Recent Posts

Invenium Viam

Featured Guest Commentary

Senator-John-MartyThe essay by Senator John Marty provided below is from a post first published by Bill Moyers on March 4, 2017, on BillMoyers.com. Re-published here with permission from the author.

 

In a Special Report entitled “Is Health Care Doomed?” journalist Bill Moyers examines the current state of health care reform in the US and profiles various efforts by state legislators to offer alternatives to widespread loss of access to affordable health care under the new Republican plan to demolish the ACA (“Obamacare”). In particular, he spotlights Senator John Marty’s plan to reform health care and notes:

“We are at a stalemate. Opponents of the ACA have no viable replacement and supporters have no power to stave off the Republican bulldozer.

 

Is the situation hopeless? In Washington, probably — at least for now. But there are alternatives. As I noted above, two longtime advocates for universal health care, Drs. Woolhandler and Himmelstein, have renewed their campaign for single-payer reform, which candidate Barack Obama applauded when he was campaigning and then rejected after his election as part of those compromises he made to win support from conservative Democrats and the medical and insurance industries. In their Annals article, the two reformist physicians offer evidence that single-payer reform could provide “comprehensive coverage within the current budgetary envelope” because of huge savings on health care bureaucracy. It’s worth reading.

 

healing-health-care-front-cover

Download the free e-book.

So is a plan put forth by Minnesota State Sen. John Marty. Often described as “the conscience of the Minnesota Senate,” Marty has been an advocate for universal health care since he was elected 30 years ago. He has served as chairman of the Senate Health Committee and now serves as the ranking minority member of the Senate Energy Committee. Often ahead of his times, Marty introduced and eventually secured passage of the country’s first ban on smoking in hospitals and health care facilities. Long before public support had materialized, he worked to ban mercury in consumer products, create a legal structure for public benefit corporations and bring about a “living wage” for workers. In 2008, when he introduced legislation proposing marriage equality for LGBT couples and predicted it could pass in five years, colleagues dismissed him as a Don Quixote. Five years later Minnesota passed marriage equality legislation.

 

So this lifelong progressive has earned the right to chide his fellow progressives for “merely tinkering” with problems. He writes that “If 21st-century progressives had been leading the 19th-century abolition movement, we would still have slavery, but we would have limited slavery to a 40-hour work week, and we would be congratulating each other on the progress we had made.”

 

This timidity, Marty acknowledges, might be partially explained by decades of defeat at the hands of powerful financial interests and politicians beholden to those interests. But as a result, many politicians who espouse progressive change have retreated from a “politics of principle” to a “politics of pragmatism.”

 

Sen. Marty crisscrossed Minnesota to talk directly with citizens about what they need and want in health care. He has now proposed a universal health care system which he calls the Minnesota Health Plan. He’s distilled it into a small paperback book — Healing Health Care: The Case for a Commonsense Universal Health System. I asked him to write an essay for us summing up the plan’s basic principles and the case for it.”  — Bill Moyers

A CALL TO ACTION

By John Marty

 

Our health care system is broken.

 

We have some of the best health care available in the world, but one of the worst systems for accessing that care. We squander outstanding health care resources — providers, clinics and hospitals, medical research and technology — on a broken system that makes it difficult and expensive for many people to get the care they need.

 

Our health outcomes, including life expectancy and infant mortality, are worse than most other industrialized countries.

 

President Obama provided hope during his 2008 campaign, saying health care “should be a right for every American.” Unfortunately, he never proposed universal health care, though the Affordable Care Act (ACA) was a big step forward. It reduced the number of people without health coverage by almost half. It made a (in some cases, literally) lifesaving difference for millions of Americans.

 

However, even if the ACA were beefed up, it would always leave some people without coverage. In addition, health insurance does not equate to health care — millions of Americans who have insurance still cannot afford the care they need due to exclusions in coverage, copays and deductibles. And because it added even more complexity to our already convoluted insurance system, the ACA is easy to attack.

 

Republican attacks during the 2016 campaign were wrong; the ACA is not the cause of the problems in the system. Nor is it the solution, despite the good it did for many people.

 

Now that President Trump has blurted out that “nobody knew that health care could be so complicated,” we will watch the ironic efforts of Republicans to replace the Affordable Care Act — an insurance-based plan, largely modeled on former Massachusetts Republican Gov. Mitt Romney’s “Romneycare,” which, in turn, was largely based on ideas from the conservative Heritage Foundation. We have Republicans attacking a Republican concept. It might be bizarre to watch, but lives are at stake.

More Below the Fold

{ 0 comments }

Featured Guest Commentary

Senator-John-Martyby Senator John Marty
March 3, 2017

Eight years ago the Legislative Commission on Ending Poverty by 2020 issued its final report. As the name of the commission indicates, the legislature recognized the scope of the problem would require an extended timeline for reaching the goal of ending poverty. Unfortunately, 2020 is rapidly approaching, yet little progress has been made. In some ways Minnesota is moving backwards.

 

As a co-chair of the former Poverty Commission, I call on Minnesotans to push the state forward and urge state leaders to adopt policies to move all Minnesotans out of poverty. I recently introduced the Moving Out of Poverty bill, SF 1318, which might be the single biggest step towards ending poverty that Minnesota has ever taken. Senate File 1318 would:

 

•  Establish a $15/hour minimum wage through a gradual five year phase-in ($13/hour for small businesses).

•  Strengthen the Working Family Tax Credit – more than doubling the tax credits that low income workers receive (making it equal to 75% of the federal Earned Income Tax Credit).

•  Fully fund the Child Care Assistance Program (CCAP) – so all low-income working parents can get quality, reliable childcare – and eliminating the multi-year waiting lists. In addition, by raising reimbursement rates (to cover costs of childcare at the 75th percentile of local providers), parents will have more options and can choose high-quality care, childcare workers will earn a decent wage, and providers can afford additional training in child development.

•  Provide a $300/month increase in the MN Family Investment Program (MFIP) grants. Payments in MFIP have not been increased in more than thirty years.

 

These investments in moving people out of poverty would be funded by closing the loophole in which high income earners are exempt from federal social security taxes on income over $126,000. Minnesota cannot change the federal social security law, but if the federal government is not going to collect this revenue from high income earners it is reasonable for the state to collect that revenue. High income earners would only be paying the same percentage of their income in social security taxes that every other Minnesota worker pays.

 

This Moving Out of Poverty legislation is bold. But it is not unreasonable and its provisions have strong public support.

 

The $15/hour minimum wage, with this gradual phase-in, would simply align Minnesota with laws in several other states and cities. Broad public support for a higher minimum wage is evident-all of the proposed minimum wage increases on the ballot in 2014 and 2016 passed, even in conservative states such as Arkansas, South Dakota, and Nebraska.

 

Eighty years ago in the New Deal, America made a social contract with its people that included a minimum wage: Workers will receive a minimum wage. It won’t make you rich, but you will have enough to afford necessities for your family-food, housing, clothing, medical care.

 

We are far from fulfilling that social contract. The scope of Minnesota’s poverty problem remains large with one of every three children living in families that struggle to make ends meet. One of every ten households has times where people go hungry because they have no money for food. There are working people who go “home” from their jobs to a homeless shelter at night because they cannot afford housing.

 

The minimum wage increase alone is not sufficient. Even at that level many workers will not be able to pay for basic needs, so the legislation I am proposing would more than double Minnesota’s Working Family Credit. This increase would provide a couple thousand dollars more to a single parent who earns only about $20,000 per year.

 

When parents are unable to work, Minnesotans have recognized the importance of providing financial support to help them survive. We know that children whose families cannot afford housing and food are robbed of their potential – we can measure how it inhibits their physical, mental, and emotional development.

 

Unfortunately, financial assistance payments in Minnesota have not increased since 1986. Inflation over those decades has taken its toll and those families are more stressed than ever. The proposed $300 per month increase would do much to stabilize the lives of these children.

 

Circumstances will always occur that bring people into poverty – if you lose your job, or your car breaks down, or you get hit with large medical bills – you may slip into poverty. When we talk about ending poverty, we cannot prevent people from falling into it, but we can help them move up and out of poverty quickly, so they are not trapped.

 

Ending poverty in Minnesota is an achievable goal if we have the political will to do so. This legislation would be a strong commitment towards fulfilling the goal of moving Minnesota out of poverty and helping all families thrive.

 

Copyright © 2017 Senator John Marty. All rights reserved. Reprinted here with permission from the author.

{ 0 comments }

Endorsing Ken Martin & Marge Hoffa for DFL Leadership

by Invenium Viam on February 23, 2017 · 0 comments

ken-margeAnd if you go chasing rabbits
And you know you're going to fall,
Tell 'em a hookah-smoking caterpillar
Has given you the call ...
Go ask Alice, I think she'll know...
     White Rabbit, Jefferson Airplane

In 2010, DFL losses to the GOP in the Tea Party wave at the polls that year were laid at the doorstep of then-Chair Brian Melendez and Vice (Associate) Chair Donna Cassutt.

 

I said at the time in a letter to the DFL-SCC that blaming the leadership for those losses was unfair, since no one predicted they were likely, or even possible, until just a few days before the election and because elections are not won or lost due to any single element: Be it party leadership at the time, how money is spent; how energized volunteers, candidates and the electorate are, etc. The outcome of an election is based on a collective of actions, events, influences and — perhaps the greatest unknown of all — the mood of the electorate. So I supported the re-election of Melendez and Cassutt. Members of the SCC felt differently, however. I respected their choice then and I respect it now.

 

Today, I feel the same way about the leadership of DFL Chair Ken Martin and Vice Chair Marge Hoffa. The DFL sustained losses in 2014 and 2016, to be sure, but Democrats across the country sustained losses. Pollsters, pundits, thought leaders and political leaders all misread the mood of the electorate. Subsequently, there was not a concerted effort of any kind by the vast majority of the political leadership to heal the divisions after the bitter endorsement contest between Clinton and Sanders. The feeling that Clinton was a sure winner obviated the need for fence-mending. Nor was there a studied read by the leadership on the left as to the reasons voters were supporting Trump, a phenomenon as much economic as cultural in origin. Instead, Trump’s base was generally dismissed by all the smart people with advanced degrees as “deplorables,” racists, misogynists, alt-right reactionaries, and the like. Undoubtedly, some of them were one or even all those things — but that doesn’t mean their economic and cultural anxieties don’t matter and that their votes don’t count. Except perhaps in the minds of those Moral Highgrounders among us who feel they can impose their personal litmus test of ideological purity on everyone around them, including other Democrats.

 

It’s human nature to look for causes outside of ourselves for our failings and upsets. It’s human nature to seek support from others in our fault-finding efforts. And it’s human nature to seek revenge on others for perceived slights and insults, some of which may even fester for many years. But regardless of whether these things are human nature, that doesn’t make them right. It takes a certain amount of maturity and character to strike the log from our own eye before pointing out the mote in our neighbor’s.

 

That’s my fundamental problem with the current race for DFL State Party Chair. I don’t find any real equanimity in judgment on either the broad spectrum of causes for our party’s losses — including the mood of the electorate — or why the current leadership should be exclusively held to blame for those losses. I also don’t find any real equanimity of judgment with regard to assessing the current leadership’s qualities of leadership: managerial effectiveness, record of achievement, fiduciary oversight, work ethic, etc. The message from the honorable opposition seems to be that we lost the Senate, lost more seats in the House, and lost most of those seats in the rural districts of Minnesota (which perennially feels neglected), and those losses embody an obvious indictment of the current leadership for incompetence or worse.

 

Well, I don’t buy it. I didn’t buy that argument in 2010 and I’m not buying it now. Besides, I’m not interested in looking to the past to deconstruct and litigate what went wrong, how it went wrong, and who’s to blame. My advice to fellow DFL’ers who are inclined to think someone has to pay for our losses — and that it ought to be Martin and Hoffa — is to chill with the whole whiney-butt sulking self-indulgence thing. I can make just as cogent an argument that those losses were due to millennials failing to show up at the polls in those elections. Why not blame them? How about this: Put your game face on and get back on the field. Or go sit on the bench. Or leave. Lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way — it’s your choice. But choose, please, and soon.

 

Is that “bullying” to say these things so bluntly? Well, forgive me. I didn’t go to Montessori School, I didn’t get a trophy for ‘participating’ in soccer, and no one — not even my sainted mother — cared a jot if my precious self-esteem might be injured by a critical remark. My soccer games as a kid were composed of as many as 20 bruisers on a side, with husky German and Polish farm boys facing tough Irish and Slavic sons of railroaders, meat-packers and miners. Our games were brutal, mostly without rules, and it was rare that a match ended without a split lip, a bloody nose, or a black eye — or even all three. No one complained and no one ever took thought of revenge for an insult or injury, or of finding a scapegoat to feed to the lions. We all knew instinctively that life was hard, adult life was harder still, and some of us were destined to fall on that long road to our Final Judgment in ways tragic and sad, in ways that taught us beyond any testament of faith that human beings were the subjects and creations of a hard and implacable God. Sorry if that offends your delicate sensibilities in upholding an ethos of genderlessness in our political discourse (itself a useful fiction for some), but I’m merely being honest about where I come from and who I am — and who I am not.

 

We have before us a golden opportunity to re-group, re-trench and counter-attack in this our endless struggle for peace, prosperity and justice for all. That’s what we should be doing instead of playing another round of these silly blame games. The Women’s March, the Indivisible Movement, the Immigrant’s Boycott, Black Lives Matter — all these signs and wonders indicate that there is a new spirit of activism among the shocked and confused voters across the political spectrum, which portends a new opportunity to engage the electorate in powerful and effective new ways. The salient questions for me, then, are these:

 

1. Who is best equipped — by temperament, by experience, by sound judgment, by effective action, by managerial strength — to lead this party to tap into those new energies and best exploit that new opportunity before us to recover from our losses and recapture the institutions of power?

2. Who is best able to heal the divides that currently exist within the party, as opposed to exploit them and aggravate them?

3. With a gubernatorial race now in the works — with many qualified and capable candidates having declared and still more likely to do so — who is best equipped by temperament, experience and judgment to manage an endorsement race with equanimity both in official conduct and in personal demeanor, a race that itself could become divisive and embittered and thereby affect the outcomes of other statewide and local races?

 

In my view, the clear choice is Ken Martin and Marge Hoffa. That’s how I’ll be voting on March 4. If my arguments have merit with you, I hope you’ll join me.

{ 0 comments }

Women’s March General Strike Set for March 8

by Invenium Viam on February 19, 2017 · 0 comments

General Strike

Sometimes, the right idea just comes along at just the right time.

 

On January 31, I floated the idea of a wide-scale walk-out organized by the leadership of the Women’s March as a way of keeping up the momentum and bringing focus onto women’s issues [Code Red Walk-out: A $50 Billion Dollar Slap-in-the-Face for Trump].

 

I figured the Pussygrabber-in-Chief needed a wake-up call.

 

At the same time, I sent out a boosted post from the MN Progressive Facebook page to try to get as broad a read of that article as possible, with the hopes that maybe someone would take notice and run it by the applicable forums, but which instead sent the RW trolls into grand mal seizures and hyper-colonic hemorrhagic spasms worthy of a US Army medical training film on the effects of terminal cholera among the third-world malnourished.

 

On February 6, the organizers of the Women’s March announced their intention to call a “General Strike: A Day Without A Woman,” pending the announcement of a date.

 

On Thursday, February 16, the leadership announced a date for their action, Wednesday, March 8, International Women’s Day. In an Instagram post announcing the date, they had this to say:

In the spirit of women and their allies coming together for love and liberation, we offer A Day Without A Woman. We ask: do businesses support our communities, or do they drain our communities? Do they strive for gender equity or do they support the policies and leaders that perpetuate oppression? Do they align with a sustainable environment or do they profit off destruction and steal the futures of our children? We saw what happened when millions of us stood together in January, and now we know that our army of love greatly outnumbers the army of fear, greed and hatred. On March 8th, International Women’s Day, let’s unite again in our communities for A Day Without A Woman. Over the next few weeks we will be sharing more information on what actions on that day can look like for you. In the meantime, we are proud to support Strike4Democracy’s #F17 National Day of Action to Push Back Against Assaults on Democratic Principles. This Friday, February 17th, gather your friends, families, neighbors, and start brainstorming ideas for how you can enhance your community, stand up to this administration, integrate resistance and self-care into your daily routine, and how you will channel your efforts for good on March 8th. Remember: this is a marathon, not a sprint. #DayWithoutAWoman #WomensMarch

That Instagram post also produce a massive sh*t-storm of negative comments from many quarters including a fair sampling of antagonistic women.

 

Hey, guys, what’s with all the attitude? Women, and I presume supportive men, are going to take a day off work to kinda – you know – demonstrate that women have worth beyond what a cobble of pre-eminent white male racist-sexist-religionist knuckle-walkers in the White House and on Capitol Hill are willing to grant them.

 

What are you afraid of … that it might be successful? That political leaders and business leaders would be forced to take notice? Do you think that if women gain, men somehow will lose? Why wouldn’t it be just as likely that everybody gains and nobody loses? My advice is to put down your bananas, chill with the high-pitched anxiety displays, smooth down the guard hairs on your sagittal crests and maybe show some loving-kindness and some emotional support. You can start by sharing this post with your friends on your social media. And then maybe plan to take the day off on March 8 and attend a rally or two.

 

Whaddaya say? After all, these are your co-workers, your friends, your sisters, your lovers, your wives, your mothers, your teachers, your physicians, your …

{ 0 comments }

Invited Guest Commentary

by Invenium Viam on February 8, 2017 · 0 comments

Time to get on-board the ERA 3-State Strategy

ERA Betty
Betty Folliard is executive producer of A WOMAN’S PLACE radio show on AM950 and
the President of ERA Minnesota.

In the largest protest the world has ever seen, millions of people rallied at #WomensMarch around a common theme: that “Women’s rights are human rights.”

 

The public policy expressway to arriving at equality for all people in the US is legislation to remove the deadline on the Equal Rights Amendment, known as the 3-State Strategy, which will allow three more states to finally pass the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), ratifying equal access to justice for all into our Constitution.

 

Our current patchwork laws do not hold up to the Supreme Court’s scrutiny because we do not have discrimination on the basis of gender named in our constitution. That can change by simply removing the artificial deadline imposed on women’s rights, and it can be done by a simple majority vote of Congress.

 

Now is the time to translate a ‘One-and-Done’ march into political action. Call, write, or tell your representatives to get on-board with the ERA 3-State Strategy.

 

Here’s what you need to reference:

  • At the FEDERAL LEVEL: S.J.Res.5 removes the artificial deadline imposed on the Equal Rights Amendment back in 1982; the chief author is Senator Ben Cardin; and H.J.Res.53 is the companion bill to remove the sunset on the ERA, by chief author Congresswoman Jackie Speier.
  • AT THE MINNESOTA STATE LEVEL: SF229 is a resolution memorializing Congress to remove the deadline on the ERA; chief author State Senator Sandy Pappas; and HF356 is companion bill to remove the sunset on the ERA; chief author State Representative Rena Moran.

There are also state and national efforts to pass ERA language into our constitutions. Here are the bills you can promote:

  • AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL: S.J.Res.6 is a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to equal rights for men and women; chief author Senator Robert Menendez; and H.J.Res.33 is it’s companion bill – a constitutional amendment declaring that women shall have equal rights in the United States and every place subject to its jurisdiction chief authored by Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney.
  • AT THE MINNESOTA STATE LEVEL: SF224 is a constitutional amendment providing gender equality under the law, with chief author Senator Richard Cohen; with companion bill HF189 proposing a constitutional amendment providing gender equality under the law with chief author State Representative Ilhan Omar. The mirror bills to those two are SF101, a state constitutional amendment providing gender equality under the law chief, authored State Senator Scott Dibble; and HF313, a state constitutional amendment providing gender equality under the law, offered by chief author State Representative Frank Hornstein.

241 years is too long a time to wait for equality in America. Finish the job: help eliminate discrimination on the basis of gender by taking action today.

 

Betty Folliard
President – ERA Minnesota

{ 0 comments }

Trump-Respects-Women“Opportunities multiply as they are seized.” Sun Tzu, The Art of War.

 

The Women’s March on Washington ten days ago was an historic and powerful event by any measure.

 

Now the organizers and participants need a quick follow-up action to ensure that it isn’t just as quickly forgotten. Our elected leaders in the US, particularly those on the political right, have the collective memory of a goldfish.

 

A quick follow-up action will keep the energy focused and the momentum going for a movement that is likely to become a major political power-center in the future – but only if the leadership takes steps to maintain focus and momentum. Otherwise, the power-collective will be dissipated and the opportunity to build momentum will be squandered. To that end, I’m proposing for the leaderships’ consideration a one-day work walk-out on President’s Day, February 20, twenty days from now.

 

Call it the “Code Red Walk-out,” or something similarly dramatic, easy to remember, and media-friendly.

 

A “Code Red Walk-out” would be a $50 billion slap in the face to the Pussygrabber-in-Chief. A $50 billion hit to the economy would send a powerful message to business, government and media; it would be a message that can’t be ignored and won’t be forgotten. Some of the merits of the idea include:

 

– A work walk-out would be powerful protest that demands much less of the organization, money and logistics of planning, permits, travel, food, lodging, etc. that organized marches require. The Women’s March used social media and on-line communications to organize protests worldwide in little more than two months. Those channels of communication remain intact. A work walk-out could be similarly organized and executed in 20 days.
– A work walk-out would free participants to gather in local parks, town squares, community centers and other public places for “teach-in’s,” “love-in’s,” and “be-in’s” that would demonstrate political strength and build solidarity for future action. Political leaders, religious leaders and thought leaders could be invited to speak and to listen. It would capture media attention and distract them from their habit of “chasing rabbits.”
– A work walk-out could include students, athletes, entertainers, and others who walk-out in sympathetic action.
– A work walk-out would spotlight the enormous contributions of women to our culture and to the economy. It would draw attention to issues of equal access, equal pay, and equal rights.
– Business and finance leaders could not fail to take notice. A one-day loss of productivity directly impacts profits. A successful walk-out would prove that other walk-outs, or business boycotts, could be successfully called in the future.
– When the captains of industry feel threatened, the political leaders who support them, and are supported by them, also feel threatened – particularly those on the political right.
– Combine a work walk-out with a same-day moratorium on spending and the stock market would likely take a significant temporary hit. Women control 80% or more of household spending.
– It would draw a sharp contrast between the great president’s, who are honored on President’s Day, and the current resident of the Oval Office.
– It would signal the rest of the world that Americans are better than the worst among us, including our elected leaders. It would serve as a declaration that our values remain intact despite the outcome of the last election.
– It would be an act of courage and self-sacrifice that demonstrates to our children that the messages of greed, fear, hatred, sexism, racism, religious intolerance, and exploitation of others are not the values that we choose to uphold. Since it would be a non-violent protest, it would uphold the values of compassion over hatred and of community over greed. It would provide a better adult example of how to be a good neighbor and a good citizen than what we see among some of our elected leaders and business executives.
– Since it would take place on a federal holiday, government workers couldn’t be penalized for participating, or forced to work by executive order.
– Those who cannot participate due to the kind of work they do (e.g., police, military, health workers, etc.), or because they can’t afford it, can still participate with a work slow-down, or by scheduling a doctor’s appointment that day, calling in sick or leaving work early, etc.
– If a protest of this kind became an international event, it might help to re-direct the drift of nations toward “… preparing for war,” as former Prime Minister of the USSR, Mikhail Gorbachev, believes is happening now.

{ 1 comment }

On Trump: Big Army, Big Oil, Big Money, Big Stick

by Invenium Viam on December 13, 2016 · 0 comments

trump silhouetteTeach your children well,
Their father’s hell did slowly go by.
And feed them on your dreams,
The one they pick’s the one you’ll know by.

Teach Your Children; Crosby, Stills & Nash

 

It should be obvious now what President-elect Trump’s foreign and domestic policy plans are shaping up to be.

 

He is packing his administration with retired generals, unreconstructed Neo-con war hawks, Big Oil executives, and Wall Street bankers.

 

He is about to gut both the EPA and the DOE, slash federal education funding to states, roll-back Dodd-Frank and the ACA, slash Medicare, privatize Social Security and the VA, pump billions of new money into defense spending, expand the military, and enter into a new bi-lateral non-aggression and non-interference pact with Putin.

 

Together with Putin, Assad and Erdowan, he intends to extend a tri-partite political-economic hegemony over a parceled-out Middle-east, to hamstring OPEC, and pit the Saudi’s against Iran like a pair of pit-bulls in a dogfighting ring. Then, together with India as a South Asian proxy, and Taiwan and Japan as Pacific Rim proxies, he’ll isolate China economically and militarily to force them to bring North Korea to heel or suffer an economic crash that will destabilize the current regime. Japan, South Korea and Taiwan will be given a free rein to re-militarize under the guise of a non-interventionist policy of support for our allies. India will be given a free rein to deal with Pakistan in whatever way suits them including the nuclear option. The UN will be effectively neutered by the US and Russia acting in concert.

 

And he’ll get the infrastructure spending and jobs bills that the GOP wouldn’t grant to Obama, which along with massive defense spending, high profile tax cuts for middle-class wage-earners (first $30K of earnings deductible) and the wealthy; and a time-limited window for the moneyed interests to repatriate off-shore holdings through the purchase of US Treasury notes, he’ll juice the economy just enough to convince voters that the country is “going in the right direction,” before engaging in another unilateral war prior to the 2020 presidential race, which will make him a sitting war president and probable shoe-in for re-election.

 

He can do all these things because he has all the legislative branches of government in his pocket. In a short time, he’ll have the Supreme Court in his pocket as well.

 

In short, we are witnessing the dawning of a very dark era of international brinksmanship and a very, very dangerous form of Big Stick diplomacy that will become known in the next few years as the Trump Doctrine. If you believe in a deity, pray.

{ 0 comments }

Epic Fail: Why Clinton and the Dems Lost …

by Invenium Viam on November 12, 2016 · 0 comments

winter-is-coming“I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness …” John 1:23, King James Bible

 

One of the things that gripes me about the political punditry on the left is how quick they are to say, “Nobody knew. Nobody saw this coming.” They are saying it now about the election of Donald Trump to the presidency. It was unthinkable, so it couldn’t be true. Well, some of us said the unthinkable was something that could happen …

 

They said nobody saw the insurgency on the left, which drove the rise of socialist Bernie Sanders as a real contender for the Democratic nomination, which I predicted in May, 2015: Hillary Clinton has Bigger Problems Than She Knows ~ Part 1 and Part 2. They said it about the youth insurgency, which helped drive the Sanders campaign into a national challenge, which I predicted in September, 2015: Part 3 And, most recently, they said it about the election of Donald Trump, which I predicted last May, before either major party nominee had been endorsed: Why Trump Will Beat Hillary On Election Day.

 

I didn’t get all the details right, which is very hard to do when prognosticating. A lot can change in a day in politics and campaigns, not to mention an entire election season. I thought Bernie and his advisors would be smart enough to figure out that the Democratic establishment would do what they had to do to block his nomination and that he’d see that and run as an independent. I got that wrong. The establishment was crafty enough to string him along to the convention. The presidential race, the 2016 election, and the political landscape on November 9 would have been entirely different if he had undertaken an independent bid. He might even have won the presidency. Had he been able to bring Senator Elizabeth Warren onto his ticket, I’m convinced he would have won.

 
…READ MORE

{ 0 comments }

Leaked: Donald Trump’s Concession Speech

by Invenium Viam on November 8, 2016 · 1 comment

Dateline November 8, 2016 ~ Minneapolis, MN
 
A leaked copy of Donald Trump’s planned concession speech in video format has been obtained by Minnesota Progressive Project.
 

 
Comment below fold.
…READ MORE

{ 1 comment }

I UnVoted ~ Social Media Graphic #6

by Invenium Viam on September 21, 2016 · 0 comments

Please feel free to share in your social media.

 

veterans-support

{ 0 comments }