day, which is known in political world as much water to cross.  Since Brooks’ last prediction was that Trump could never become the nominee, there becomes much room for doubt.

The remainder of the article just gets silly, claiming that the Bible itself foretells the coming of Trump and that we must be forewarned against his demagoguery and fascism, whatever that means.  He then wraps up by pointing out that the Founders of the United States would be appalled at the coming of Trump as a viable candidate for the Office of President.  In fact, according to David Brooks, Trump may represent a threat to American Democracy itself.  If only the voters weren’t so damn foolish, right?

What else would you expect from a self-described “conservative” who thinks that John McCain and Lindsay Graham are the standard bearers of the GOP and that Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater are outdated as conservatives.  David Brooks, the boob, has actually argued this.

CHICAGO ORGANIZERS LIE TO START RIOT AT TRUMP RALLY

This is how MoveOn Organizers got thousands to riot and disrupt at the March 11 Chicago Trump Rally….by lying to them.

As many sources have reported, the March 11 Rally for Donald Trump in Chicago, Ill. Was cancelled at the request of law enforcement over an organized plan to rush the stage and disrupt the event.    A peitition was started, which gathered 51,000 signatures to shut down the rally, by a UIC student, Jorge Mena Robles, who admits to violating US law by being an illegal alien in the United States.

A Facebook page was then started which made the following claims, word for word, it can be found here:

“Reasons for protesting:
-Trump has called for the complete and total shutdown of all Muslims entering the United States. He has claimed that Islam and Muslims are hateful and terrorists and must be barred entrance until he decides otherwise.
-Trump has generalized the entire Mexican immigrant community as criminals and rapists. He calls for the mass deportation of 11 million adults and children alike regardless of how long they have lived in the United States. He also calls for the building of a giant wall to separate us from our long-time allies in Mexico.
-Trump has advocated FOR war crimes such as but not limited to torture-interrogation, mass murder as a warning, the intentional murder of entire civilian families, and the indiscriminatory bombing of countries in the Middle East.
-Trump has consistently refused to disavow and condemn the white supremacist hate groups such as the KKK that support and work for his campaign.
-Trump has preyed on the fears of poor and middle class whites while at the same time not offering any policies that would support them in overcoming the very serious and real challenges that they also face in America.
-Trump's nativist, nationalist, and fascist stances parallel the most evil leaders this world has seen such as Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini.
-Trump shows a childlike temperament that would jeopardize our national security and potentially start unnecessary conflicts.”

The result was five arrests and two police officers injured.  Despite this, the criminal Robles remains at large.  None of the claims made were accurate, but nonetheless resulted in violent rioting by thousands.

The following should be noted:

1. Trump never called for a “complete and total shutdown of all Muslims.”  He called for a temporary moratorium on new Muslims entering the country in response to President Barack Obama suggesting we should ban citizens of entire countries from entering.

.2.  Trump has never “generalized the entire Mexican immigrant community” as criminals or rapists.  He condemned illegal immigration from all countries, but said the Mexicans are a wonderful people.

3. Trump does call for the deportation of 11 million illegal invaders to the United States, as their actions are in violation of U.S. law.

4. Trump does call for the construction of a wall across the U.S./Mexican Border, as such a wall has been U.S. law since 2007, and has been ignored by President Obama in violation of his duty to uphold federal law.

5. Trump has called for no war crimes, but has advocated for a strong military and the will to use it when the interests of the United States are threatened.

6. Trump has consistently and repeatedly condemned and disavowed white supremacists, including the KKK.

7. Trump has never “preyed on the fears of the poor and middle class”, but instead has vowed to protect both Medicare and Social Security, promising that “We cannot allow the poor to die in the streets.”

8.  The last two false claims made to the protestors in Chicago merely name call Trump as “being like Hitler”, but make no specific claims other than Trump being an American nationalist, which one might advocate that all citizens should be.

The final claim is that Trump may “start unnecessary conflicts”.  In reality, conflicts have already occurred, brought on the actions of admitted criminals like Jorge Mena Robles

FIND OUT WHY I'M STILL ENDORSING DONALD TRUMP

FIND OUT WHY I'M STILL ENDORSING DONALD TRUMP

by Kevin Ryan

Last June, I came right out and endorsed Donald Trump as my choice for President. That’s right,as soon as he announced. I did because I’ve followed his work for years and understand his approach, which I still believe would be successful for America.

Since that time, I have read some of the worst journalism in mainstream media in my lifetime. Half-truths, deliberate misrepresentations, out-of- context quotes or no direct quotes at all, accusing Donald Trump of running on nothing more than pure hatred and bigotry. I’m barely surprised. I’ve seen how the media, which is largely politically liberal, dump on republican candidates before, who then tend to apologize and meekly change their positions to ones more agreeable to liberal pundits. Not Trump.

He doubles down, stands his ground, and gives it right back to them. The result has been one of the ugliest election cycles I can remember, and I’ve been active in every one of them since 1988.

So, what is below was written in response to a liberal friend of mine who does not like Donald Trump. His position seems to based on what he’s heard about Trump and his proposals, rather than what Trump has actually released. This person has read no books by Trump, read no policy papers and has little understanding of what Trump represents outside of what is said about Trump by the Washington Post, MSNBC and Mother Jones Magazine.

You can like Trump, or you can hate him, fine by me. But make your decision based on an understanding of what he says and does, in context, rather than second or third hand information. Understand who is making statements about Trump, who those people are, and what organizations they represent and why they might be saying what they are about him.

What lays below is lengthy, and complex with names and quotes with which you may not be familiar. Read it anyway. Read it with an open mind and you may becoming better informed. Read it with a closed mind, and you’ll learn nothing. This is serious business.


PREFACE

I think Trump should be held accountable for everything he says, and everything he does. What I don’t want and don’t accept, is his being held accountable for things he never said and never did. This is where I’m going with the idea of media “misstatements and mis-representation.”


TRUMP ON FLASH VERSUS SUBSTANCE

First of all, I do not see Trump as “operating on the surface”. I’ve seen detailed plans and policy statements made by Trump, they are widely available, but are simply never quoted nor referred to in most press. Take for instance Trump’s policies on healthcare. They can be found here:

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/healthcare-reform

However, to distill the above link down, because I prefer directly making my case rather than have one be required to do tons of research to understand my point, Trump is and has been talking about interstate insurance portability, healthcare savings accounts and price transparency, among other things. He has been doing so at least since last fall, when his book Crippled America came out, (I know, because I bought my copy directly from him) and in many cases, much longer. Point being, this has been shuffled aside while his opponents, both Dem and Rep, feature off-hand remarks from Trump, such as “I would end Obamacare and replace it with something terrific” or suggesting Trump has endorsed single-payer health care, which simply is not true.

The idea is to present Trump, as you say, as “building the entirety of his case on being a winner”, which is just not happening in reality. Does Trump use those words? Sure, why not? He makes speeches where ideas must be conveyed quickly and simply for video soundbites, but his campaign consists of much more and the pundits are fully aware of this. They purposefully direct attention elsewhere in order to deceive the public. Why? They just don’t like his proposals. They want the other guy to win. Its that easy. As I said before, it doesn’t matter what he says or doesn’t say, they’re going to find a way to try to nail him to the floor.


HAS TRUMP BEEN RACIST?

This is why I say you have to be careful before you believe what you read about Trump and what he says. I too, have read many press references to Trump “calling Mexicans rapists.” Never happened. You yourself make reference to Trump having “asserted that the Mexican Government was sending the rapists and criminals across the border”, well not exactly.

In your statement, you correctly note that Trump referred to the Mexican GOVERNMENT, NOT the Mexican people, so no disclaimer would be needed to make note that Mexicans themselves are honorable, since he never refers to them directly. Also, it becomes very helpful to understand the context of what was said, which makes it clear the entire point was the both the US and Mexican Government’s level of corruption and incompetence, both of which are demonstrable. Trump even directly refers to the “best and the finest” of the Mexican people and how those folks are not being sent here. Here’s the full quote:

“The U.S. has become a dumping ground for everybody else's problems. Thank you. It's true, and these are the best and the finest. When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people. But I speak to border guards and they tell us what we're getting. And it only makes common sense. It only makes common sense. They're sending us not the right people. It's coming from more than Mexico. It's coming from all over South and Latin America, and it's coming probably -- probably -- from the Middle East. But we don't know. Because we have no protection and we have no competence, we don't know what's happening. And it's got to stop and it's got to stop fast.”

Have you seen THIS quote in the press? I’m guessing not handily. Note that Trump DOES in the same breath talk about Mexicans who are doing well…he notes they’re staying home. He then goes on to say that many of the miscreants are not Mexican at all, but rather foreigners from many countries, merely coming through the Mexican border, simply because both governments allow it to happen. No racism, no xenophobia, just a polemic on international stupidity.


IS TRUMP A BULLY?

Why is it you ask that Trump, and only Trump, has to “complain so vociferously about media misrepresentation”? He doesn’t. However, unlike many conservatives, Trump isn’t willing to play the media’s game, they shit on his head, he does not back down, apologize, cower or defer, he returns fire. This remains one of Trump’s strongest avenues of appeal. It’s frankly something somebody should have tried a long time ago.

The media doesn’t just smear Trump, they smear every conservative they can find. 85% of professional journalists are registered Democrats…surprise they use unfair tactics when dealing with conservatives. Gannett’s Jaleesa Jones was gleeful in reporting actress Gabrielle Union’s mention of African-American conservative Stacey Dash as “the crazy lady”. Dash had noted that it was hypocritical of the black community to demand that the Academy Awards give awards to blacks based on race rather than performance while the BET Awards are ONLY given to African-American Actors. Anna Merlan of Jezebel.com referred to Conservative columnist Ann Coulter as a “peppy dementor” and Fox’s Sean Hannity as a “ enraged football coach pounding the steering wheel.” So much for Trump being singly disrespectful.
You made reference to Trump’s responses to being attacked by media figures as bullying. That’s frankly nonsensical. Bullying is the strong picking on the weak. Trump picks on the strong, and normally after they pick on him. I say, good show on Trump.


IS TRUMP STARTING FIGHTS WITH THE MEDIA?

You also mentioned Megan Kelly and how Trump picked a fight with her after she asked a “sensitive question”. Did you see the events of last Thursday’s debate in Texas? Kelly asked Trump about how he felt about the Better Business Bureau giving his Trump University a “D- Rating”. Trump responded by telling Kelly he had an “A Rating” She said that was simply wrong. Turns out, not so much. Not only did Trump release a copy of that “A Rating”, but the BBB itself had faxed Fox News the rating PRIOR to the debate questioning by Kelly, as reported by Jim Hoft of Gateway Pundit. In short, Megan Kelly knowingly lied, on national television to smear Trump, Trump gave her hell for it, and the next day, the liberal media reported that it was Trump who had been “caught lying by Megan Kelly!” Who is bullying who here??

So, as you can see, at this point, the American Media is being caught left and right with smoke and mirrors and just keeps digging their hole deeper. Trump’s detractors, like Mitt Romney, are becoming increasingly desperate, such as Romney’s speech Thursday, which was nothing but a string of namecalling. “Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud. His promises are as worthless as a degree from Trump University. (Which actually never offered them) He's playing members of the American public for suckers: He gets a free ride to the White House, and all we get is a lousy hat. Dishonesty is Donald Trump's hallmark, bullying, the greed, the showing off, the misogyny, the absurd third-grade theatrics.", Romney said. Mitt Romney isn’t picking a fight here? Or is it that the man who drew 48% of the national vote against Barack Obama is a helpless snowflake who needs protection against big, bad Donald Trump?

Meanwhile, the Trump Train just grows and grows and we as the American people are getting clarity like we haven’t seen in our political process in our lifetimes.


ADDENDUM: OR MORE HELPLESS SNOWFLAKES TRUMP IS BULLYING

Another example came to me this AM.  The New York Times today carried a story called "Ad Calls Trump A Fraud, Unift for the White House" and describes a super-PAC ad campaign which talks about the Trump University issue.

That issue is largely based on New York Democrat Attorney General Eric Schniderman pursuing Trump over a series of real estate seminars he held several years ago.  The basis on the AG's ire seems to be that Trump used the word "University" and not "Initiative" to describe the program. 46 of 48 cases of fraud accusation have already been thrown out by judges.  The remaining cases are moving forward based on the idea that since Trump took money from participants who thought they were attending an accredited university, which they'd signed up for in a hotel conference room, then Trump fooled them unfairly.

In other news, it is widely expected that Schniderman will be running for Governor of New York in 2017. Surprise !

As for the PAC itself, Our Principles is described by the Times as "not aligned with any of his rivals", which either indicates the Times are incompetent or stupid, because it took me all of ten minutes to figure out that Our Princples PAC is operated by Katie Packer, Mitt Romney's former deputy campaign manager, who herself has already endorsed Marco Rubio.  Surprise number two.

Our Principles has just added staff in the form of Tim Miller, Jeb Bush's chief spokesman up until a few weeks ago.  Mr. Miller has called Trump a KKK sympathizer, probably because he had denounced them about 12 times in interviews between Wednesday and Saturday last week and has never been involved with them in any way. Surprise three !  (This revelation comes, oddly, from the New York Times, who are again, reporting that none of Trump's rivals are involved.)

Really what Our Principles is about is the principles of Joe and Marlene Ricketts, the owners of the Chicago Cubs, who have donated nearly the entirety of the four million dollars of funding to run the ad campaigns.  Of course, it might be fair to characterize the Ricketts as the meek, average Americans fighting for the little guys, but I might find that a bit tough to swallow.

COULD THESE US SENATORS ALL BE FELONS ???

(Not Bloody Likely…)

For well over a year now, Secretary of State John Kerry has been in the midst of negotiating a nuclear treaty with the Nation of Iran, a project which has been at the center of a whirlwind of controversy last visited with the congressional speech in opposition by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on March 3rd, 2015.  The deal at this time is described by the Obama administration as “an outline”, with details to be released later, while opposition, including by the Israel Government, say that a limited term for such a deal “paves Iran’s path to the (atomic) bomb”.

In reaction to the Obama proposal of this deal being impending, 47 Republican U.S. Senators, led by Tom Cotton of Arkansas, have written a letter to “the Leaders of Iran”, which has Democrats and supporters of the President up in arms.  Dr. Peter Spiro, Professor of Law at Temple University has suggested that the 47 signatory Senators, including Rand Paul, Mitch McConnell and Ted Cruz may be guilty of criminal activity, while both Bloomberg News and the New York Daily News have suggested they may be guilty of treason!  It should be noted that Dr. Spiro is a former member of the Clinton Administration.

Regarding these accusations of criminal activity by literally half of the United States Senate, they stem from an ancient law called the Logan Act, first passed in 1799 and unused since 1804 even to bring a prosecution.  No one has ever been convicted under this law.  The Logan Act states that, “Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government” in order to influence that government, is guilty of a felony.

What should be made clear about the actual letter drafted and signed by nearly every Republican in the Senate, is that it reads like a sixth grade civics textbook, explaining the form of the United States Government.  Among the apparently felonious intelligence given to the Iran Government by the GOP was:

* The President negotiates international treaties, while the Senate ratifies them.
* The approval of treaties requires an affirmative vote of 2/3rds of the Senate.
* That a Congressional - Executive Agreement requires a major vote of both Houses of Congress.
* And that the President can serve two four-year terms, while Senators serve six year terms.

Yes, the purpose of telling the Iranian government these things was to inform them that a unilateral agreement with a President in the last two years of his term may not last much longer than that term.  However, the liberal press and many Democrats, including Senators Harry Reid and Dick Durbin literally believe that over 40 Senators should be jailed for telling foreign leaders things that no one in America can pass the seventh grade without knowing.

Sometimes the Democratic Party stretches credibility, with Senate Minority Leader Reid calling the letter “spiteful”.  A petition sponsored by the White House to charge the signers of the letter with treason against the United States itself, contained 140,000 signatures at the time of this writing.

Never mind that most legal scholars,  including Steve Vladeck of the Brookings Institute believe that the Logan Act is completely unenforceable and a violation of the First Amendment.  The day Democrats are actually able to enforce a law barring United States Senators from writing letters in which they speak their own minds, our Republic is in very, very deep trouble.  The real treason may be Democrats who feel the First Amendment doesn’t apply to our own leaders.

Here is a link to the actual letter sent by the Senators

PRESS SPREAD CLIMATE SMEAR AGAINST GOVERNOR RICK SCOTT

In an astonishing violation of journalistic ethics, the Associated Press, Reuters CNN and many other media outlets, including the New York NBC News outlet WPTZ ran a story March 9th that Florida Governor Rick Scott had personally “banned” the use of the phrases “Climate Change” and Global Warming.  This story unfortunately remains entirely unsubstantiated and has been debunked by the Governor’s Office itself.

This story originated with the Florida Center for Investigative Journalism, a group founded and run by Trevor Aronson a former reporter for Al Jazeera and graduate of the Investigative Reporting Program at California Berkley.  Mr. Aronson and company have put forward the narrative that Governor Scott set out an official policy of barring the use of the controversial terms, as claimed by Christopher Byrd, a disgruntled former employee of the State of Florida.

Mr. Byrd recently left the Florida Department of Environmental Protection to form his own private law firm, Byrd Law Group, whose clients include a list which is near exclusively made up of environmental lobbying groups, including Florida Defenders of the Environment and a group called Animal Rights, which specializes in defending the civil rights of household pets.  Mr Byrd put forward no evidence to verify his claim regarding the Governor’s office, which comes at a fortunate time to promote his own legal business.

The Governor himself has denied this report to reporters, stating  “First of all, its not true”, said Governor Scott.  The Governor’s spokesperson Jeri Bustamonte confirmed that there is no such policy.

It is a matter of great concern that in 2015, so-called investigative journalism may consist, even with regard to institutions of high prominence, merely repeating rumors with no confirmation, evidence or substance.

WE ALL MUST BE CJ PEARSON

As many of you have heard, 12 year-old C.J. Pearson of Georgia was locked out of Facebook for posting a video and commentary that Barack Obama does not love America.  Whether you agree with C.J. or not, it is vital that Facebook not use their clout to censor the political criticism of anyone, let alone a 12 year old boy.

Until Facebook decides to respect free speech and restores C.J.'s page, no more posts on Facebook.

I too, am C.J. Pearson.

His story can be found here: http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/03/01/watch-12-year-old-conservative-superstar-defends-giuliani-blasts-obama

WE HAVE MET THE ENEMY

In the future, Volition Magazine will be providing coverage and commentary on many current events.  However, as we are at the point of inauguration of Volition, a letter arrived from a liberal.  Not just an average Democratic Party voter, mind you, but a liberal who I would fairly say advocates for the implementation of socialism in America and an end to capitalistic free enterprise.  

I will not name this person, but rather say that he represents a mindset which is increasingly common, and one which must be confronted.  Not to his detriment, but to insure the future he desires cannot come to pass, not only for his own good, but for the good of all.

For those of you reading this of a more conservative persuasion, you may ask yourself, what motivates such a person?  Are they insane? Well, I’d say it is closer to the point to say they care deeply about their fellow man.  They want to insure, as do we all,  that people get enough to eat, have a place to live and the means to support themselves and their families.

They see sinister forces allying against this in the forms of oligarchy and privilege.  They have been told of a super-wealthy "1% percent" who would hoard wealth, and are doing so as we speak, while others suffer for lack of basic items.  Their solution? Frankly, to take it from those who have it, by force if necessary.

A few excerpts from this letter that was received are telling:

"There has been a steady erosion of democratic process and quality of life due the resurgence of "neo-liberal" economic philosophy and the conservative movement…..you should be fighting against the conservative movement because it is fundamentally content with impoverishing everyone so that a few people can be super rich."

"I do hope you realize that the conservative vision of economic prosperity which you advocate, or at
least defend, protects only a few people, the most competitive people, the most talented, and the previously privileged. It says that if you are ordinary you only deserve poverty. Why is comfort and well being to
be reserved for the wealthy? Why should the rest of us live in desperation? What about not being super ambitious makes us deserving of ill health, insecurity and poor education?”

The issue is not the writer.  I understand exactly how he feels.  I think it is fair to say that all of us, even the most libertarian, have felt the pangs of envy toward those more economically fortunate.  In some cases, our needs were very, very real and heartfelt.

The problem is the leaders of these people.  Those who take short, concise concepts, what I like to “bumper sticker logic”, such as “The top 1% control 90% of the wealth”, and spread them amongst their supporters.  These ideas can seem logical to the uninformed.  In the example above, it is a simple observation of mathematics to understand that the top portion of anything, which must exist in any economic model, will control the lions share of resources.  This was true in the days of Ancient Rome, in Victorian England, in Colonial America and is true today.  Despite the grand plans and schemes of despots through history, it will remain true for all the days to come…any alternative has never been explained to me in the efficacy of its execution.

In the hopes that this response will address the points made by the liberal who took time to write the quotes above, I’ll pose two questions, first…what makes you think people are badly off today, and second, are there better ways to run a nation than we do today?

I’ll answer the first by asking this additional question:  How much do the “1%” actually make? Who are they?  In America, in 2014, the Top 10% Wage Earners make $114, 000, according to the IRS.  The Top 1% make $380,000 per year.  So, who are these people?  In the top 10 are our pharmacists, our doctors, our school principals, our local bankers, attorneys, the people in our communities, our brothers and sisters who keep local charities in business.  They are not sinister mystery-men from the shadows.  Even socialist Senator Bernie Sanders makes $193,000 per year, not including contributions….Sanders IS the one percent.

Certainly, we would all like to live better, but even of those in poverty, the majority in America enjoy color television, the Internet, emergency medical care, year round fresh fruits and vegetables,  and many other amenities.  A generation or two ago, hey would have thought we lived like kings and emperors.

Could we change our society and make it better, of course we could, and with luck, we will.  We could re-dedicate ourselves to exceptionialism, to achievement, to encouraging people to do well for themselves and not try to shame them with accusations of privilege or unfair advantage.  We could build a government that facilitates, rather than stifles innovation and initiative.  Imagine a world where one could start one’s own business with a vision and hard work, rather than  needing a battery of lawyers and a wealthy uncle?

To be a bit more specific, we could change how we tax.  As has been suggested by both liberal Bill Gates and conservative Steve Forbes, we could tax consumption, and leave each man’s income and earning alone, to encourage savings and thrift.

But none of this will change until our minds do.  We must realize that we already know how to make America the most prosperous nation on the face of the Earth, because we have already done it.  The greatest threat, to paraphrase cartoonist Walt Kelly, is that, we have met the enemy, and forgotten that he is us.