The Weiner Component V.2 #20 – The Origins of American Government & its two Major Political Parties

A cotton gin on display at the Eli Whitney Museum.

A cotton gin on display at the Eli Whitney Museum. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

To understand the government and the two major political parties in the United States we need to examine assorted economic happenings.  These entities changed the course of history in the late 18th and early 19th Centuries.  The first was the invention of the Cotton Gin, from the 1780s on, another was the American Revolution, a third was a rebellion by small yeoman farmers in inland Massachusetts, and the fourth was the Constitution of the United States.  What occurs here is a cause and effect relationship that brings about major historical changes.

************************************

Eli Whitney was an American inventor who developed the Cotton Gin.  The word gin is short for engine.  The problem with cotton is that it is filled with seeds.  It takes a person working diligently for an hour to clean one pound of cotton.  A single cotton gin could clean 55 pounds daily.  Whitney received a pattern for his gin in 1807.  Like the grist and sawmills he expected to charge farmers for cleaning their cotton by getting 2/5 of the cotton cleaned.  The mechanical simplicity of the device and the primitive state of the pattern law made infringement inevitable.  Local carpenters could easily make duplicates of the gins.  Ultimately lawsuits consumed the profits and the cotton gin company went bankrupt in 1797.  Whitney, however, gained national, if not international fame for his invention.

 

Cotton had been very labor intensive and expensive.  The new inexpensive cotton changed the economics of the world by bringing about the Industrial Revolution in England in the early 19th Century and it also made slavery profitable in the new United States.

 

Prior to the 1790s slave labor was a slowly dying institution.  Slaves were employed in the growing of tobacco, rice, and indigo.  None of these crops were particularly profitable.  With the invention of the cotton gin cotton became the chief source of wealth in the American South; it became king cotton or the chief export of the new United States.  In the Southern settlements from South Carolina to Texas cotton became the dominant economic force and slavery became the key institution of Southern society.  This would persist until the end of the Civil War.

 

With the early Industrial Revolution from the late 18th Century, both England and New England became dependent upon this crop.  Their factories buzzed spinning thread and weaving cloth.  In the American South enormous fortunes were produced and the large cotton growers lived regally.  They tended to utilize the large English purchasers as suppliers of all the goods they wanted, ordering furniture, grand pianos or whatever they decided they wanted or needed.  This in time resulted in their spending more than their current crops allowed.  Eventually the large plantation owners owed their future crops to these people.  To the English manufacturers this was good business because it tied these planters and their crops to them.  The combined debt must have been in the millions.

 

With the formation of a new central government in 1788, caused by the Revolutionary War the Southern cotton barons refused to honor their debts to the English manufacturers.  In essence cotton as an export was still “king” and could always be sold in England or New England.  Some of the English manufacturers sued in the New United States.  Not one ever won his case.  The large cotton growers wiped out millions in debts virtually overnight without spending a penny.

**********************************

The American Revolution was fought from 1765 to 1783.  By the end of the Battle of Yorktown it became obvious to the British that it was far less expensive to trade with the American colonies than to gain trading advantages from them by ruling them.  Consequently the colonies gained their independence.

 

The government that the new independent state established was codified under the Articles of Confederation.  This document rested sovereignty with each of the 12 newly independent states with a central elected body have representatives from all 12 states.  The final decision on any measure passed by this Continental Congress had then to be approved by each of the 12 states.  Any state or states that so wished could disregard any measure passed by the Continental Congress.  In essence what existed were 12 independent nation states that had agreed to more or less cooperate with one another.

******************************

In the period during 1786 and 1787 the Revolutionary veteran, Daniel Shay, led 4,000 rebels, called Shayites, in an uprising against economic and civil rights injustices.  Basically the inland area of the state largely consisted of subsistence agriculture.  Mostly where roads existed they were unpaved, becoming muddy and impossible to use during rain, making it impossible for the farmers to bring their crops to the coastal areas where they could be shipped throughout the tidewater areas of the colonies or overseas.  Consequently most, if not all, of the farmers had stills.  A lot of grain made a small amount of whiskey, which was always in demand and could be easily transported.

 

Along the economically developed or older coastal areas of Massachusetts Bay there existed a market economy which was driven by the activities of wholesale merchants dealing with Europe, the West Indies, and elsewhere on the North American coast.  The state government was dominated by this merchant group.

 

After the end of the Revolutionary War the European businesses, for good reason, refused to continue to extend lines of credit to these merchants and insisted that they pay in hard currency, gold.  There was a shortage of such currency.  Also the state government, run by the business class, needed money.  Following a period of taxes not being paid where it could be avoided, the state of Massachusetts passed a whiskey tax on the small inland farmers to be paid in gold coins which were in short supply.

 

The rural farmers were unable to meet the demands made upon them by the merchants or the civil authorities and many began to lose their land and other possessions.  This led to strong resistance against the collectors and the courts where the collectors obtained judgements authorizing property seizures.

 

A great many of these depressed individuals felt that they should be able to cancel the debts the same way that the Southern planters had.  This led to open warfare between the two groups, temporarily shutting down the courts, sporadic fighting, and the governor refusing to enforce actions against the small farmers and being replaced by one who would enforce the law.  In 1787 Daniel Shay, leading 4,000 rebels, attempted to take the federal armory in Springfield, which was stoutly defended by state troops raised as a private army.

 

Eventually in 1787 4,000 people signed confessions admitting participation in the rebellion in return for amnesty.  Most of those indicted were eventually pardoned.  In subsequent years the state legislature cut taxes and placed a moratorium on debts.  In 1787 John Hancock replaced the militant governor.

 

As a note of irony it should be noted that at that time the only people allowed to vote were male property owners.  All the small farmers were property owners.  There were more of them than there were merchants.

*********************************

As a result of this and of other effects, many upper class individuals felt that there was a need for a stronger central government that could protect property rights throughout the states.  The most important effect was the call for a Constitutional Convention which would reform the Articles of Confederation, presumably strengthening the central government.  In addition Shay’s Rebellion brought George Washington out of retirement at Mount Vernon to chair the Constitutional Convention and to eventually become President for the first two four year terms.  It also brought two distinct political groups into existence: the Federalists who wanted a stronger central government and the Anti-Federalists who didn’t want this.  It was the merchant, businessmen class against the agrarians and laborers.

 

The people at the Constitutional Convention tended to represent the wealthy and educated classes.  They agreed to hold the meetings in secret and soon discovered that amending the Articles of Confederation could not produce a government with central control of all the states.  Consequently they produced from May 25 to September 17, 1787 a totally new document of government.

 

France has been through more than a dozen Constitutions since 1789; the U.S. has only had one, which still exists and functions.  The reason for this is that the U.S. had two sets of states: One free and one slave.  The elite of upper classes in both ends of the country agreed upon the necessity of a stronger central government.  They did not agree on numerous other issues.  They needed a document of unity but they did not agree upon a host of other issues.  In order to create their document of government they had to compromise upon innumerable issues.  Interpreting these issues, according to the needs of the times, has kept the Supreme Court busy since the inception of the nation.

 

The one issue that the Court could not deal with was the issue of where the basic power lay, with the Federal Government or the States.  That issue was resolved by the Civil War.

 

Although there were different political groups in the United States at that time the issue of political parties was never considered by the Founding Fathers.  Once the new government came into existence so did political parties.  The first one was the Federalist Party, representing coastal business and the educated classes.  They were able to dominate the first three elections, two for George Washington and one for John Adams.  The Federalists were opposed by the Anti-Federalists, who represented the small yeoman farmers like Daniel Shay.

 

The leader of the Federalist Party at that time was not the President but was Alexander Hamilton.  The first dramatic election was that of 1800 when John Adams ran against Thomas Jefferson.  Jefferson had organized the Anti-Federalists groups and anyone else who was dissatisfied with the Federalists into, what he called, the Republican Party.  As a put-down the Federalists called the new political group the Democratic-Republican Party.  Eventually the word “Republican” was dropped and this became the Democratic Party, which we still have today.  They represented the interests of the small, or as Jefferson preferred to call them, “Yeomen farmers.”  In fact the purchase of the Louisiana Territory by the Jefferson administration in 1803 would provide land for yeoman farmers for at least the next 100 years, according to Jefferson.

 

Initially only males voted who were property owners.  With the availability of cheap or free land the Federalists, after the Election of 1800, were never again able to mount a successful Presidential election.  They went out of existence after the War of 1812, when they backed the wrong side, England.  From 1814 on there was only one major political party in the U.S., the Democratic Party.

 

Other groups across the United States formed small political groups.  The other major party that would come into existence in 1835 was the Whig Party, which more or less carried on the values of the old Federalist Party, they represented largely the growing businesses across the ever growing nation which was blossoming with the new Industrial Revolution.  In addition they were also strongly anti-slavery.  In 1860 the Whig Party and a number of fringe groups coalesced into, what was to become, the Republican Party in the Election of 1860.

 

Lincoln was originally a Whig, He won the Presidential Election of 1860 with less than 40% of the popular vote because the Democratic Party had split into two parts, the South voted for one candidate and the North and West voted for another.  With the exception of Virginia where he received less than 2% of the popular vote Lincoln was not even on the ballot on any of the other Southern states.  In essence there were two elections in 1860: one in the South and a different election in the North and West.

 

Here we have the origins of the two major political parties in the United States.  Today, with a so-called Republican President and universal suffrage, the two political parties are at a point where they can barely communicate with one another.

 

Here we can see the origins of our government and our political system.

**********************************

It should also be noted that when United States history is taught as a survey in the schools everything is taught as a group of events which generally are simplified and not related to one another.  Cause and effect relationships are ignored or not understood.  This article generally deals with, on a general basis, cause and effect.  The invention of the cotton gin and the Industrial Revolution, switching from manmade to machine made products, brought about the changes which resulted in the growth of slavery, the Civil War and the country as it is now,

 

If the discovery of the cotton gin had been delayed for another twenty years or so, slavery might have died out on its own and there would have been no Civil War.  If Shay’s Rebellion had not occurred the government might have gone on under the Articles of Confederation and the United States could have eventually developed a Parliamentary System similar to the present day government of Great Britain.  There certainly would have been no immediate need for a Constitution.  There are certainly a lot of “Ifs” available.  Of course we’ll never know the answer to a lot of these questions because they never happened.

The Weiner Component V.2 #20 – The Origins of the American Government & Its Two Major Political Parties

 

To understand the government and the two major political parties in the United States we need to examine assorted economic happenings.  These entities changed the course of history in the late 18th and early 19th Centuries.  The first was the invention of the Cotton Gin, from the 1780s on, another was the American Revolution, a third was a rebellion by small yeoman farmers in inland Massachusetts, and the fourth was the Constitution of the United States.  What occurs here is a cause and effect relationship that brings about major historical changes.

************************************

Eli Whitney was an American inventor who developed the Cotton Gin.  The word gin is short for engine.  The problem with cotton is that it is filled with seeds.  It takes a person working diligently for an hour to clean one pound of cotton.  A single cotton gin could clean 55 pounds daily.  Whitney received a pattern for his gin in 1807.  Like the grist and sawmills he expected to charge farmers for cleaning their cotton by getting 2/5 of the cotton cleaned.  The mechanical simplicity of the device and the primitive state of the pattern law made infringement inevitable.  Local carpenters could easily make duplicates of the gins.  Ultimately lawsuits consumed the profits and the cotton gin company went bankrupt in 1797.  Whitney, however, gained national, if not international fame for his invention.

 

Cotton had been very labor intensive and expensive.  The new inexpensive cotton changed the economics of the world by bringing about the Industrial Revolution in England in the early 19th Century and it also made slavery profitable in the new United States.

 

Prior to the 1790s slave labor was a slowly dying institution.  Slaves were employed in the growing of tobacco, rice, and indigo.  None of these crops were particularly profitable.  With the invention of the cotton gin cotton became the chief source of wealth in the American South; it became king cotton or the chief export of the new United States.  In the Southern settlements from South Carolina to Texas cotton became the dominant economic force and slavery became the key institution of Southern society.  This would persist until the end of the Civil War.

 

With the early Industrial Revolution from the late 18th Century, both England and New England became dependent upon this crop.  Their factories buzzed spinning thread and weaving cloth.  In the American South enormous fortunes were produced and the large cotton growers lived regally.  They tended to utilize the large English purchasers as suppliers of all the goods they wanted, ordering furniture, grand pianos or whatever they decided they wanted or needed.  This in time resulted in their spending more than their current crops allowed.  Eventually the large plantation owners owed their future crops to these people.  To the English manufacturers this was good business because it tied these planters and their crops to them.  The combined debt must have been in the millions.

 

With the formation of a new central government in 1788, caused by the Revolutionary War the Southern cotton barons refused to honor their debts to the English manufacturers.  In essence cotton as an export was still “king” and could always be sold in England or New England.  Some of the English manufacturers sued in the New United States.  Not one ever won his case.  The large cotton growers wiped out millions in debts virtually overnight without spending a penny.

**********************************

The American Revolution was fought from 1765 to 1783.  By the end of the Battle of Yorktown it became obvious to the British that it was far less expensive to trade with the American colonies than to gain trading advantages from them by ruling them.  Consequently the colonies gained their independence.

 

The government that the new independent state established was codified under the Articles of Confederation.  This document rested sovereignty with each of the 12 newly independent states with a central elected body have representatives from all 12 states.  The final decision on any measure passed by this Continental Congress had then to be approved by each of the 12 states.  Any state or states that so wished could disregard any measure passed by the Continental Congress.  In essence what existed were 12 independent nation states that had agreed to more or less cooperate with one another.

******************************

In the period during 1786 and 1787 the Revolutionary veteran, Daniel Shay, led 4,000 rebels, called Shayites, in an uprising against economic and civil rights injustices.  Basically the inland area of the state largely consisted of subsistence agriculture.  Mostly where roads existed they were unpaved, becoming muddy and impossible to use during rain, making it impossible for the farmers to bring their crops to the coastal areas where they could be shipped throughout the tidewater areas of the colonies or overseas.  Consequently most, if not all, of the farmers had stills.  A lot of grain made a small amount of whiskey, which was always in demand and could be easily transported.

 

Along the economically developed or older coastal areas of Massachusetts Bay there existed a market economy which was driven by the activities of wholesale merchants dealing with Europe, the West Indies, and elsewhere on the North American coast.  The state government was dominated by this merchant group.

 

After the end of the Revolutionary War the European businesses, for good reason, refused to continue to extend lines of credit to these merchants and insisted that they pay in hard currency, gold.  There was a shortage of such currency.  Also the state government, run by the business class, needed money.  Following a period of taxes not being paid where it could be avoided, the state of Massachusetts passed a whiskey tax on the small inland farmers to be paid in gold coins which were in short supply.

 

The rural farmers were unable to meet the demands made upon them by the merchants or the civil authorities and many began to lose their land and other possessions.  This led to strong resistance against the collectors and the courts where the collectors obtained judgements authorizing property seizures.

 

A great many of these depressed individuals felt that they should be able to cancel the debts the same way that the Southern planters had.  This led to open warfare between the two groups, temporarily shutting down the courts, sporadic fighting, and the governor refusing to enforce actions against the small farmers and being replaced by one who would enforce the law.  In 1787 Daniel Shay, leading 4,000 rebels, attempted to take the federal armory in Springfield, which was stoutly defended by state troops raised as a private army.

 

Eventually in 1787 4,000 people signed confessions admitting participation in the rebellion in return for amnesty.  Most of those indicted were eventually pardoned.  In subsequent years the state legislature cut taxes and placed a moratorium on debts.  In 1787 John Hancock replaced the militant governor.

 

As a note of irony it should be noted that at that time the only people allowed to vote were male property owners.  All the small farmers were property owners.  There were more of them than there were merchants.

*********************************

As a result of this and of other effects, many upper class individuals felt that there was a need for a stronger central government that could protect property rights throughout the states.  The most important effect was the call for a Constitutional Convention which would reform the Articles of Confederation, presumably strengthening the central government.  In addition Shay’s Rebellion brought George Washington out of retirement at Mount Vernon to chair the Constitutional Convention and to eventually become President for the first two four year terms.  It also brought two distinct political groups into existence: the Federalists who wanted a stronger central government and the Anti-Federalists who didn’t want this.  It was the merchant, businessmen class against the agrarians and laborers.

 

The people at the Constitutional Convention tended to represent the wealthy and educated classes.  They agreed to hold the meetings in secret and soon discovered that amending the Articles of Confederation could not produce a government with central control of all the states.  Consequently they produced from May 25 to September 17, 1787 a totally new document of government.

 

France has been through more than a dozen Constitutions since 1789; the U.S. has only had one, which still exists and functions.  The reason for this is that the U.S. had two sets of states: One free and one slave.  The elite of upper classes in both ends of the country agreed upon the necessity of a stronger central government.  They did not agree on numerous other issues.  They needed a document of unity but they did not agree upon a host of other issues.  In order to create their document of government they had to compromise upon innumerable issues.  Interpreting these issues, according to the needs of the times, has kept the Supreme Court busy since the inception of the nation.

 

The one issue that the Court could not deal with was the issue of where the basic power lay, with the Federal Government or the States.  That issue was resolved by the Civil War.

 

Although there were different political groups in the United States at that time the issue of political parties was never considered by the Founding Fathers.  Once the new government came into existence so did political parties.  The first one was the Federalist Party, representing coastal business and the educated classes.  They were able to dominate the first three elections, two for George Washington and one for John Adams.  The Federalists were opposed by the Anti-Federalists, who represented the small yeoman farmers like Daniel Shay.

 

The leader of the Federalist Party at that time was not the President but was Alexander Hamilton.  The first dramatic election was that of 1800 when John Adams ran against Thomas Jefferson.  Jefferson had organized the Anti-Federalists groups and anyone else who was dissatisfied with the Federalists into, what he called, the Republican Party.  As a put-down the Federalists called the new political group the Democratic-Republican Party.  Eventually the word “Republican” was dropped and this became the Democratic Party, which we still have today.  They represented the interests of the small, or as Jefferson preferred to call them, “Yeomen farmers.”  In fact the purchase of the Louisiana Territory by the Jefferson administration in 1803 would provide land for yeoman farmers for at least the next 100 years, according to Jefferson.

 

Initially only males voted who were property owners.  With the availability of cheap or free land the Federalists, after the Election of 1800, were never again able to mount a successful Presidential election.  They went out of existence after the War of 1812, when they backed the wrong side, England.  From 1814 on there was only one major political party in the U.S., the Democratic Party.

 

Other groups across the United States formed small political groups.  The other major party that would come into existence in 1835 was the Whig Party, which more or less carried on the values of the old Federalist Party, they represented largely the growing businesses across the ever growing nation which was blossoming with the new Industrial Revolution.  In addition they were also strongly anti-slavery.  In 1860 the Whig Party and a number of fringe groups coalesced into, what was to become, the Republican Party in the Election of 1860.

 

Lincoln was originally a Whig, He won the Presidential Election of 1860 with less than 40% of the popular vote because the Democratic Party had split into two parts, the South voted for one candidate and the North and West voted for another.  With the exception of Virginia where he received less than 2% of the popular vote Lincoln was not even on the ballot on any of the other Southern states.  In essence there were two elections in 1860: one in the South and a different election in the North and West.

 

Here we have the origins of the two major political parties in the United States.  Today, with a so-called Republican President and universal suffrage, the two political parties are at a point where they can barely communicate with one another.

 

Here we can see the origins of our government and our political system.

**********************************

It should also be noted that when United States history is taught as a survey in the schools everything is taught as a group of events which generally are simplified and not related to one another.  Cause and effect relationships are ignored or not understood.  This article generally deals with, on a general basis, cause and effect.  The invention of the cotton gin and the Industrial Revolution, switching from manmade to machine made products, brought about the changes which resulted in the growth of slavery, the Civil War and the country as it is now,

 

If the discovery of the cotton gin had been delayed for another twenty years or so, slavery might have died out on its own and there would have been no Civil War.  If Shay’s Rebellion had not occurred the government might have gone on under the Articles of Confederation and the United States could have eventually developed a Parliamentary System similar to the present day government of Great Britain.  There certainly would have been no immediate need for a Constitution.  There are certainly a lot of “Ifs” available.  Of course we’ll never know the answer to a lot of these questions because they never happened.

The Weiner Component V.2 #18 – Deja Vu

Richard Milhous Nixon, 37th President of the U...

It took Richard Milhous Nixon two years of his second term as President of the United States to reach a point where he had to resign his office or be impeached.  It may take Donald John Trump less than a year in office to reach the same point.

 

President Trump seems to be his own worst enemy, continually bringing up issues that diminish him as President of the United States.  One issue is voter fraud.  Because Hillary Clinton got three million more popular votes than Trump there must have been voter fraud.  His thin ego demands that he had gotten the majority of the popular vote.  With no proof other than what he feels and knows emotionally to be true Trump is about to begin an investigation of voter fraud in the last election.

 

To his Voter Fraud Commission, which he has brought about with an Executive Order, Trump has assigned people who, among others, have belonged to hate groups.  He has assigned Kris Kobach to help lead this new commission.  Kobach is a lawyer who has championed laws to suppress voting and has long represented the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which has been named as a hate group by the SPLC.  He has also put Ken Blackwell on the commission.  He is a senior fellow at the Family Research Council, an anti-LGBT hate group.  The probable end result of this will be to restrict the vote among minorities and the elderly which many Republicans feel needs to be done since both those groups generally vote for the Democratic candidate.

 

But in point of fact from all past investigation, voter fraud is a very small fraction of one percent.  It is small enough to be practically nonexistent.  But Trump will loudly vent his feelings of outrage at not receiving the popular vote in this direction.  And he will follow past Republican practices of trying to suppress the non-Republican vote.

 

The group that blindly follows him will be egged on by him and will, in turn, egg him on with their cheering at his next rally.  Trump has stated that he could publically shoot someone and this group would cheer him on.  We’ll never really know, of course; but I suspect that it might be true for a part of his cheering groups, an ever decreasing number of the people who cheer him at his rallies.

***********************************

For the general public there is just so much idiocy or nonsense that they can take.  With Trump it seems that there is no limit as to how much he can dish out.  Also he seems to have a short-turn memory and is constantly or day by day contradicting himself or changing his mind.  He apparently forgets what he has agreed to or is continently contradicting himself.

 

Being President is the first political adventure Trump has had.  Prior to the 2016 Election he had never held any office, had never been a public servant.  He seems to have a limited or no knowledge of the presidents of the U.S. and of the nation’s history.  He either doesn’t realize or he doesn’t care that everything he says is instant news and is televised and that the media will show the public that he is constantly changing his mind.  Life is completely different than it was when he was just a businessman and could bully his way through almost everything.  He can no longer be contemptuous of the legal system and not pay contractors or employees the full amount they were supposed to get, or, for that matter, run a pseudo university for large amounts of student tuition.

 

Trump, by his own admission, is the world’s greatest negotiator.  But outside of business deals or his reality television contract he has never negotiated anything.  He feels he can get better deals than any of the professionals at the State Department.  He has, by the way, fired the entire upper echelon of the State Department and not hired anyone in their place.  I suspect he wants to do all the negotiating by himself or through his Secretary of State.  This is something that he cannot physically carry out.  But then to him negotiating is very easy and doesn’t take much time.

 

He is like a bull in a China shop.  Whatever he does he is upsetting something.  In many cases that something is himself.

 

We have seen him in action with the President of Mexico.  In terms of China he has had the President of China visiting his Florida Resort on a weekend and suddenly, according to Trump, China is no longer trying to exploit the United States even though their trading practices have not really changed.  We know he tried to have China bring pressure upon North Korea to stop its atomic and missile development.  By inference, since then I would assume that some sort of trade agreement between the two countries was worked out, but no announcements were made as to what they were and President Trump has mentioned more than once that China will help us with North Korea.  But North Korea is still developing its missile system.

 

In essence what President Trump has been doing is learning how to be President of the United States for the last one hundred and twenty some days.  Initially he thought he was in charge and thought he could do anything he wanted.  He has been limited by the Courts and by Congress.  Apparently he doesn’t understand or has never read the Constitution.  Knowledge has slowly come to him.  It has been a humbling experience and he doesn’t like it.  As a businessman he could do anything he wished and largely ignore the law.  As President there are Constitutional limits to his power.  He seems to be learning more about these limits every day.

*************************************

At this point of his Presidency, regardless of Trump’s indifference on the matter, it is generally agreed by both the press and most government agencies that the Russians interfered in the 2016 Presidential Election by, among other things, attempting to influence how people voted by publishing both real and fake news just before the actual election.  They also published a large number of WiliLeaks hacked Clinton Emails that tended to negatively impact her campaign.  To date no one has accused the Russians of trying to impact actual voter counts.

 

Also Trump’s son-in-law and senior advisor, Jared Kushner, attempted to set up a backchannel line of communication with Russia last December that would bypass US’ national security and the intelligence apparatus.  The action was totally illegal.

 

In addition American government intelligence agencies have conclusive evidence of at least 18 specific contacts between Trump’s people and Russian agents both before and during the 2016 Presidential Election.  Whether this evidence included transcripts of the contacts is presently unknown.  But evidence does exist.

 

Trump, himself, has refused to accept this information.  He tends to be positive about Russia and its president, Vladimir Putin, stating occasionally that any nation could have done that.  Consequently he has rejected the idea that Russians interfered in the American election.  In fact for some unknown reason Trump has shared with Russian diplomats Israeli top secret information.

 

This bring us to Trump and the former Director of the FBI, James Comey.  Comey announced, early in May, that he had been conducting an investigation into relations between Trump’s people and Russia even before the actual Presidential Election of 2016.  Presumably, according to Trump, Comey was doing a lousy job as head of the FBI.  Consequently he fired him.

 

Supposedly, what actually happened is that Trump invited Comey to a dinner which then Director Comey did not really want to attend and there, among other things, asked for his loyalty.  The FBI has traditionally been kept separate from the rest of the government.  Comey refused to acquiesce.  Comey had later asked for more resources to continue the investigation of Trump.  Trump fired him, not long afterwards when Comey was on the Westcoast without informing him of the fact.

 

Since that time it has come out that Trump asked Comey to drop the investigation against his former National Security Advisor, Michael Flynn.  Flynn not only had contacts with Russian agents and been paid by the Turkish government he also lied about it.  Sally Yates, in her testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee stated that she warned the White House that Flynn could be blackmailed by Russia and was therefore a security risk.  Eighteen days after this he was fired by Trump for lying to the Vice President and replaced as National Security Advisor.

 

Flynn had been under investigation by the FB, even before the election.  On Tuesday, May 16, the New York Times published an article that Trump early in February, had asked the head of the FBI to drop the investigation against Flynn, stating that “He’s a good guy, I hope you let this go.”  Within minutes after the story appeared in the New York Times the White House posted a response to the newspaper’s website denying that the President ever made such a request.  According to the Times report, Comey wrote a memo immediately following a February meeting with Trump, when he made this request. In fact Comey wrote memos after every meeting with Trump.

 

It’s interesting to note that Michael Flynn, after he had been relieved of government office, offered to testify before a Senate Committee if he were given immunity.  During the Reagan administration Colonel Oliver North had been given immunity when testifying before a Congressional Committee and subsequently could not be prosecuted for misdeeds he had committed.  I suspect Flynn is in the same situation.  The committee turned down his offer.  What does Flynn know about Trump?

*************************************

The day prior, Monday, May 15, 2017, Trump had a meeting that lasted over an hour with the Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak, another Russian official, and a Russian photographer in the oval office where he gave the Russians access to top secret information, information that was shared by Israel and was not supposed to be shared with anyone else.

 

Apparently only the President can instantly declassify materials.  This news dropped like a bomb-shell, shocking everyone.  Trump denied that what he showed the Russians was secret.  But what is generally believed is that Trump shared with them information which had come from one of the United States allies.

 

Whether it’s true or not isn’t the point here.  What is the point is how does this news affect America’s allies?  Will they be willing to share information in the future as they have in the past?  What does this do to international trust between its allies and the U.S.?

 

Why would President Donald Trump stand with Russia against all of America’s allies?  It would seem that Trump is somehow tied to the Russians.  Presumably to the Russian Plutocrats who are in Putin’s intimate circle.  Has he been involved in money laundering?  In other types of financial dealings?  In what?  Does he owe money to Russian banks?

 

It seems that Trump has definite ties with Russia.  And these have existed long before he became President of the United States.  Currently he is looking for a new Director for the FBI.  Will he find someone who will swear allegiance to him rather than the Government of the United States?  Will he add on more to all the “Yes, Men” he has in the White House?  How long will it take for one or more of the investigations of his ties to Russia to be completed?  I suspect, with all the new bombshells dropping daily he may at most last a year in office.  Currently he has been President for a over four months.  He has another eight to go to make a year.

 

On Wednesday, May 17, 2017, the controversy about Trump continues.  Vladimir Putin, the Russian President, has offered to send a transcript of the meeting with Trump in the Oval office.  This has been rejected because of the distrust of anything Russian by leading members of the U.S. Congress.  Some of the heads of European countries have said they will continue to share their secret documents with the United States.   Republican members of Congress have called for a special prosecutor.  Toward the end of the day a special Counsel, Robert Mueller, the former FBI Director, was appointed by the Assistant Attorney General to investigate Russian interference with the 2016 Election.  It was also reported on the next day by Kevin McCarthy, the House whip that he thinks Putin pays Trump.  In addition it came out that the Trump people knew that Mike Flynn was under FBI investigation before Trump hired him.

 

Every day there is new and exciting news about Trump.  He left on the weekend of May 20th for his first overseas trip, where he will probably practice his negotiating skill as the world’s greatest negotiator.  One of his stops is Israel.  It was top secret Israeli information that he shared with his Russian visitors to the oval office.  It has been suggested that as a businessman Trump had never faced any opposition.  He had been involved in over 2,000 lawsuits.

 

The merry-go-round, and round, Trump tends to go round and round.  When and where will it stop?  Something new and exciting seems to turn up every day.  There is a little over seven months to go before his first year as President is up.  Will he make it?

The Weiner Component Vol.2 #17 Republicans & Affordable Health Care

Official photographic portrait of US President...

English: Nations with Universal health care sy...

English: Nations with Universal health care systems. Nations with some type of universal health care system. Nations attempting to obtain universal health care. Health care coverage provided by the United States war funding. Nations with no universal health care. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The existence of Universal Health Care exists in most of the industrial nations as a right for every citizen.   In the United States this concept came into being in 2010, the second year of the Obama administration.  Traditionally, in the U.S. up until that time health care was provided by many employers or it was for people who could afford to pay the required premiums.  The idea of Universal Health Care as a right of all citizens began in the United States in 1945 with President Harry S Truman.  It remained an idea because no legislation was passed by Congress.  Under President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1965 Medicare was passed for senior citizens and the disabled.  Former President Harry S Truman received the first card, numbered 1.

 

For younger people, those under 65 years of age, medical coverage had to be purchased.  Millions didn’t have any coverage.  Either their jobs didn’t provide it or they couldn’t afford the required premiums.  In medical emergencies these people had to go to E.R. in hospitals or attempt to ignore their illness.  The hospitals had to provide services even if they could not collect fees for them.

 

It should be noted that even with Medicare medical services are not completely paid for.  Even today many seniors have limited financial resources.  They may have to choose between medicine, food, and/or rent.  Medications also tend to be very expensive.

 

President Bill Clinton had a committee headed by his wife, Hillary, attempt to develop a Universal Health Care Bill during his presidency.  It was finally totally defeated with the slogan, “There has to be a better way.”  The “better way” was no Health Care Bill.  The concept was defeated during his first four years in office.

 

Under President George W. Bush a prescription payment was added to Medicare.  This did not do away with payments for medication but it reduced them considerably with the Federal Government picking up the balance.

 

It should be noted that one of the main groups of contributors to Congressional Elections, particularly Republican elections, is the pharmaceutical industry.  In turn Congress has protected their rights to charge outlandish prices for medications.  Most medications produced by these companies cost far less outside the boundaries of the U.S.  Ironically it is the taxpayers who now pick up most of the cost for medication so that politicians can more easily get contributions.

 

During the second year of the Obama administration, 2010, with the Democrats having control of both houses of Congress, the Affordable Health Care Bill was passed.  As a put-down the Republicans dubbed the bill Obamacare.  President Obama stated that he liked the title and it has been largely called that since.

 

Ironically, in order to make the bill palatable to the Republicans the Democrats built Affordable Health Care from a Republican plan, utilizing private enterprise, the insurance companies, to build a universal health plan.  Obamacare was modeled after a plan that had been developed and used by the state of Massachusetts under the Republican governor, Mitt Romney.

 

Not one Republican voted for Affordable Health Care.  They had all in caucus agreed to not support anything President Obama favored.  They were determined to make him a one term President.  The Bill was passed by the Democratic majority in both Houses of Congress.  Not one Republican voted for the Bill in either House of Congress.  In fact from 2011 on, when the Republicans achieved a majority in the House of Representatives, they voted over sixty times over the next six years to repeal the Bill.  Up until 2014 the Democrats had a majority in the Senate.  In 2015 the Senate barely achieved a Republican majority.  At that time President Obama vetoed the anti-Obamacare Bill.

 

With the election of the Republican Donald J. Trump as President of the United States and with Republican majorities in both Houses of Congress their goal seemed within reach.  But poles ascertained that repeal of that Bill had only 17% approval among the general public.  The majority of Americans want to keep it in existence.  Affordable Health Care had become even more popular than it had been during the time when Barack Obama had been President of the United States. The number of people signing up for it in 2017 increased considerably.

 

Suddenly the Congressional Republicans had a tiger by the tail.  When the Republican legislators went home on their numerous breaks to their districts they faced unhappy constituents who were vociferous in their protest against doing away with Obamacare.  This was particularly true when the Non Partisan Congressional Office that reported upon this bill stated that 14 million people would lose their health insurance coverage if the initial Republican “repeal and replace” health bill became law.

 

After failing to get their “repeal and replace” bill through the House of Representatives the Republicans members were careful to take their two week Easter break.  When they returned there was presumably a new “repeal and replace” bill which was rushed through the House and passed before it had been evaluated by the Non Partisan Budget Office that vets all bills as to their effects.  Since the bill would be massive in size the probability was that most of the Republicans who voted for it had not read it.

 

The new bill is called The American Health Care Act.  From what I understand it makes Health Insurance available to everyone if they can afford the premiums.  Whereas Affordable Health Care attempted to make Health Insurance a right for every citizen the American Health Care Act makes it a privilege for those who can afford it.  The Federal Government will give each state a fixed amount of money which the states can use in helping their citizens pay healthcare premiums.

 

The overall amount which the Federal Government will save is estimated to be around eight billion dollars.  This will allow the Congress to pass what it calls, tax reform.  Congress and President Donald Trump intend to reduce income taxes for the upper 1% and for corporations around eight billion dollars.  The principle here strikes me as reverse Robin Hood, that is, take from the poor and give to the rich.  If this goes through Donald Trump will reduce his taxes considerably.

**************************************

Fortunately the House of Representatives passing a bill is just that, passing a bill.  The bill then goes to the Senate and the Senate has to pass the bill.  First the bill actually goes to a Senatorial Committee where hearings on it will be held and it will be marked-up, changed or rewritten into a Senate version.  A number of Republican Senators have already stated that they have their own ideas about a Senate version of a Health Care Bill.

 

Once the Senate Committee has come out with their version of the bill it then goes to the full Senate where Senators can still amend the bill before voting upon it.  After amendments are added, and each one must be voted upon separately, the bill is again voted upon by the full Senate.  At best it will have three more Republican votes than Democratic votes.  The count in the Senate is now 52 Republicans to 46 Democrats and 2 Independents who caucus and vote with the Democrats.

 

It is very possible that the Republicans will not be able to get a majority vote and the bill will die in the Senate.  But even if it passes it will be different from the House bill.  Consequently the two bills will go to a Conference Committee made up of members of both Houses of Congress.  They, in turn, will have to come up with a Compromise Bill that is acceptable to both Houses of Congress.  If that were to occur then the new Compromise Bill would have to go to both Houses and be voted upon and passed in both Houses without any changes or it would have to go back to a new Conference Committee.

 

The chances of much of this happening is very small.  The probability is that the bill will not even reach the Conference Committee.  And even if it does it could easily die there.

 

What this bill will achieve is to upset the 14 million people who would lose their current medical coverage if the bill were to pass.  There is a Midterm Election coming up on the first Tuesday in November of 2018.  I am sure the Democrats in each District and State will be happy to remind their constituents of how their Republican representatives voted in 2017 on health care.  It would probably also be worth notifying them that the Republicans refused to raise the minimum wage above $7.25 an hour.  The probability is that the Senate will once again gain a Democratic majority and the House of Representatives could also achieve one.

 

President Donald Trump will likely be tweeting half the night if one or both Houses of Congress had a Democratic majority.  He has essentially been able to get nothing done with Republican majorities in both Houses of Congress.  He will probably get less than nothing done with one or both Houses of Congress in Democratic hands.

*********************************

As a point of interest, Paul Ryan, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, who is or was a follower of Ann Rand, at least until he found out she was an atheist, is largely responsible for the original new health bill and after the Easter Congressional break for the so-called new version of that bill that the House of Representatives passed.  He says that it is “a bogus attack from the left” to claim that the health care bill was rushed.  I suppose the “left” is the Democratic Party, as the bill was passed strictly along party lines.  No Democrat voted for it.

 

Ryan did not wait for the Non Partisan Congressional Office to study and give the over-all effects of the bill.  Rushing the bill through the House meant, not giving the constituents a chance to complain.

 

It is also interesting to note that Ann Rand basic philosophy, which she applied to her novels dealt with the Hegelian method, thesis vs. antithesis which she turned into individuals acting against each other in her two major novels: The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged.  Her form, in both novels dealt with the super individual functioning or struggling against the uncaring group.  In essence it would be the super human vs. the uncaring masses.  I suppose to Ryan it means him against the masses.

 

This philosophy was developed in the late 19th and first half of the 20th Century.  Its prime example would be Germany’s concept of the Master Race.  I would guess that the current Speaker of the House of Representatives mentally includes himself among that group.  This is the man that pushed through the current House Health Bill which will, if passed, take medical insurance away from 14 million people and also increase the wealth of the well to do by decreasing their taxes.

The Weiner Component V.2 #16 – The Great Presidential Cover-up(s)

In 1968 former Vice President Richard Milhous Nixon ran for the presidency of the United States on the Republican ticket.  It was the second time he attempted to attain that position.  In 1960 he had run against John Fitzgerald Kennedy and lost by less than one percent of the vote.

Richard Milhous Nixon, 37th President of the U...

Richard Milhous Nixon, 37th President of the United States (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

President Lyndon B. Johnson had announced that he would not run for another term as President.  After a tumultuous Convention the Democrats had chosen Hubert Humphrey and the Southern states of America also ran a third party candidate, George Wallace, whose platform tended to be against integration of the public schools and civil rights for Blacks.  Nixon’s platform, among other things, was that he would end the Viet Nam War and the United States would withdraw with honor from Viet Nam.  Nixon also campaigned as the law and order candidate.  Martin Luther King Jr, and Robert Kennedy while campaigning for the presidency, had been assassinated.  It was a highly dramatic time in the history of the nation, with the anti-Viet Nam War Movement having reached a high point.

 

Nixon carried 32 states with 301 electoral votes, and a popular vote of 31,783,783; Humphrey had 13 states plus Washington, D.C., 191 electoral votes, and 31,271,839 popular votes; and Wallace had 5 states, 46 electoral votes, and 9,901,118 popular votes.  This was the first election after the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that had led to the mass enfranchisement of racial minorities throughout the country.  It was about this time that the South would switch its voter majority to the Republican Party.

 

Nixon’s presidency, for the next four years would be rather dramatic.  He actually increased the pressure of the Viet Nam War, enlarging it beyond its borders in order to get the U.S. out of the war with honor.  Protest grew in this country.  Protest movements exploded, particularly at universities.  By 1972, when it became time for reelection Nixon, even though he had the support of the majority of the American people, became frantic to get reelected.

 

The Republican Party secretly supported, with funds, the most radical of the Democratic candidates, George McGovern, helping him to get nominated as the Democratic candidate.  And a small group of five men, both directly or indirectly, connected with the Republican Reelection Committee broke into Democratic Headquarters at the Watergate complex in Washington, D.C., bugging two of the telephones and searching for assorted information as to what the Democrats were doing or planning.  They broke in more than once and were finally caught and arrested for burglary.

 

Watergate occurred shortly before the Presidential Election of 1972.  Nixon won the election by an overwhelming majority.  He received 520 electoral votes, carried 49 states with a popular vote of 47,168,710.  McGovern received 17 electoral votes, carried 1 state and Washington, D.C. with a popular vote of 29,173,222.  It was an embarrassing defeat for the candidate and the Democratic Party.

 

Even with the election over and the new Presidential term beginning the Watergate investigation continued.  In addition over the next two years an eighty-five page indictment was developed against Nixon’s Vice President, Spiro Agnew, the former governor of Maryland.  He was involved with bribery and extortion, as Vice President, governor, and even going back to before he became governor of Maryland.

 

Because of the turmoil of Watergate the country was undergoing at that time Agnew was offered a deal by government law enforcement.  He could plead “no contest” and resign from the Vice Presidency and he would not be prosecuted.  Agnew took the deal, left Washington, and, from what I remember, settled in Palm Springs, California.  Nixon, while the investigation was going on appointed a new Vice President, Senator Gerald Ford, who would become President after Nixon resigned.

*******************************

In January of 1972 G. Gordon Liddy, the Finance Council for the Committee for the Reelection of President Richard Nixon and former aide to John Ehrlichman, presented a campaign intelligence plan to the Committee for the Re-Election of the President (CRP) which consisted  of Acting Chairman Jeb Stuart Magruder, Attorney General John Mitchell, and Presidential Council John Dean that involved extensive illegal activities against the Democratic Party.

 

Mitchell viewed the plan as unrealistic.  Two months later he was alleged to have approved a reduced version of the plan.  This included burgling the Democratic National Committee (DNC) headquarters at the Watergate Complex in Washington, D.C.  The burglars were to photograph campaign documents and install listening devices in telephones.  G.Gordon Liddy was in charge of the operation, but has insisted, after being arrested, that he was duped by Dean and two of his subordinates. These were former CIA officers E. Howard Hunt and James McCord.

 

The first burglary was on May 28.  Two phones were wiretapped, that of the executive director and that of the DNC secretary.  Apparently the listening devices had problems and a second burglary was planned.

 

Shortly after midnight on June 17, 1972 a security guard at Watergate noticed tape covering the locks on some of the doors in the complex leading from the underground garage to several offices.  This allowed the doors to close but remain unlocked.  He removed the tape.  When he returned an hour later the locks had been re-taped.   He called the police.  Five men were arrested inside the DNC headquarters.

 

On September 15, a grand jury indicted them, E. Howard Hunt and G. Gordon Liddy for conspiracy burglary and violation of federal wiretapping laws.  The five burglars were tried by a jury and were convicted on January 30, 1973,

 

On the morning of June 18, 1972, G. Gordon Liddy called Jeb Magruder in Los Angeles and informed him the “the four men arrested with McCord were Cuban Freedom Fighters, whom Howard Hunt had recruited.”  The White House immediately began a cover up of the crime and any evidence that might damage the President and his reelection.  The Presidential Election would be the first Tuesday in November.

 

(Somehow the burglary and arrests sounds like a scene from the Silent Era series of films on the keystone cops, totally ridiculous.)

*****************************

Shortly after the arrest the FBI would discover the name of E. Howard Hunt in the address books of two of the burglars.  Dean was later ordered by top Nixon aide John Ehrlichman to “deep six” the contents of Hunt’s White House safe.  The evidence from Hunt’s safe was destroyed by Dean and the FBI’s Acting Director, L. Patrick Gray.  On June 19, 1972, the press reported that one of the Watergate burglars was a Republican Party Security aide.  On August 1, a $25,000 cashier’s check earmarked for the Nixon re-election campaign was found in the bank account of one of the Watergate burglars.  The FBI investigation would reveal that the burglary team received thousands of dollars in the months leading up to their arrests.  In essence multi-thousands of dollars in certified checks which the burglars had received could be traced back to the CRP, connecting the oncoming Presidential Election with the five burglars.  All five Watergate burglars were directly or indirectly tied to the 1972 CRP.  This in turn caused the Judge who tried their case to suspect a conspiracy involving higher-echelon government officials.  On September 29, 1972, the press reported that John Mitchell, while serving as Attorney General, controlled a secret Republican fund used to finance intelligence gathering against the Democrats.  On October 10, the FBI reported the Watergate burglary was part of a massive campaign of political spying and sabotage on behalf of the Nixon re-election committee.  Still, Nixon’s campaign was never seriously jeopardized.  On November 7, the President was overwhelming re-elected.

 

Watergate lingered between the press and the White House, with more and more information gradually coming out.  In fact it haunted Nixon’s second term as president.  A special council outside the government for the Watergate investigation was appointed.  Archibald Cox headed it.  The Senate held public hearings on Watergate which were publically broadcast on national television.  It came out that Nixon was recording all conversations in the oval office.  Both Cox and the Senate attempted to subpoena these recordings.  Nixon refused and ordered Cox to drop his subpoena.  Cox refused.  Nixon ordered the Attorney General to fire Cox.  The Attorney General refused.  Nixon fired the Attorney General and ordered the assistant to the Attorney General to fire Cox.  He also refused.  Nixon also fired him and appointed a third Attorney General, Robert Bork, who did fire Cox.

 

The public was incensed.  In a speech on October 20, 1973, Nixon stated, “I am not a crook.” Then the new Attorney General, Robert Bork, appointed a new special prosecutor, Leon Jaworski, to continue the investigation.

 

The question had become: When did the President learn of the Watergate break-in?  On March 1, 1974 seven of the President’s close aides were indicted by a Grand Jury.  They also secretly named the President as an unindicted co-conspirator.

 

The Nixon administration released an edited version of the tapes.  Expletives, which Nixon freely used and confidential information were removed from the tapes.  The tapes implied that Nixon knew about the burglary from the beginning and that the initial burglars had been paid to keep silent.  Later another tape appeared that proved Nixon was aware of Watergate from the beginning.

 

In July 27, 1974, the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee by a vote of 27 to 11 voted to recommend a Bill of Impeachment against the President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon.  On August 8, 1974, Nixon was told of the Bill of Impeachment by the House and that there were no more than 15 votes in the Senate that would support him.  On August 9, 1974, Richard Nixon resigned from the Presidency; the day a bill of impeachment was to be passed in the House of Representatives.

 

The Cover up had failed.  The process had taken a little under two years.  The Vice President, Gerald Ford became the new President.

He would serve out the balance of the presidential term.  Nixon was still liable to criminal prosecution by both state and federal laws.  On September 8, 1974, President Gerald Ford issued a full and unconditional pardon for any crimes Nixon may have or did commit as President.

****************************************

Today, early in May of 2017, President Donald J. Trump and his administration face a similar problem.  Is or has it undergone a cover-up for collusion with Vladimir Putin and Russia over the Presidential Election of 2016 or are Trump and his staff amateurs that don’t really know what’s going on as they attempt ineptly to run the United States?

 

According to James Clapper, the former head of the National Intelligence Agency there is “overwhelming” evidence of Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential Election.  The FBI began its counterintelligence investigation in July of 2016, well before the November Presidential Election.

 

What I find interesting here is why the FBI Director, James Comey, disregarded policy about an ongoing investigation and publically commented about the Clinton emails shortly before the November Presidential Election but followed FBI procedure and kept quiet about the Trump investigation.  He spoke about the Trump investigation in early May of 2017, well after the election.

 

On May 9, 2017, Trump fired James Comey, the Director of the FBI.  Did that act of Trump using his favorite phrase, (which, I understand, was his favorite term when he was hosting “The Celebrity Apprentice.”  Presumably he copyrighted the phrase).  Does this end the FBI investigation of Trump and Russia?  It would seem that he is actually encouraging both the investigation and the appointment of an independent prosecutor.

 

Trump and his team have continually denied that they have had any improper contacts with Russia during the 2016 campaign.  Representative Adam Schiff, the highest Democrat on the Intelligence Committee has verbally pointed to a number of people who are or have been part of Trump’s team that have had contact with Russians.  There is Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, who has recused himself from the committee investigation.  National Security Advisor Michael Flynn, who Trump fired eighteen days after discovering he had had contacts with the Russian Ambassador prior to the election.  Trump’s  former campaign manager, Paul Manafort; campaign aides J.D. Gordon and Carter Page, as well as longtime Trump confidant Roger stone.

 

Representative Schiff stated that it was possible that all of their contacts had nothing to do with the election.  “But it is also possible, maybe more than possible, that they are not coincidental, not disconnected and not unrelated, and that the Russians used the same techniques to corrupt U.S. persons that they have employed in Europe and elsewhere.

 

An election was also held early in May in France and the same techniques were used by the Russians to try to subvert that election to the far-right candidate who Putin preferred.  Unlike Trump, she lost the election.  The French are apparently far more sophisticated than the Americans.

 

On May 7, 2017, the former temporary Attorney General, Sally Yates, and the former head of the National Intelligence Agency, James Clapper, testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee.  President Trump did not emerge in any positive fashion from what was said about him.

 

Donald Trump has been President of the United States for a little over 100 days.  Much of what he has done in that office or what he has stated or tweeted has not shown him in a positive light.  It is still early in his tenure in office.  Remember it took about two years for the evidence against Nixon to come together after his illegal acts.  There is a distinct possibility that it may take as long for the same thing to happen to Trump.

 

Investigation are ongoing now.  While Jeff Sessions has recused himself as the chief law enforcement officer in the nation it is still his assistant who is heading up this investigation.  Pressure is currently building for an independent investigator outside of Trump’s circle.  Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader in the Senate, sees no reason for an independent investigator.  The New York Times is suggesting that there are a lot more of Trump’s people involved with Russia.  What will happen is anyone’s guess.  The probability is that Trump may not survive four years as President of the United States.

The Weiner Component Vol.2 #15 – The Attorney General, Jeff Sessions

United States Senate election in Alabama, 1996

United States Senate election in Alabama, 1996 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III, Jeff Sessions, was born in Alabama on December 24, 1946.  From February 9, 2017, he became President Donald Trump’s Attorney General, the chief law-enforcement officer in the United States.  Prior to that he was the junior Senator from Alabama.

 

Sessions was raised in that state during the Civil Rights Movement, Which actually began during World War II and went into high-gear during the 1960s when Sessions was in his teens.  That was a period of intense social uproar and change throughout the South and the North.  This was the time Sessions grew to manhood both as a product of the Old and New South.

 

Sessions has functioned as a varied career as a public servant over the years.  He is generally considered as a staunch conservative.  During his years in the Senate he has strongly opposed both illegal immigration and amnesty and supported the expansion of a border fence with Mexico.  He supported most of President George W. Bush’s legislative program, including his tax cuts.  He was for the Iraqi War and a national amendment to ban same sex marriage.  He opposed the 2009 stimulus bill and Affordable Health Care.  He opposed all of President Obama’s three nominees for the Supreme Court.

 

In 1973 Sessions graduated from the University Of Alabama School Of Law with a J.D. degree.  In 1975 he became an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Alabama.  In 1981, President Ronald Reagan nominated him to become U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Alabama.  The Senate confirmed him and he held the position for twelve years, until President Bill Clinton’s Attorney General, Janet Reno, asked for his resignation.

 

In 1985, Sessions prosecuted three African Ameri9can community organizers in the Black Belt of Alabama for vote fraud, accusing them of tampering with fourteen absentee ballots.  This prosecution brought about charges of selective prosecution of Black voter registrations.  The defendants were acquitted of all charges.

 

In 1986 Reagan nominated Sessions to be a judge of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama.  At Sessions information hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, four Department of Justice lawyers testified that Sessions had made racially offensive remarks.  One of the lawyers stated that Sessions had referred to the NAACP and the ACLU as “un-American” and “Communist inspired.”  Another stated that Sessions had called a white civil rights attorney a “disgrace to his race.”

 

Coretta Scott King, the wife of the late Martin Luther King, opposed Sessions’ nomination in a letter stating that “Mr. Session had used the awesome power of his office in a shabby attempt to intimidate and frighten elderly Black voters.”

 

On June 5, 1986 the Judicial Committee voted 10 to 8 against recommending the nomination to the Senate.  The nomination was withdrawn on July 11, 19876.  Sessions became the second nominee in the Federal Judiciary in 48 years whose nomination was killed by the Judiciary Committee.

*******************************

In November 1994 Sessions was elected Attorney General of Alabama.  The harsh criticism which he had received from Senator Edward Kennedy that he was “a throwback to a shameful era” and a “disgrace,” actually helped him gain the support of Alabama’s conservatives.  As Attorney General he led the state’s defense of a school funding program that was found to be unconstitutional.  It had large disparities between rich and poor schools.  The rich schools were generally white and the poor schools were mostly black.

 

From 1996 on Sessions was the Republican U.S. Senator from Alabama.  As a Senator he served on various committees.  Among them he was on the Judiciary Committee.  There are at least two major ironies dealing with his Judiciary assignment.  One is that he served with Senators who had refused to qualify him as a judge and the other is the Senate confirmation of Sally Yates as Assistant Attorney General during the Obama Administration.

 

The process by which a person gets “advice and consent” by the Senate begins with a committee meeting.  The committee has to approve the person before their name goes to the full Senate for a vote.  In this process each Senator on the committee asks the prospective candidate questions.  Among the questions Sessions asked Yates was one that dealt with how she would function as Assistant Attorney General.  Sessions asked her what she would do if an issue came up between an executive order from the President which contradicted the Constitution.  Yates answer was that she would adhere to the Constitution and would refuse to obey that order.  In essence the question asked if she was the nation’s lawyer or the President’s.  Sally Yates answered that she would be the nation’s lawyer.

 

At the end of end of President Obama’s presidential tenure his Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, resigned.  Sally Yates became the Acting Attorney General until the new Attorney General, Jeff Sessions would be confirmed by the Senate.  The new President, Donald Trump, issued an executive order prohibiting inhabitants from six Muslim countries to come to the United States.  Sally Yates refused to carry out that order, stating that it was unconstitutional.   Because she would not be his lawyer on this issue Trump fired her and appointed another Acting Attorney General who could serve until the Senate confirmed Jeff Sessions as the new Attorney General.

 

Sally Yates was fired for not being President Donald Trump’s personal lawyer, for not placing him before the Constitution.  Jeff Sessions, when he was confirmed would not have that problem.

*****************************

Jeff Sessions was both an early supporter of Donald Trump and a major advisor to his campaign.  Sessions seems to have dealt largely with immigration and national security.

 

Trump was a reality TV personality and a real estate builder and investor.  He doesn’t like to read, instead he gets most of his information from watching television and from people who discus the different subjects with him.  It is very possible that Sessions is the main source of Trump’s immigration and national security policy.  The concept of the “Wall” between the U.S. and Mexico may have even originated with Sessions.

 

Sessions appearance, wearing a Make America Great Again hat was a constant occurrence at Trump’s rallies.  In fact he was considered for the position of Vice President.  During the transition in which Trump became President Sessions played a large role.  On November 18, 2016, President-Elect Trump announced that Sessions would be his Attorney General of the United States.  The announcement gained both strong support and strong opposition.  Over 1,400 law school professors wrote a letter urging the Senate to reject the appointment.  The Senate Judiciary Committee approved his nomination and the full Senate confirmed him by a Republican Party vote of 52 to 47, along party lines.

******************************

After March 1, 2017, it came out that Jeff Sessions had had contact with Russian officials during the election period and had denied this during his confirmation hearing.  Democratic leaders, like Chuck Shimmer, called upon him to resign as Attorney General.  Republican Lindsey Graham called upon Sessions to recuse himself from any investigation between Russia and the Trump campaign.  Sessions did recuse himself from that investigation.  Presumably the Assistant Attorney General will head up the investigation.  Democrats are calling for an independent investigator to be brought in.

 

Democratic Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said that Sessions had “lied under oath” and should resign.  Democratic Representative Elijah Cummings stated that “when Senator Sessions testified under oath that “I did not have communications with Russians,” his statement was false, yet he let it stand for weeks and he continued to let it stand as he watched the President tell the entire nation he didn’t know anything about anyone advising his campaign talking to the Russians.”  Cummings also called for Sessions to resign.  Senator Franklin stated that he believes that Sessions perjured himself in his confirmation hearing.

 

On March 20, 2017, the FBI Director, James Comey, testified before the House Intelligence Committee that since July 2016 the FBI had been conducting a counter-intelligence investigation to assess the extent of Russia’s interference into the 2016 presidential election and whether Trump associates played a role in Russia’s efforts.

***************************

Both Trump and Sessions expected to use city and state law enforcement to help carry out their immigration policies.

Toward the end of March of 2017 Sessions publically stated that sanctuary cities that failed to comply with policies of the Trump administration would lose federal funding.  On April 21st nine sanctuary cities were sent letters by the Justice Department giving them a deadline of June 30th to provide an explanation of how their policies were not in violation of the law.  Sessions threatened to reduce Federal funding from the Federal Government if the states did not comply with their wishes. The cities and states sued the Federal Government arguing that the administration could not usurp the powers of Congress and make or change laws.  The judiciary upheld their claim.

 

It should be noted that during his tenure in the United States Senate Jeff Sessions was one of the most conservative members and now as Attorney General his position has not changed.

************************************

Sessions has been an opponent of legal and illegal immigration during his time in Congress.  The probability is that if he had his way the only immigrants who could come to the United States would be white Europeans from Northern Europe.  Everyone else it would seem comes from another race.

 

Sessions favored Bush’s war in Iraq.  In 2014 he was one of three Senators to vote against additional funding for the V.A. medical system.  In October of 2005 he was one of nine Senators to vote against a Senate Amendment to a House bill that prohibited cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment or punishment of individuals in the custody or under the physical control of the U.S. Government.  He has been a strong supporter of civil forfeiture, the government practice of seizing property when it has allegedly been involved in a crime.

 

Sessions voted against the 2008 Bank Bailout.  He opposed the $837 billion stimulus bill and the $447 billion jobs bill both proposed by President Obama.  Sessions is skeptical on the scientific consensus over climate changes.  He’s voted in favor of legislation that would prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gases.  He has voted to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling.

 

Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III, if he had gotten his way as a United States Senator, would have this country, and probably the rest of the world, still attempting to work its way out of the Gigantic Real-Estate Depression of 2008, which, had it occurred, would have been far greater than the Great Depression of 1929.  This is the man that President Donald Trump has made his Attorney General, the chief law enforcement individual in the nation.

The Weiner Component Vol.2 #15 – Trump’s Attorney General, Jeff Sessions

 

Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III, Jeff Sessions, was born in Alabama on December 24, 1946.  From February 9, 2017, he became President Donald Trump’s Attorney General, the chief law-enforcement officer in the United States.  Prior to that he was the junior Senator from Alabama.

 

Sessions was raised in that state during the Civil Rights Movement, Which actually began during World War II and went into high-gear during the 1960s when Sessions was in his teens.  That was a period of intense social uproar and change throughout the South and the North.  This was the time Sessions grew to manhood both as a product of the Old and New South.

 

Sessions has functioned as a varied career as a public servant over the years.  He is generally considered as a staunch conservative.  During his years in the Senate he has strongly opposed both illegal immigration and amnesty and supported the expansion of a border fence with Mexico.  He supported most of President George W. Bush’s legislative program, including his tax cuts.  He was for the Iraqi War and a national amendment to ban same sex marriage.  He opposed the 2009 stimulus bill and Affordable Health Care.  He opposed all of President Obama’s three nominees for the Supreme Court.

 

In 1973 Sessions graduated from the University Of Alabama School Of Law with a J.D. degree.  In 1975 he became an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Alabama.  In 1981, President Ronald Reagan nominated him to become U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Alabama.  The Senate confirmed him and he held the position for twelve years, until President Bill Clinton’s Attorney General, Janet Reno, asked for his resignation.

 

In 1985, Sessions prosecuted three African Ameri9can community organizers in the Black Belt of Alabama for vote fraud, accusing them of tampering with fourteen absentee ballots.  This prosecution brought about charges of selective prosecution of Black voter registrations.  The defendants were acquitted of all charges.

 

In 1986 Reagan nominated Sessions to be a judge of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama.  At Sessions information hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, four Department of Justice lawyers testified that Sessions had made racially offensive remarks.  One of the lawyers stated that Sessions had referred to the NAACP and the ACLU as “un-American” and “Communist inspired.”  Another stated that Sessions had called a white civil rights attorney a “disgrace to his race.”

 

Coretta Scott King, the wife of the late Martin Luther King, opposed Sessions’ nomination in a letter stating that “Mr. Session had used the awesome power of his office in a shabby attempt to intimidate and frighten elderly Black voters.”

 

On June 5, 1986 the Judicial Committee voted 10 to 8 against recommending the nomination to the Senate.  The nomination was withdrawn on July 11, 19876.  Sessions became the second nominee in the Federal Judiciary in 48 years whose nomination was killed by the Judiciary Committee.

*******************************

In November 1994 Sessions was elected Attorney General of Alabama.  The harsh criticism which he had received from Senator Edward Kennedy that he was “a throwback to a shameful era” and a “disgrace,” actually helped him gain the support of Alabama’s conservatives.  As Attorney General he led the state’s defense of a school funding program that was found to be unconstitutional.  It had large disparities between rich and poor schools.  The rich schools were generally white and the poor schools were mostly black.

 

From 1996 on Sessions was the Republican U.S. Senator from Alabama.  As a Senator he served on various committees.  Among them he was on the Judiciary Committee.  There are at least two major ironies dealing with his Judiciary assignment.  One is that he served with Senators who had refused to qualify him as a judge and the other is the Senate confirmation of Sally Yates as Assistant Attorney General during the Obama Administration.

 

The process by which a person gets “advice and consent” by the Senate begins with a committee meeting.  The committee has to approve the person before their name goes to the full Senate for a vote.  In this process each Senator on the committee asks the prospective candidate questions.  Among the questions Sessions asked Yates was one that dealt with how she would function as Assistant Attorney General.  Sessions asked her what she would do if an issue came up between an executive order from the President which contradicted the Constitution.  Yates answer was that she would adhere to the Constitution and would refuse to obey that order.  In essence the question asked if she was the nation’s lawyer or the President’s.  Sally Yates answered that she would be the nation’s lawyer.

 

At the end of end of President Obama’s presidential tenure his Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, resigned.  Sally Yates became the Acting Attorney General until the new Attorney General, Jeff Sessions would be confirmed by the Senate.  The new President, Donald Trump, issued an executive order prohibiting inhabitants from six Muslim countries to come to the United States.  Sally Yates refused to carry out that order, stating that it was unconstitutional.   Because she would not be his lawyer on this issue Trump fired her and appointed another Acting Attorney General who could serve until the Senate confirmed Jeff Sessions as the new Attorney General.

 

Sally Yates was fired for not being President Donald Trump’s personal lawyer, for not placing him before the Constitution.  Jeff Sessions, when he was confirmed would not have that problem.

*****************************

Jeff Sessions was both an early supporter of Donald Trump and a major advisor to his campaign.  Sessions seems to have dealt largely with immigration and national security.

 

Trump was a reality TV personality and a real estate builder and investor.  He doesn’t like to read, instead he gets most of his information from watching television and from people who discus the different subjects with him.  It is very possible that Sessions is the main source of Trump’s immigration and national security policy.  The concept of the “Wall” between the U.S. and Mexico may have even originated with Sessions.

 

Sessions appearance, wearing a Make America Great Again hat was a constant occurrence at Trump’s rallies.  In fact he was considered for the position of Vice President.  During the transition in which Trump became President Sessions played a large role.  On November 18, 2016, President-Elect Trump announced that Sessions would be his Attorney General of the United States.  The announcement gained both strong support and strong opposition.  Over 1,400 law school professors wrote a letter urging the Senate to reject the appointment.  The Senate Judiciary Committee approved his nomination and the full Senate confirmed him by a Republican Party vote of 52 to 47, along party lines.

******************************

After March 1, 2017, it came out that Jeff Sessions had had contact with Russian officials during the election period and had denied this during his confirmation hearing.  Democratic leaders, like Chuck Shimmer, called upon him to resign as Attorney General.  Republican Lindsey Graham called upon Sessions to recuse himself from any investigation between Russia and the Trump campaign.  Sessions did recuse himself from that investigation.  Presumably the Assistant Attorney General will head up the investigation.  Democrats are calling for an independent investigator to be brought in.

 

Democratic Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said that Sessions had “lied under oath” and should resign.  Democratic Representative Elijah Cummings stated that “when Senator Sessions testified under oath that “I did not have communications with Russians,” his statement was false, yet he let it stand for weeks and he continued to let it stand as he watched the President tell the entire nation he didn’t know anything about anyone advising his campaign talking to the Russians.”  Cummings also called for Sessions to resign.  Senator Franklin stated that he believes that Sessions perjured himself in his confirmation hearing.

 

On March 20, 2017, the FBI Director, James Comey, testified before the House Intelligence Committee that since July 2016 the FBI had been conducting a counter-intelligence investigation to assess the extent of Russia’s interference into the 2016 presidential election and whether Trump associates played a role in Russia’s efforts.

***************************

Both Trump and Sessions expected to use city and state law enforcement to help carry out their immigration policies.

Toward the end of March of 2017 Sessions publically stated that sanctuary cities that failed to comply with policies of the Trump administration would lose federal funding.  On April 21st nine sanctuary cities were sent letters by the Justice Department giving them a deadline of June 30th to provide an explanation of how their policies were not in violation of the law.  Sessions threatened to reduce Federal funding from the Federal Government if the states did not comply with their wishes. The cities and states sued the Federal Government arguing that the administration could not usurp the powers of Congress and make or change laws.  The judiciary upheld their claim.

 

It should be noted that during his tenure in the United States Senate Jeff Sessions was one of the most conservative members and now as Attorney General his position has not changed.

************************************

Sessions has been an opponent of legal and illegal immigration during his time in Congress.  The probability is that if he had his way the only immigrants who could come to the United States would be white Europeans from Northern Europe.  Everyone else it would seem comes from another race.

 

Sessions favored Bush’s war in Iraq.  In 2014 he was one of three Senators to vote against additional funding for the V.A. medical system.  In October of 2005 he was one of nine Senators to vote against a Senate Amendment to a House bill that prohibited cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment or punishment of individuals in the custody or under the physical control of the U.S. Government.  He has been a strong supporter of civil forfeiture, the government practice of seizing property when it has allegedly been involved in a crime.

 

Sessions voted against the 2008 Bank Bailout.  He opposed the $837 billion stimulus bill and the $447 billion jobs bill both proposed by President Obama.  Sessions is skeptical on the scientific consensus over climate changes.  He’s voted in favor of legislation that would prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gases.  He has voted to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling.

 

Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III, if he had gotten his way as a United States Senator, would have this country, and probably the rest of the world, still attempting to work its way out of the Gigantic Real-Estate Depression of 2008, which, had it occurred, would have been far greater than the Great Depression of 1929.  This is the man that President Donald Trump has made his Attorney General, the chief law enforcement individual in the nation.

The Weiner Component Vol.2 #15 – Trump’s Attorney General, Jeff Sessions

 

Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III, Jeff Sessions, was born in Alabama on December 24, 1946.  From February 9, 2017, he became President Donald Trump’s Attorney General, the chief law-enforcement officer in the United States.  Prior to that he was the junior Senator from Alabama.

 

Sessions was raised in that state during the Civil Rights Movement, Which actually began during World War II and went into high-gear during the 1960s when Sessions was in his teens.  That was a period of intense social uproar and change throughout the South and the North.  This was the time Sessions grew to manhood both as a product of the Old and New South.

 

Sessions has functioned as a varied career as a public servant over the years.  He is generally considered as a staunch conservative.  During his years in the Senate he has strongly opposed both illegal immigration and amnesty and supported the expansion of a border fence with Mexico.  He supported most of President George W. Bush’s legislative program, including his tax cuts.  He was for the Iraqi War and a national amendment to ban same sex marriage.  He opposed the 2009 stimulus bill and Affordable Health Care.  He opposed all of President Obama’s three nominees for the Supreme Court.

 

In 1973 Sessions graduated from the University Of Alabama School Of Law with a J.D. degree.  In 1975 he became an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Alabama.  In 1981, President Ronald Reagan nominated him to become U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Alabama.  The Senate confirmed him and he held the position for twelve years, until President Bill Clinton’s Attorney General, Janet Reno, asked for his resignation.

 

In 1985, Sessions prosecuted three African Ameri9can community organizers in the Black Belt of Alabama for vote fraud, accusing them of tampering with fourteen absentee ballots.  This prosecution brought about charges of selective prosecution of Black voter registrations.  The defendants were acquitted of all charges.

 

In 1986 Reagan nominated Sessions to be a judge of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama.  At Sessions information hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, four Department of Justice lawyers testified that Sessions had made racially offensive remarks.  One of the lawyers stated that Sessions had referred to the NAACP and the ACLU as “un-American” and “Communist inspired.”  Another stated that Sessions had called a white civil rights attorney a “disgrace to his race.”

 

Coretta Scott King, the wife of the late Martin Luther King, opposed Sessions’ nomination in a letter stating that “Mr. Session had used the awesome power of his office in a shabby attempt to intimidate and frighten elderly Black voters.”

 

On June 5, 1986 the Judicial Committee voted 10 to 8 against recommending the nomination to the Senate.  The nomination was withdrawn on July 11, 19876.  Sessions became the second nominee in the Federal Judiciary in 48 years whose nomination was killed by the Judiciary Committee.

*******************************

In November 1994 Sessions was elected Attorney General of Alabama.  The harsh criticism which he had received from Senator Edward Kennedy that he was “a throwback to a shameful era” and a “disgrace,” actually helped him gain the support of Alabama’s conservatives.  As Attorney General he led the state’s defense of a school funding program that was found to be unconstitutional.  It had large disparities between rich and poor schools.  The rich schools were generally white and the poor schools were mostly black.

 

From 1996 on Sessions was the Republican U.S. Senator from Alabama.  As a Senator he served on various committees.  Among them he was on the Judiciary Committee.  There are at least two major ironies dealing with his Judiciary assignment.  One is that he served with Senators who had refused to qualify him as a judge and the other is the Senate confirmation of Sally Yates as Assistant Attorney General during the Obama Administration.

 

The process by which a person gets “advice and consent” by the Senate begins with a committee meeting.  The committee has to approve the person before their name goes to the full Senate for a vote.  In this process each Senator on the committee asks the prospective candidate questions.  Among the questions Sessions asked Yates was one that dealt with how she would function as Assistant Attorney General.  Sessions asked her what she would do if an issue came up between an executive order from the President which contradicted the Constitution.  Yates answer was that she would adhere to the Constitution and would refuse to obey that order.  In essence the question asked if she was the nation’s lawyer or the President’s.  Sally Yates answered that she would be the nation’s lawyer.

 

At the end of end of President Obama’s presidential tenure his Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, resigned.  Sally Yates became the Acting Attorney General until the new Attorney General, Jeff Sessions would be confirmed by the Senate.  The new President, Donald Trump, issued an executive order prohibiting inhabitants from six Muslim countries to come to the United States.  Sally Yates refused to carry out that order, stating that it was unconstitutional.   Because she would not be his lawyer on this issue Trump fired her and appointed another Acting Attorney General who could serve until the Senate confirmed Jeff Sessions as the new Attorney General.

 

Sally Yates was fired for not being President Donald Trump’s personal lawyer, for not placing him before the Constitution.  Jeff Sessions, when he was confirmed would not have that problem.

*****************************

Jeff Sessions was both an early supporter of Donald Trump and a major advisor to his campaign.  Sessions seems to have dealt largely with immigration and national security.

 

Trump was a reality TV personality and a real estate builder and investor.  He doesn’t like to read, instead he gets most of his information from watching television and from people who discus the different subjects with him.  It is very possible that Sessions is the main source of Trump’s immigration and national security policy.  The concept of the “Wall” between the U.S. and Mexico may have even originated with Sessions.

 

Sessions appearance, wearing a Make America Great Again hat was a constant occurrence at Trump’s rallies.  In fact he was considered for the position of Vice President.  During the transition in which Trump became President Sessions played a large role.  On November 18, 2016, President-Elect Trump announced that Sessions would be his Attorney General of the United States.  The announcement gained both strong support and strong opposition.  Over 1,400 law school professors wrote a letter urging the Senate to reject the appointment.  The Senate Judiciary Committee approved his nomination and the full Senate confirmed him by a Republican Party vote of 52 to 47, along party lines.

******************************

After March 1, 2017, it came out that Jeff Sessions had had contact with Russian officials during the election period and had denied this during his confirmation hearing.  Democratic leaders, like Chuck Shimmer, called upon him to resign as Attorney General.  Republican Lindsey Graham called upon Sessions to recuse himself from any investigation between Russia and the Trump campaign.  Sessions did recuse himself from that investigation.  Presumably the Assistant Attorney General will head up the investigation.  Democrats are calling for an independent investigator to be brought in.

 

Democratic Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said that Sessions had “lied under oath” and should resign.  Democratic Representative Elijah Cummings stated that “when Senator Sessions testified under oath that “I did not have communications with Russians,” his statement was false, yet he let it stand for weeks and he continued to let it stand as he watched the President tell the entire nation he didn’t know anything about anyone advising his campaign talking to the Russians.”  Cummings also called for Sessions to resign.  Senator Franklin stated that he believes that Sessions perjured himself in his confirmation hearing.

 

On March 20, 2017, the FBI Director, James Comey, testified before the House Intelligence Committee that since July 2016 the FBI had been conducting a counter-intelligence investigation to assess the extent of Russia’s interference into the 2016 presidential election and whether Trump associates played a role in Russia’s efforts.

***************************

Both Trump and Sessions expected to use city and state law enforcement to help carry out their immigration policies.

Toward the end of March of 2017 Sessions publically stated that sanctuary cities that failed to comply with policies of the Trump administration would lose federal funding.  On April 21st nine sanctuary cities were sent letters by the Justice Department giving them a deadline of June 30th to provide an explanation of how their policies were not in violation of the law.  Sessions threatened to reduce Federal funding from the Federal Government if the states did not comply with their wishes. The cities and states sued the Federal Government arguing that the administration could not usurp the powers of Congress and make or change laws.  The judiciary upheld their claim.

 

It should be noted that during his tenure in the United States Senate Jeff Sessions was one of the most conservative members and now as Attorney General his position has not changed.

************************************

Sessions has been an opponent of legal and illegal immigration during his time in Congress.  The probability is that if he had his way the only immigrants who could come to the United States would be white Europeans from Northern Europe.  Everyone else it would seem comes from another race.

 

Sessions favored Bush’s war in Iraq.  In 2014 he was one of three Senators to vote against additional funding for the V.A. medical system.  In October of 2005 he was one of nine Senators to vote against a Senate Amendment to a House bill that prohibited cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment or punishment of individuals in the custody or under the physical control of the U.S. Government.  He has been a strong supporter of civil forfeiture, the government practice of seizing property when it has allegedly been involved in a crime.

 

Sessions voted against the 2008 Bank Bailout.  He opposed the $837 billion stimulus bill and the $447 billion jobs bill both proposed by President Obama.  Sessions is skeptical on the scientific consensus over climate changes.  He’s voted in favor of legislation that would prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gases.  He has voted to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling.

 

Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III, if he had gotten his way as a United States Senator, would have this country, and probably the rest of the world, still attempting to work its way out of the Gigantic Real-Estate Depression of 2008, which, had it occurred, would have been far greater than the Great Depression of 1929.  This is the man that President Donald Trump has made his Attorney General, the chief law enforcement individual in the nation.

The Weiner Component Vol.2 #14 – Trump & Kim Jong-un: The Problem of Atomic War

Nuclear weapon test Mike (yield 10.4 Mt) on En...

English: North Korean leader Kim Jong-il.

English: North Korean leader Kim Jong-il. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

speaking at CPAC in Washington D.C. on Februar...

Dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was done 72 years ago in 1945 to end WWII.  In essence this happened two years before President Donald Trump was born.  Most of the people who were alive at that time have passed on.  The memory of the end of World War II exists mainly in books and film; so does the memory of dropping two atomic bombs.  Only a very small percentage of the population, who were alive then, are still around and they are very old.  Neither the President of the United States nor the Supreme Leader of North Korea were alive then.

 

The Hiroshima bomb was dropped on August 6, 1945.  Three days later, August 9, the Nagasaki bomb was dropped.  They were exploded approximately 2,000 feet above their targets.  Both were fission devices.  Their energy was released by breaking matter apart into simpler elements.  The two bombs killed approximately 129,000 people and damaged countless others.  The objective of dropping them was to end World War II.

 

Basically what the bomb did was generate the sun’s heat 2,000 feet above the surface of their target, creating a vacuum directly under the explosion, which immediately sucked in dirt and dust from all around, throwing it up as a radioactive mushroom cloud.  The cloud itself was deadly with radioactivity; some of it would be blown up into the higher atmosphere and be spread innumerable miles in one direction or another, actually adding a measure of radioactivity to the atmosphere, while most of it would eventually drop back into the general area from which it came originally.  All this residue would be highly radioactive and deadly to people.

 

Those caught directly under the bomb and their possessions, houses, clothing, whatever, would immediately die or burn-up from the fire or heat.  The people, as one moves away from the center would all have radioactive burns over their bodies, the amount depending upon how far away they were from the center.  The entire process was pure horror.

 

On November 1, 1952 the United States test exploded a Hydrogen bomb at Eniwetok atoll, an empty island in the Pacific Ocean.  A Hydrogen bomb is a thermonuclear device which is a fusion bomb.  It takes simpler elements and makes them into more complicated ones.  It is also 1,000 times more powerful than an atomic bomb.  In fact it uses an atomic bomb to start its process.

 

While the simple atomic bomb releases the equivalent of 20,000 tons of TNT the H bomb releases 10 million tons of dynamite.  The island the Hydrogen bomb was exploded over melted and disappeared under the Pacific Ocean.

 

A few years later the Soviet Union, under Nikita Khrushchev, exploded two similar devices somewhere in Siberia and Khrushchev reported to the American President that the explosion had been greater than they thought it would be.

 

The radioactivity has a half-life of over 5,000 years.  This means that it can be lethal for over four times that length of time.  If enough atomic bombs were to be exploded they could poison the overall atmosphere of the planet with excess radioactivity and kill all organic life forms that are affected by radioactivity.

 

While shooting the film, The Conqueror, in 1959 John Wayne and ninety other members of the production company eventually came down with some form of cancer.  The film was shot at St. George, in Southwest Utah, east and downwind from the site of U.S. Government nuclear weapons tests.  I understand that one day they all felt a warm wind pass over them.  Susan Hayward and Agnes Morehead, as well as the director, Dick Powell also eventually came down with cancer.

 

It took a while but by 1963 there was a Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty that restricted all nuclear testing to be done underground, usually in old deserted mines, to prevent contaminating the atmosphere with nuclear fallout.  It seems that every time an atomic weapon is tested it adds poisonous radioactivity particles to the atmosphere.   Even nations that did not sign the treaty have tested their atomic bombs since then underground.  This included North Korea.

 

Donald Trump, shortly after he became President of the United States, suggested that the U.S. arm countries surrounding North Korea with atomic bombs and missile systems.  Somehow after mentioning this strategy once he has not brought it up again.

 

He may have been properly briefed.  The problem with an atomic or nuclear war is that it could conceivably contaminate the entire planet.

**************************************

North Korea or to use its official title, The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is probably one of the most dictatorial ruled states in the world today.  Its currency, the won, is not accepted in other nations and its value and distribution within the DPRK is totally determined by the government.  There is a different issue of currency for foreign visitors.  International trade and the distribution of currency within the country for goods and services is totally controlled by the central government.

 

The leaders or rulers since the inception of the Communist state has been the Kim family: father, son, and grandson.  Each has come to power after the death of his father.

 

At the end of World War II Korea was split into two sections at the 38th parallel.  The Northern half was organized by the Soviet Union.  The Southern part essentially by the United States.  In the North a Communist government was set up; in the South a Democratic one.  On June 25, 1950 Northern Koreans crossed the 38th parallel and invaded the Southern section.  The war ended with a truce at the 38th parallel in July 1953 with each side occupying the territory they held before the war started.  The truce continues to exist to this day with American troops still stationed at the 38th parallel.

 

On September 9, 1948 the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was established with Kim Il-Sung as the Supreme Leader.  After his death on July 8, 1994 his son, Kim Jong-il became ruler with numerous titles.  And after he passed away on December 17, 2011 his son Kim Jong-un became the Supreme Leader.  With Asian names the family name comes first and it is followed by the given name.

 

Kim Jong-un assumed office on April 11, 2012.  He was born in 1984, which currently makes him 33 years old.  He has a wife, who is somewhere in her twenties, a daughter and he is the Chairman of the Workers Party of Korea and the Supreme Leader of the Military.

 

His older brother, Kim Jong-chul, was poisoned in Malaysia in 2017 by suspected Korean agents.  In December 2013, Kim Jung-un had his uncle, who was a high government official, arrested for treachery and executed.  He also put to death all the members of his family, including children and grandchildren of all close relatives.  It seems, like many rulers of old, once the crown was inherited the possible competition was wiped out.

 

The Korean War ended in a truce that was never resolved.  Since that time the Northern Koreans have dug in, in their territories, digging deep concrete reinforced fortification facilities throughout their country.  In addition they have developed nuclear weapons and run underground tests of these weapons.  They have also developed and tested missiles that could deliver atomic bombs to their enemies in any type of war.  They claim, without actually testing one, to have developed their own Hydrogen Bomb.  This is given very low credence by U.S. Intelligence agencies.

 

As far as the United States is concerned North Korea currently has atomic bomb capacity and medium range missiles.  They are attempting to develop a long range missile that can reach the United States.  The U.S. has unsuccessfully attempted to halt their experimentation.  The United Nations has condemned it and issued economic sanctions.  Northern Korea continues with its rocket and bomb experimentation.

 

Under no circumstances can the U.S. allow them to develop a long range missile.  The Obama Administration issued sanctions against the ruler, Kim Jong-un and nine other N. Korean individuals.  According to one of the ministers, in doing this the U.S. “crossed the red line.”  DPRK considers that a state of war now exists with the United States.  Most people in the U.S. are not aware of this.  This probably includes Donald J. Trump.

*******************************

Despite economic sanctions by numerous members of the United Nations North Korea persists in moving forward with its program.  It would seem that North Korea sees its nuclear arsenal as essential in deterring an attack by its enemies, which include most of the nations in the world.

 

Traditionally the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea has spent 25% of its Gross Domestic Product, of the goods and services it produces each year, upon the military.  It currently has the fourth largest army in the world.  All this despite the fact that the country is relatively poor.  From 1994 to 1998 there were severe food shortages and a number of people died of starvation.

 

North Korea’s border mostly faces China, with a smaller section facing Russia.  When the Soviet Union crashed and became Russia, North Korea lost that country as a provider of goods and services.  Her major trading partner today is China, who to a large extent she is dependent upon.  Does this give China a strong hand in determining her policies?  We will see.

 

China’s President, Xi Jinping, on a recent visit to the United States, was asked to help make North Korea back-off it’s nuclear and missile research.  Does China have enough clout to do this?  Or is China willing to do this?

 

The People’s Democratic Republic of Korea is ruled by Kim Jong-un, a 33 year old in charge of what is today a pure communist country where the Central Government controls the lives of all its people.  What do we know about him?  The answer is not very much.  He is reputed to never back down.  Is he capable of beginning an Atomic War?

 

In the United States the President is Donald J. Trump, who had earlier threatened a preemptive strike upon North Korea if they don’t stop their atomic and missile tests.  Trump has bombed with missiles an airport in Syria because Assad’s military presumably used chemical warfare against children.  He also dropped a massive non-atomic bomb over ISIS in Pakistan that destroyed everything within a mile, killing about one hundred people within the area.

 

Kim Jong-un is a young erratic dictator who has also threatened a preemptive attack.  His representative at the U.N. recently accused the U.S. of creating a situation for atomic war.

 

The problem with a preemptive attack by North Korea is that its target or targets would probably be South Korea or/and Japan, who are both within missile range of North Korea.

 

North Korea could be eradicated by just a few nuclear devices but so could other countries in that area of the world.  And how damaging would the results be for the rest of the people left alive?

 

Currently the situation rests in the hands of President Donald Trump and the supreme ruler of North Korea, Kim Jong-un.  Will we see some form of resolution to the problem or could we see a nuclear war?  Anything is possible.  And either of these two men is capable of starting a major war.

 

Trump has sent a naval armada, consisting, among other ships, of an aircraft carrier and a submarine capable of launching atomic missiles into that region.  They may participate in joint exercises with the South Korean navy.

 

North Korea has stated that this action would be an act of war. Trump has publicly stated that the United States may become involved in an actual war with North Korea.  He has further said that under no conditions can North Korea be allowed to develop long range missiles.  With these two leaders anything may happen.

 

The Weiner Component Vol.#2 – President Trump, the Mighty Warrior

On Friday, April 8, 2017, President Trump ordered the bombing of a Syrian military airport from where he believed planes, on April 4th  originated, that dropped poison sarin gas upon onto a Damascus suburb killing up to 1,423 people, mostly civilian adults and a large number of children.

 

Trump commented at a news conference about watching television and seeing the results of the raid upon young children.  “I will tell you that attack on children yesterday had a big impact.  That was a horrible, horrible thing.  And I’ve been watching it, and seeing it, and it doesn’t get any worse than that.”  He spoke about the “beautiful little babies” that had been killed with poison gas.  “It crossed a lot of lines for me.  When you kill innocent children, innocent babies, little babies with a chemical gas that is so lethal.  That crosses many, many lines.  Beyond a red line, many, many lines.”

 

On Friday when he met with the Chinese President at his resort in Florida he had ordered as Commander and Chief of the U.S. Military fifty-nine Tomahawk missiles to be sent to the Shayrat Air Base, where the Syrian planes carrying the poison gas had presumably originated.  In doing this Trump changed his “America First” policy.

******************************

To understand both Syria and the Middle East it is necessary to look at this region historically.  The Ottoman or Turkish Empire began toward the end of the 13th Century, when it conquered most of what is today the Middle East.  After 1354 it crossed into Europe conquering the Balkans.  During the 16th and 17th Centuries it became a multinational, multilingual Empire, consisting of Southeast Europe, parts of Central Europe, Western Asia, the Caucasus, North Africa and the Horn of Africa.  For various reasons the Ottomans suffered severe military defeats in the late 18th and 19th Centuries.  In the early 20th Century they allied with the Central Powers during World War I.  Its defeat in that war led to the occupation of parts of its territories by some of the Allied Powers.  This resulted in the loss of itsremaining empire.  The Middle East territories were divided between England and France.  A successful revolt against the occupying allies led to the emergence of the Republic of Turkey, which is today modern Turkey.

 

The Middle East was split-up by the two Allied Nations in such a way as to accommodate their new possessions as colonies and protectorates.  The indigenous needs, religions, and otherwise of the people were ignored.  The divisions were decided totally upon requirements or whims of the victorious European nations that took them over as possessions that would be used for essentially economic purposes.

 

After World War II these colonies began revolting in order to gain their independence.  When it was realized that it would be cheaper to grant them independence and trade with them rather than continue to hold them in line militarily the Middle East nations gained their freedom and the Age of Imperialism ended.

 

The boundary lines that were set at the end of the First World War are the same boundary lines that exist today.  The Middle East nations are essentially conglomerates of different groups of peoples.  In a few cases there is a majority but in most instances the countries are made up of many minorities, usually with one of them ruling the country.  Such is the case in Syria.

 

In 2011 the Arab Spring occurred.  It was a movement of a number of Middle East nations attempted to move in the direction of democracy.  In most cases these countries ended up with a new minority ruling and the rest of the population being more or less repressed as they were before 2011.

 

In Syria the Arab Spring generated a conflict between Bashar al-Assad’s regime that represents a minority of its citizens and a majority of different groups that wanted it gone.  Assad is supported by about one third of the population and the army.  Over the last six years the situation has spiraled into an immensely complicated international war.  On the one side there is the government of the country headed by President al-Assad, who is supported by Iran, Hezbollah, and Russia and on the other side innumerable groups, supported by Saudi Arabia and to some extent by the U.S., fighting Assad’s government and each other at times.  Some of the groups are extremely reactionary or radical and some are more moderate but the political positions the groups adhere to changes at times, putting the U.S. in an impossible position as to whom to support militarily.

 

In addition ISIS or ISIL has set up what it calls a Worldwide Caliphate (world state) which it claims has religious, political, and military authority over all Muslims worldwide.  ISIS has controlled a large section in western Iraq and eastern Syria containing an estimated 2.8 to 8 million people.  In addition to warfare they have conducted televised mass beheadings of prisoners and civilians, which have included two American newsmen.

 

In the constant six years of civil war over 4 ½ million people in Syria have been displaced.  This has led to a constant stream of refugees leaving or trying to leave the country.  The mass of refugees have caused strains in other Middle East countries, in Europe, and even in the United States, where   President Donald Trump has unsuccessfully attempted to keep, among others, all Syrian refugees from entering the country, calling them potential terrorists.

 

While earlier the United States under President Barack Obama wanted Assad gone they had largely participated in arming the Kurds, a group situated in a region in both Iraq and Syria, whose agenda is mainly to set up their own Kurd state.  The U.S. is mainly bombing ISIS in both countries while the Kurds are fighting them on the ground.  Largely but not completely the United States had, has avoided specifically supporting anyone in the Syrian Civil War.  But they are continuing to fight ISIS, mainly from the air.

***************************

In 2013, after a chemical poison gas attack by President Bashar al-Assad’s government, Russia had supposedly removed all poison gas chemicals from Syria after it they were initially used by them.  President Obama, at that time had drawn a red line, the United States would not allow the use of chemical warfare.  Presumably he was stopped from taking any actions by the Republican Congress.  But Assad did agree to give up all his chemical weapons, which were removed by Russia and presumably destroyed.  But it would seem that Assad held back some of the poison gas and this was used in the early April 2017 bombing in the rebel held area of Khan Sheikhoun.

 

The raiders dropped barrel bombs, which in this case were canisters of sarin poison gas. In addition to be breathed in the gas can enter the body through the pores in the skin.  There were some very dramatic television pictures of people trying to wash the poison off the bodies and clothing of young children by hosing them with water.  There were also pictures of children and adults undergoing great torment painfully trying to breathe.  This apparently is what caused Trump’s reaction.

 

Assad claims that he is not responsible, that he gave up his supply of poison gas in 2013.  Putin and Russia support his claim.  The United States and President Trump blame the Assad regime.  Not too long ago Chlorine gas was used against one of the rebelling groups in Syria by Assad.  Apparently chlorine, which is used to etch glass, in not a poison gas!  The situation in Syria is complicated, particularly with issuing blame.

*************************************

My last point concerns President Donald J. Trump.  How sincere is he?  He has stated that he doesn’t like to read, that he gets his information by watching television.  His reaction to the chemical poison gas attack in Syria has been shock, watching young children suffering from poison gas.  His reaction to the sight was to punish the perpetrators of the bombing.

 

There was no investigation of who had dropped the gas bombs.  It was broadly assumed that only al-Assad was capable of doing it.  Assad, backed by Russia, claimed that he did not order it or even that he had any poison gas.  He claimed that his government had turned over their supply of poison gas to Russia in 2013, who had destroyed the supply.

 

Would Assad order the dropping of the poison gas?  I suspect the answer is, yes, if he had a reason to do so.

 

Trump seems to change his attitudes as quickly as a chameleon changes its color.  He has claimed that he wasn’t interested in what was happening overseas, that his basic policy is America first.  Yet, after watching some television newsreel about children suffering and dying from being gassed in Syria he ordered the bombing of the Syrian airfield where the planes are supposed to have come from.  He was emotionally moved and reacted to the sight of the atrocity.

*******************************

It should also be noted that President Trump likes to change the topic at times that the media is using when it is negative.  This is particularly true in terms of him and his staff being associated with Russia during the Presidential Campaign and earlier.

 

In doing this he’s come up with real nonsense, such as President Obama illegally bugging his facilities during the Presidential campaign.  There is no proof of this and it has been emphatically disclaimed by all the government agencies like the FBI, but still Trump persists in this bit of alternate reality.  I get the impression that Trump’s version of a fact is whether, if he were in the other President’s position then it is something he would do.  Apparently, to him, everyone else has the same low code of honor Trump has!

 

One of Trump’s former aids is registering retrogressively as a foreign agent.  Another was fired after lying to the Vice President.  Numerous others have associations with foreign countries.  Trump has stated in different speeches that he both personally knows and that he has never met Vladimir Putin, the Russian premier.

 

It has been suggested that the American bombing of the Syrian air force base was arranged by Trump with Putin’s support and that Assad’s government knew about it in advance.  From what I understand only six Syrians died from the exploding 59 million dollars’ worth of Tomahawk missiles, that is 59 separate tomahawk missiles each costing one million dollars.  Is this true?  I have no idea.  Could it be true?  There were no Russians anywhere in or near the airbase.

 

Will Trump do it again?  President Putin has stated that there will be serious consequences if he does.

 

Looking at what’s happening in Syria from President Trump’s prospective, it’s alright to kill people and children as long as poison gas is not used.  There seems to be something wrong with that attitude.

 

If this is the only effort made against Assad and his government then what was the real point of the 59 million dollars’ worth of Tomahawk missiles dropped on the Syrian air base?  Or was this a message being sent to North Korea, telling them to back down on their atomic bombs and missile development tests?

 

Somehow a lot of what has happen here makes no sense unless it is an outpouring of Trump’s ever-changing emotional states.

The Weiner Component Vol.2 #13 – President Trump, the Mighty Warrior

 

On Friday, April 8, 2017, President Trump ordered the bombing of a Syrian military airport from where he believed planes, on April 4th  originated, that dropped poison sarin gas upon onto a Damascus suburb killing up to 1,423 people, mostly civilian adults and a large number of children.

 

Trump commented at a news conference about watching television and seeing the results of the raid upon young children.  “I will tell you that attack on children yesterday had a big impact.  That was a horrible, horrible thing.  And I’ve been watching it, and seeing it, and it doesn’t get any worse than that.”  He spoke about the “beautiful little babies” that had been killed with poison gas.  “It crossed a lot of lines for me.  When you kill innocent children, innocent babies, little babies with a chemical gas that is so lethal.  That crosses many, many lines.  Beyond a red line, many, many lines.”

 

On Friday when he met with the Chinese President at his resort in Florida he had ordered as Commander and Chief of the U.S. Military fifty-nine Tomahawk missiles to be sent to the Shayrat Air Base, where the Syrian planes carrying the poison gas had presumably originated.  In doing this Trump changed his “America First” policy.

******************************

To understand both Syria and the Middle East it is necessary to look at this region historically.  The Ottoman or Turkish Empire began toward the end of the 13th Century, when it conquered most of what is today the Middle East.  After 1354 it crossed into Europe conquering the Balkans.  During the 16th and 17th Centuries it became a multinational, multilingual Empire, consisting of Southeast Europe, parts of Central Europe, Western Asia, the Caucasus, North Africa and the Horn of Africa.  For various reasons the Ottomans suffered severe military defeats in the late 18th and 19th Centuries.  In the early 20th Century they allied with the Central Powers during World War I.  Its defeat in that war led to the occupation of parts of its territories by some of the Allied Powers.  This resulted in the loss of itsremaining empire.  The Middle East territories were divided between England and France.  A successful revolt against the occupying allies led to the emergence of the Republic of Turkey, which is today modern Turkey.

 

The Middle East was split-up by the two Allied Nations in such a way as to accommodate their new possessions as colonies and protectorates.  The indigenous needs, religions, and otherwise of the people were ignored.  The divisions were decided totally upon requirements or whims of the victorious European nations that took them over as possessions that would be used for essentially economic purposes.

 

After World War II these colonies began revolting in order to gain their independence.  When it was realized that it would be cheaper to grant them independence and trade with them rather than continue to hold them in line militarily the Middle East nations gained their freedom and the Age of Imperialism ended.

 

The boundary lines that were set at the end of the First World War are the same boundary lines that exist today.  The Middle East nations are essentially conglomerates of different groups of peoples.  In a few cases there is a majority but in most instances the countries are made up of many minorities, usually with one of them ruling the country.  Such is the case in Syria.

 

In 2011 the Arab Spring occurred.  It was a movement of a number of Middle East nations attempted to move in the direction of democracy.  In most cases these countries ended up with a new minority ruling and the rest of the population being more or less repressed as they were before 2011.

 

In Syria the Arab Spring generated a conflict between Bashar al-Assad’s regime that represents a minority of its citizens and a majority of different groups that wanted it gone.  Assad is supported by about one third of the population and the army.  Over the last six years the situation has spiraled into an immensely complicated international war.  On the one side there is the government of the country headed by President al-Assad, who is supported by Iran, Hezbollah, and Russia and on the other side innumerable groups, supported by Saudi Arabia and to some extent by the U.S., fighting Assad’s government and each other at times.  Some of the groups are extremely reactionary or radical and some are more moderate but the political positions the groups adhere to changes at times, putting the U.S. in an impossible position as to whom to support militarily.

 

In addition ISIS or ISIL has set up what it calls a Worldwide Caliphate (world state) which it claims has religious, political, and military authority over all Muslims worldwide.  ISIS has controlled a large section in western Iraq and eastern Syria containing an estimated 2.8 to 8 million people.  In addition to warfare they have conducted televised mass beheadings of prisoners and civilians, which have included two American newsmen.

 

In the constant six years of civil war over 4 ½ million people in Syria have been displaced.  This has led to a constant stream of refugees leaving or trying to leave the country.  The mass of refugees have caused strains in other Middle East countries, in Europe, and even in the United States, where   President Donald Trump has unsuccessfully attempted to keep, among others, all Syrian refugees from entering the country, calling them potential terrorists.

 

While earlier the United States under President Barack Obama wanted Assad gone they had largely participated in arming the Kurds, a group situated in a region in both Iraq and Syria, whose agenda is mainly to set up their own Kurd state.  The U.S. is mainly bombing ISIS in both countries while the Kurds are fighting them on the ground.  Largely but not completely the United States had, has avoided specifically supporting anyone in the Syrian Civil War.  But they are continuing to fight ISIS, mainly from the air.

***************************

In 2013, after a chemical poison gas attack by President Bashar al-Assad’s government, Russia had supposedly removed all poison gas chemicals from Syria after it they were initially used by them.  President Obama, at that time had drawn a red line, the United States would not allow the use of chemical warfare.  Presumably he was stopped from taking any actions by the Republican Congress.  But Assad did agree to give up all his chemical weapons, which were removed by Russia and presumably destroyed.  But it would seem that Assad held back some of the poison gas and this was used in the early April 2017 bombing in the rebel held area of Khan Sheikhoun.

 

The raiders dropped barrel bombs, which in this case were canisters of sarin poison gas. In addition to be breathed in the gas can enter the body through the pores in the skin.  There were some very dramatic television pictures of people trying to wash the poison off the bodies and clothing of young children by hosing them with water.  There were also pictures of children and adults undergoing great torment painfully trying to breathe.  This apparently is what caused Trump’s reaction.

 

Assad claims that he is not responsible, that he gave up his supply of poison gas in 2013.  Putin and Russia support his claim.  The United States and President Trump blame the Assad regime.  Not too long ago Chlorine gas was used against one of the rebelling groups in Syria by Assad.  Apparently chlorine, which is used to etch glass, in not a poison gas!  The situation in Syria is complicated, particularly with issuing blame.

*************************************

My last point concerns President Donald J. Trump.  How sincere is he?  He has stated that he doesn’t like to read, that he gets his information by watching television.  His reaction to the chemical poison gas attack in Syria has been shock, watching young children suffering from poison gas.  His reaction to the sight was to punish the perpetrators of the bombing.

 

There was no investigation of who had dropped the gas bombs.  It was broadly assumed that only al-Assad was capable of doing it.  Assad, backed by Russia, claimed that he did not order it or even that he had any poison gas.  He claimed that his government had turned over their supply of poison gas to Russia in 2013, who had destroyed the supply.

 

Would Assad order the dropping of the poison gas?  I suspect the answer is, yes, if he had a reason to do so.

 

Trump seems to change his attitudes as quickly as a chameleon changes its color.  He has claimed that he wasn’t interested in what was happening overseas, that his basic policy is America first.  Yet, after watching some television newsreel about children suffering and dying from being gassed in Syria he ordered the bombing of the Syrian airfield where the planes are supposed to have come from.  He was emotionally moved and reacted to the sight of the atrocity.

*******************************

It should also be noted that President Trump likes to change the topic at times that the media is using when it is negative.  This is particularly true in terms of him and his staff being associated with Russia during the Presidential Campaign and earlier.

 

In doing this he’s come up with real nonsense, such as President Obama illegally bugging his facilities during the Presidential campaign.  There is no proof of this and it has been emphatically disclaimed by all the government agencies like the FBI, but still Trump persists in this bit of alternate reality.  I get the impression that Trump’s version of a fact is whether, if he were in the other President’s position then it is something he would do.  Apparently, to him, everyone else has the same low code of honor Trump has!

 

One of Trump’s former aids is registering retrogressively as a foreign agent.  Another was fired after lying to the Vice President.  Numerous others have associations with foreign countries.  Trump has stated in different speeches that he both personally knows and that he has never met Vladimir Putin, the Russian premier.

 

It has been suggested that the American bombing of the Syrian air force base was arranged by Trump with Putin’s support and that Assad’s government knew about it in advance.  From what I understand only six Syrians died from the exploding 59 million dollars’ worth of Tomahawk missiles, that is 59 separate tomahawk missiles each costing one million dollars.  Is this true?  I have no idea.  Could it be true?  There were no Russians anywhere in or near the airbase.

 

Will Trump do it again?  President Putin has stated that there will be serious consequences if he does.

 

Looking at what’s happening in Syria from President Trump’s prospective, it’s alright to kill people and children as long as poison gas is not used.  There seems to be something wrong with that attitude.

 

If this is the only effort made against Assad and his government then what was the real point of the 59 million dollars’ worth of Tomahawk missiles dropped on the Syrian air base?  Or was this a message being sent to North Korea, telling them to back down on their atomic bombs and missile development tests?

 

Somehow a lot of what has happen here makes no sense unless it is an outpouring of Trump’s ever-changing emotional states.

The Weiner Component Vol.2 #12 – Trump & Taxes

speaking at CPAC in Washington D.C. on Februar...

Donald J. Trump, the candidate, made assorted promises to assorted groups about what he would do with taxes. At a rally in Scranton, Pa. he promised to “massively cut taxes for the middle class, the forgotten people, the forgotten men and women of this country who built our country.” At a town hall meeting on NBC’s Today Show, Trump said he believes in raising taxes for the wealthy. He has also promised to lower taxes for the wealthy and for corporations. The last part, he said, will bring jobs back into the United States. According to one survey taken after the last debate he had with Hillary Clinton, 51 percent of the people intending to vote for him supported increasing taxes on high earning individuals.

 

Trump, the President, has come out with his tax plan. Under it the top one percent, people like himself, will get about half of the benefits of his tax cuts. A millionaire would get an average tax cut of $317,000 up, depending upon how many millions he earned over the year.

 

Trump reduces the current seven tax brackets down to three distinct categories. He does away or repeals the head of household tax filing category. He raises the standard deduction for married couples filing jointly from $12,000 to $30,000 and for single individuals with or without children from $6,300 currently for those with no dependents to $15,000. Those who are currently single heads of households, like divorced women with children, would actually have their income taxes increased.

 

A family earning between $40,000 and $50,000 a year would get a tax cut of $560. But millions of middle class working families will have their tax bills rise under Trump’s plan. This is especially true for single-parent families because of the repeal of the head of household filing status as well as that of personal exceptions. Under Trump’s plan a single parent with $75,000 in earnings, two school age children and no child care costs would pay an additional $2,440 in income taxes. While a single parent with an income of $50,000, three teen-aged school children would be taxed an additional $1,186. A married couple with $50,000 in earnings and two school age would see a tax increase of $159. Many married couples would see no benefit from his so-called tax reform.

 

Presumably Trump’s proposal to cut the corporate tax rate from thirty-five percent to fifteen percent will help all taxpayers by boosting economic growth. He would also eliminate the Federal Estate Tax completely. This tax is paid by only the wealthiest taxpayers, by less than the top one percent. It’s a good way to keep wealth in the hands of the few. And, of course, he will do nothing to raise the federal level of minimum pay beyond $7.25 an hour.

 

President Trump’s Tax Plan does not deal with the needs of the Middle Class nor with single individuals raising families but is basically a give-away to the wealthy and the large corporations. He seems to be satisfying the economic group to which he belongs rather than dealing with the needs of the many.

********************************

The United States is a Federal Republic consisting of federal, state, and local governments. Taxes are imposed on each of these levels. These include taxes on income, payroll, property, sales, capital gains, dividends, interest, imports, estates, school districts, and gifts. There are also various fees and licenses. These are imposed on net income of individuals, businesses, and corporations by the federal and some local governments.

 

Most business expenses and some living costs reduce taxable income. Among these are mortgage interest, if you own a house, state and local taxes, charitable contributions, and medical costs. Payroll taxes are paid by both the employer and the employee, as are Social Security and Medicare. An unemployment tax is an expense only to the employer.

 

Property taxes are imposed by most local governments and many special purpose authorities like school districts. These are based upon the appraised value of the property and more than one such tax can be imposed upon a single property.

***********************************

There are two types of taxation in the United States. One type is Progressive Taxation and all the others are Regressive Taxation. The Progressive is the Income Tax, as utilized by the Federal Government and a number of states. Here the more one earns the larger is the percent of their income they pay in taxes. In terms of Regressive Taxation, here everyone pays the same amount of their income regardless of how large or small it is.

 

A Regressive Tax would be a sales tax, value added taxes as in the purchase of gasoline or liquor, both of which would also include sales tax. It would be on imports, licenses for anything. It is a fixed amount that everyone would pay equally, regardless of how much or little they earn.

 

The problem with the progressive tax in America is that it is progressive up to a point and then it becomes regressive. Currently there are seven levels going from 10 to 40 percent of the taxed incomes after deductions are subtracted from the income. Progressive taxes go from $9,275 for a single person to $466,950 for a married couple filing jointly. In between these two there is another category called head of household, which is more than a single person pays and less than a married couple is taxed. After the income reaches $466,950, no matter how high it goes, the amount paid remains at 40 percent. Percentage wise the amount paid in taxes actually decreases.

 

Mitt Romney, when he was running for President in 2012 released his taxes for that year. The amount he paid was eleven or twelve percent of his annual income. The average family with an income well under $100,000 will pay 25 to 35 percent in income taxes.

 

The CEO of Hewlett Packard earns 15 million a year, which is over one million a month. Her taxes increase as her income rises in January, the first month of the year, until she reaches $466,950, then for the remaining eleven months of the year she will pay a fixed 40 percent of her income in taxes.

 

Donald Trump, who claims to have ten billion dollars, which he has never proven, has at least multi-millions. He pays the same 40 percent of his income in income taxes; but when eating at a restaurant would pay the same rate of sales tax as a man who could only afford to take his wife to a fancy dinner once a year.

 

Trump would reduce the current seven stages of income taxes to three levels: 12%, 26%, and 33%. His maximum income tax would be at 33 percent. A married couple filing jointly would pay $225,000. No one would pay a larger amount than the person earning a little under ¼ of a million dollars and heads of households would pay the single rate. Under Trump’s plan the system becomes far more regressive and the government collects far less in taxes during a period when the National Debt is over 19 trillion dollars. It could conceivably double under Trump.

*******************************

Trump also wants to reduce the corporate tax rate from 35% to 15%. He argues that this will bring industry back to the United States. The actual corporate tax that the government collects is lower than that of Germany, Canada, Japan, and China, among others. The reason for this is called tax expenditures, which is a term designed to legitimize special interest tax breaks and loopholes.

 

The 35% tax rate for most large corporations is a joke. Some of the largest corporations in the United States pay no taxes at all. Two examples would be General Electric and Wells Fargo. These and many other major corporations pay no income tax because the Tax Code is riddled with exemptions and loopholes. These were essentially created by lobbyists. The Tax Code is 71,000 pages long. It has been constantly added to over the years.

 

From 2008 to 2010 at least 30 Fortune 500 Companies, such as Pepsi Cola, Verizon, Wells Fargo, and DuPont, paid more to lobbyists than they did in taxes. They spent $476 million pressuring Congress for tax break loopholes and special subsidies. They kept $164 billion in profits and received $10.6 billion in rebates.

 

In a sense it can be said that Congress sells loopholes and subsidies. Monsanto paid 22 instead of 35%, while DuPont received a 72 million dollar rebate when it made a profit of 2.1 billion dollars. Basically the Tax Code is a mess.

 

In the United States elections are expensive. The Congressmen from both parties accept contributions, particularly in the House of Representatives when they run for office every two years. In addition Congressmen accept benefices from lobbyists but, here, the Republicans are the worst of the two. They prattle on about free markets while protecting just about any market-distorting loophole. Essentially their campaigns are largely funded by the Pharmaceutical Companies who they allow a very large return on what they sell.

*******************************

Legal tax scams do and have abounded in the United States; but will President Trump improve or worsen the situation? The high probability is that if Trump gets his way it will be like Christmas for the plutocrats in the country. While they have gotten away with all sorts of scams to date the situation will improve for them by 1,000 percent. The U.S. could well become a country of the rich, for the rich, run by the rich. Trump, who admitted to paying no income taxes for years will legally remain in that position. And so will others like him.

 

But Trump is not a legislator, he is the chief administrator in the country. Congress may not go along with him. As stated earlier the current Tax Code is 71,000 pages long. Trump had a problem with the Health Care Law. It is only 1,000 pages long. He found that group of laws very complicated. The Tax Code is 71 times more complicated. If he tried to simply eradicate the current law there would also be a lot of unhappy lobbyists whose companies would lose their subsidies. Some of these companies would even have to pay some taxes. Life can be very complicated at times!

**************************************

The major problem that Trump seems to be facing with tax relief for corporations and the economically upper one or two percent is that his tax relief program will reduce the Federal Government’s taxable income by over 8 billion dollars. Initially his plan was to reduce the funding for Universal Health Care by about 8 billion dollars. But since every electoral district in the country is vociferously against doing away with Affordable Health Care he has a severe monetary problem. A tax cut of the dimensions he wants could double the National Debt by the end of his presidency. It currently stands at 19 plus trillion dollars. In order to fund his tax cut he has to defund Obamacare.

 

Stay tuned in, after failing the first time, Congress is again talking about “repealing and replacing” Affordable Health Care. Paul Ryan is again talking about a new bill that will make health care available to everyone who can afford it.

 

 

 

The Weiner Component Vol.2 #11 – Trump & the Republicans: “Repeal & Replace”

The United States is now into being well over 60 plus days of Donald Trump as

President and Republican majorities in both the House and Senate. With the exceptions of a new Justice on the Supreme Court and a military raid on a Syrian air base.  Nothing significant has happened in the nation’s capital except that most members of Congress are working a three day week and have taken a two week Easter break.  Trump’s executive orders limiting the movement of Muslims from seven and then six Middle Eastern countries have been put on what looks like a permanent hold by the Federal Courts.

 

The members of the House of Representatives are on a two week vacation or break from the hard work they’ve been doing accomplishing virtually nothing except noisy Town Hall meeting with their constituents.

 

When the Democrats had a majority in both Houses of Congress the Republicans had loudly and persistently decried that they were ruining the Country with their irresponsible legislation like Affordable Health Care or as they like to call it, “Obamacare” and by supporting such national organizations like Planned Parenthood.

 

Also it seemed as far as the Republicans were concerned that nothing worthwhile could come from a Black, Democratic President. Now there is a white Republican President and a Republican dominated House of Representatives and Senate and to date, more than two months since they assumed power, nothing worthwhile has come from them except endless squabbling.

 

Their first major piece of legislative business was to get rid of Obamacare. They have been denouncing it since it first came into existence. It was signed into law on March 23, 2010, a little over seven years ago. Since that day, to hear Republican legislators speak about it, an individual gets the impression that it is worse than leprosy.

**********************************

The problem, as far as President Donald J. Trump is concerned, which he recently discovered, is that the healthcare law is very complicated. Trump’s understanding of a law is of something that can be put on a single sheet of paper with wording that will not even cover the entire page. The Affordable Health Care Law has to be about a thousand pages long. That makes it very complicated. It will take more than the passage of one simple law to be completely done away with.

 

On Thursday, March 23, 2017, the seventh anniversary of the law, the repeal and replace bill was pulled by the Speaker of the House of Representatives because it didn’t have the votes to pass in the House. Trump, presumably in a moment of disgust, outrage, or masterful negotiation, sent some of his aids to sell the bill to the doubting members of the House. Trump wanted the bill voted up or down the next day. He wanted to know who among the Republican Party in the House were his supporters and who “supports Nancy Pelosi,” the Democratic leader. No Democrats are voting for the bill.

 

What is the problem in the House with this bill? It seemed that the members of the far-right Freedom Coalition were against the bill because it was too lenient, while more moderate Republicans were against the bill because it would remove 24 million people from health care coverage. 14 million, according to a non-partisan Congressional Office, will lose their coverage within a year and the additional 10 million will lose it over a longer period of time.

 

House Speaker Paul Ryan’s, who developed the Bill from values he has held for years,  goal was to make health care accessible to everyone while keeping the minimum wage at its present low level. The problem that emerged with this prospective bill was that most people could not afford health care under the new proposed bill.

 

Younger participants will have their premiums reduced while older people would have their premiums massively increased. The Speaker of the House has stated that he will be making Health Care available to everyone. The catch there is if they can afford to pay the premiums. The Federal Government will give tax credits to the needy. But the problem is that most if not all of the needy will not have the money to afford the premiums and may be earning so little that they pay no income taxes.  Consequently the tax credits would be worthless.

 

This is particularly true since the minimum federal wage is seven dollars and twenty-five cents an hour. This means that a fair percentage of the population, particularly in red states where people believed in and voted for Trump, are earning $290 a week before unemployment and Social Security is taken out of their earnings. A goodly number of these people, who currently have Obamacare would lose it and be forced to go to ER, emergency rooms at hospitals. Under the proposed bill they will probably die prematurely. Many will face a choice between medication, food, or rent. This apparently is Paul Ryan and Donald Trump’s solution to Universal Medical Care. It is also a way of having the government significantly reduce its spending and being able to cut taxes for the rich and the corporations.

*****************************

According to one pole 17% of the population supports the Republican Health Care Bill, which has been labeled Trumpcare or Ryan-care. 56% oppose it. Virtually every Congressional District in the United States opposes the bill. If it passes in the House it should make for interesting voting in November of 2018.

 

On Friday, March 24, 2017 Trump and Ryan’s health care bill was pulled just minutes before it was supposed to come up for a vote. The Republicans, who have a wide majority in the House of Representatives, did not have enough votes to pass it. Presumably this was done on orders from Trump. Obamacare will continue to exist. The people of the United States in mass rallies throughout the country have demanded it. The Republicans have buckled down to the will of the majority. I suspect mainly because they don’t want to lose their seats in the House of Representatives.

 

Interestingly, Benjamin Franklin wrote toward the end of his career, “In free governments the rulers are the servants and the people their superiors and sovereigns.” It took massive protest movements for this point to be made throughout the country.

 

After a period of silence on the subject Paul Ryan is now talking about a new and better version of the Health Care Bill. They are again talking about it and will continue to work on developing it after their two week break.

*****************************

Listening to the President one got the impression that Trump never really examined the Affordable Health Care Law. It seems that he doesn’t like to read; that he gets most of his information from watching television. Trump promised to expand the plan and lower the cost when he was a candidate without really being aware of what he was talking about. I would suppose he is a 70 year old attention deficit adult. I would guess he knows things by instinct rather than by investigation.

 

Many of the House Republican legislators were announcing on the floor of the House on Friday how many of their constituents would lose health coverage if the bill were passed. The numbers were staggering. One could see what would probably happen in votes for the Democrats in the Midterm Election of 2018.

 

Ryan’s plan, had it passed would have decimated the current system. Again Trump probably had not bothered to examine the bill. It would have cut out the lowest rungs of society, all 14 million of them. This bill was rushed through the House without hearings or anything. It was supposed to be the fulfillment of the Republican dream of getting rid of Obamacare, after seven years of its existence and the Republican dominated House of Representative passing over 60 bills over the last seven years repealing Obamacare. None of these bills ever reached the Senate.

 

Ryan’s bill would have transferred much of the payment for medical treatment from the Federal Government back to the recipients of that medical treatment. Somehow the reduction in Federal costs would generally match Trump’s tax cuts, a little over 8 billion dollars.

 

This would have been very helpful to the Republicans in getting their tax cuts through Congress. It would be the reverse of Robin Hood’s behavior which was taking from the rich to help the poor. Instead Ryan-care was to take from the poor in order to help the rich.

 

Trump then spoke of moving on to his next legislative project, what he calls tax reform. This is mainly tax relief for both the top two percent of the population and for lowering the cooperate taxes. It would seem that they can’t afford to cut taxes without lowering medical costs

***********************************

The ultimate irony here is that Affordable Health Care was a Republican generated plan which, if I remember correctly, was generated for Mitt Romney when he was Governor of Massachusetts by Citizens United, a far-right Think Tank.

 

The plan worked well in that state and Romney got and took the credit for it.  In 2012, when Romney ran against Barack Obama as the Republican candidate for the presidency he denounced the plan for which he had been responsible.

 

The plan utilizes private enterprise to develop a Universal Health Care System. It follows Republican principles about private ownership. President Obama and the Democrats used it because they thought it would get Republican support in Congress. Not one Republican Party member voted for the bill.

 

It would have been far more practical and much cheaper for the Federal Government to become the insurer and set up a single payer plan throughout the United States. Virtually every single government that has universal health coverage for its people has done this and their overall costs are half or less than the U.S. pays for both medical care and pharmaceuticals. The Republican problem in “repealing and replacing” Obamacare is that they’re trying to improve upon their own plan and it’s not going to happen.

*************************************

The commitment to Socialized Medicine for the entire population requires much more than the Federal Government has been able or willing to do so far. What we have seen is a semi-voluntary Republican plan that includes the private sector. What we need is a plan that also supplies doctors and cuts out the profits of the middle men.

 

Becoming a medical person is a long and expensive process. There are many individuals who would go into this but cannot afford the time without earning anything or the expense of the process. What is needed first is a single provider who operates on a non-profit basis, and that would be the Federal Government. The Government Agency that would handle this then needs to be able to deal directly with the medical and pharmaceutical facilities that provide both the doctors and the medicines for the public. This could be done by having the Federal Government set up medical learning facilities or contract to pay the costs of becoming a doctor at the existing medical universities or both. The Government also has to control the costs of the medicines.

 

This requires a major monetary investment over a goodly period of time. The Federal Government would also have to set up a scholarship system where worthy candidates would have their tuition and possibly their living costs paid

 

Also right now the pharmaceutical companies are free to charge what they will. This is currently true because they are protected by Congress. Today the major contributor to the Republican Party are the Pharmaceutical Companies. The cost of medical treatment in other industrial countries is less than half of that in the United States. Also medicines cost a fraction of what they do in the U.S. Medical Care should be a right that everyone has. The cost of it could be easily added to the income tax with everyone paying their fair share.

English: Nations with Universal health care sy...

English: Nations with Universal health care systems. Nations with some type of universal health care system. Nations attempting to obtain universal health care. Health care coverage provided by the United States war funding. Nations with no universal health care. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The Weiner Component Vol.2 #10 – The Fed: Saving the Country & the Future

English: Janet Yellen being sworn in by Fed Ch...

English: Janet Yellen being sworn in by Fed Chair Ben Bernanke (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Ben Bernanke, the Federal Reserve Chairman from 2006 to 2014, had developed the Bernanke thesis based upon his conclusions about the reasons for the Great Depression of 1929.

 

Official portrait of Federal Reserve Chairman ...

He found that the financial disruptions of 1930 to 1933 reduced the efficiency of the credit allocation process. The Fed had raised interest rates and made borrowing money more expensive. This resulted in higher costs and reduced availability of credit, which acted to depress aggregate demand. When banks face a mild downturn they are likely to significantly cut back on lending and other risky ventures. This further hurts the economy and creates a vicious cycle turning a mild recession into a major depression. When the Federal Reserve did that it far worsened conditions during the 1929 Depression.

 

Or to state the above simply: fear of a depression can turn a mild recession into a giant depression. Seemingly this is what occurred again in 2008. It would seem that Ben Bernanke was in the right place at the right time. He was able to utilize his principles and bring about a softening of the 2008 Crash from a major depression into a Great Recession.

 

What he did was drop the interest rate that the Fed charges banks to 0 and in his last two years as Fed Chairman he added 80.5 billion dollars a month to the National Cash Flow.

********************************

There were two major problems that emerged from the 2008 Housing Disaster. One dealt with the billions of pieces of mortgage paper that the banks had created from the mortgages. Left to itself it would take decades for this problem to be resolved. No one really owned the mortgages that had been broken up into hundreds of pieces and applied to multitudinous Hedge Funds. There were not even real records of their existence. The assorted houses would eventually go to foreclosure for none payment of property taxes. And no one knew when that could occur for the majority of them. They then would or could be sold for the price of the back taxes. The deserted homes would go first, after three of so years. The others, several years after people stopped paying property taxes on them. It was an impossible mess.

 

The second problem was that there was not enough money in circulation and the banks did not consider home loans safe investments. Money had to be loosened up.

 

What Bernanke did during his last two years in office was to add 85 billion dollars a month to the economy, an additional 40 billion was deposited in the banks, causing them to loosen up with financing new homes and refinancing old ones and 45 billion was spent buying up the multitudinous mortgage pieces.

 

The program was ended in 2014 by reducing the amount spent each month until 0 was reached in both categories. In February 2014, when Janet Yellen became the new Chairperson in charge of the Federal Reserve, she spent the first two months of her four year tenure ending the program. She also gave herself the option of renewing the program if she and the Fed Board felt it was necessary.

 

The mortgage pieces were at some point or points destroyed by the Fed. The Federal Government did not want to go into the real estate business, it wanted to get rid of this quagmire that was hanging over real estate in the U.S. After a little over two years this problem largely disappeared. Two years after that when Donald J. Trump became President no one seemed to remember it.

 

In essence while the Federal Reserve spent about six trillion, three hundred billion dollars straightening out the mortgage debacle a good percentage of that money came back in taxes. It was spent within the country on goods and services indirectly creating jobs and increasing the GDP. The Government did not waste the money; they expanded a shrinking economy.

 

The same can be said for the 40 billion a month being deposited in banks across the country. The approximately five trillion six hundred million dollars spent here tended to loosen up the banking attitude toward housing and got that industry growing again. It also added positively to the economy. In addition it also did not stir up any real inflation in the economy. Neither policy did.

 

This was the application of the Bernanke economic principle. It prevented the economy of the United States from collapsing and similar actions did the same thing for foreign economies. This action also made use of money as a tool to keep countries functioning and avoiding major depressions. Money was no longer an object of value for governments. Each government could produce it at will. It now became a means that could be used to control economic conditions. This action became Bernanke’s contribution to the principles of economics.

*******************************

Janet Louise Yellen assumed office as the Chair of the Federal Reserve on February 3, 2014. She had been the Vice Chair from October 4, 2010 to February 3, 2014. Prior to that she was President of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco from January 11, 2004 to October 4, 2010.

 

Dr. Yellen is married to George Akenlof, a Noble prize-winning economist who is a professor at Georgetown University. Their son, Robert Akenlof teaches economics at the University of Warwick.

 

During her nomination hearings on November 14, 2013 Janet Yellen defended the more than three trillion dollars in stimulus funds that the Fed had been injecting into the U.S. economy. She also testified that U.S. Monetary Policy would revert toward more traditional monetary policy once the economy returned to normal.

 

Yellen is the first woman to hold the position of Chairperson of the Federal Reserve. On December 16, 2015, with Yellen as Chairperson, the Federal Reserve raised its key interest rate from 0% to ¼ of one percent. Since that time the interest rate has been raised twice, each time by ¼ of one percent. It now stands at ¾ of one percent. It has been announced by the Fed that there will be additional increases over the year 2017.

 

My overall impression of the Chairlady is that she is very caucus in all her actions. She initially misinterpreted the overall effects of the 2008 Housing Debacle feeling that it would not be that serious. She doesn’t want to make another mistake.

 

While the cost of a non-existent or very low interest rate has kept the cost of borrowing money down and has led to a resurgence in home buying it has also kept down the cost of interest the banks pay their depositors from whom they get the funds to lend out. Banks have and are paying as little as 1/10 of one percent interest to many of their depositors. In essence interest that the banks pay to their depositors is so low that the financial institutions are just about getting their money for free.

********************************

After the Presidential Election in 2016 of Donald J. Trump to the presidency Dr. Yellen vowed to protect Dodd-Frank, the law that limited the actions of the banks that was passed after the Housing Debacle of 2008.

 

Trump had denounced Dodd-Frank, stating that he will do away with it. Trump has also stated that he will not reappoint Janet Yellen in 2018, when her current term ends.

 

Janet Yellen is a Keynesian economist and advocated the use of Monetary Policy in stabilizing the economic activity of the business cycle. She has also stated that occasionally letting inflation rise could be a “wise” and humane policy if it increases output. She has stated that each percentage point drop in inflation results in a 4.4% loss of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP).

*************************************

Dr. Janet Yellen’s term ends in 2018. It is then up to the President to reappoint her or to appoint someone else as Chair of the Federal Reserve. President Donald Trump, if he is still President and if he follows his pattern of appointments, will probably appoint a non-economist to that position. It might even be a banker. What will the result be both to the country and to the Federal Reserve?

The Weiner Component Vol.2 #10 – Part 9: The Fed: Saving the Country & the Future

 

Ben Bernanke, the Federal Reserve Chairman from 2006 to 2014, had developed the Bernanke thesis based upon his conclusions about the reasons for the Great Depression of 1929.

 

He found that the financial disruptions of 1930 to 1933 reduced the efficiency of the credit allocation process. The Fed had raised interest rates and made borrowing money more expensive. This resulted in higher costs and reduced availability of credit, which acted to depress aggregate demand. When banks face a mild downturn they are likely to significantly cut back on lending and other risky ventures. This further hurts the economy and creates a vicious cycle turning a mild recession into a major depression. When the Federal Reserve did that it far worsened conditions during the 1929 Depression.

 

Or to state the above simply: fear of a depression can turn a mild recession into a giant depression. Seemingly this is what occurred again in 2008. It would seem that Ben Bernanke was in the right place at the right time. He was able to utilize his principles and bring about a softening of the 2008 Crash from a major depression into a Great Recession.

 

What he did was drop the interest rate that the Fed charges banks to 0 and in his last two years as Fed Chairman he added 80.5 billion dollars a month to the National Cash Flow.

********************************

There were two major problems that emerged from the 2008 Housing Disaster. One dealt with the billions of pieces of mortgage paper that the banks had created from the mortgages. Left to itself it would take decades for this problem to be resolved. No one really owned the mortgages that had been broken up into hundreds of pieces and applied to multitudinous Hedge Funds. There were not even real records of their existence. The assorted houses would eventually go to foreclosure for none payment of property taxes. And no one knew when that could occur for the majority of them. They then would or could be sold for the price of the back taxes. The deserted homes would go first, after three of so years. The others, several years after people stopped paying property taxes on them. It was an impossible mess.

 

The second problem was that there was not enough money in circulation and the banks did not consider home loans safe investments. Money had to be loosened up.

 

What Bernanke did during his last two years in office was to add 85 billion dollars a month to the economy, an additional 40 billion was deposited in the banks, causing them to loosen up with financing new homes and refinancing old ones and 45 billion was spent buying up the multitudinous mortgage pieces.

 

The program was ended in 2014 by reducing the amount spent each month until 0 was reached in both categories. In February 2014, when Janet Yellen became the new Chairperson in charge of the Federal Reserve, she spent the first two months of her four year tenure ending the program. She also gave herself the option of renewing the program if she and the Fed Board felt it was necessary.

 

The mortgage pieces were at some point or points destroyed by the Fed. The Federal Government did not want to go into the real estate business, it wanted to get rid of this quagmire that was hanging over real estate in the U.S. After a little over two years this problem largely disappeared. Two years after that when Donald J. Trump became President no one seemed to remember it.

 

In essence while the Federal Reserve spent about six trillion, three hundred billion dollars straightening out the mortgage debacle a good percentage of that money came back in taxes. It was spent within the country on goods and services indirectly creating jobs and increasing the GDP. The Government did not waste the money; they expanded a shrinking economy.

 

The same can be said for the 40 billion a month being deposited in banks across the country. The approximately five trillion six hundred million dollars spent here tended to loosen up the banking attitude toward housing and got that industry growing again. It also added positively to the economy. In addition it also did not stir up any real inflation in the economy. Neither policy did.

 

This was the application of the Bernanke economic principle. It prevented the economy of the United States from collapsing and similar actions did the same thing for foreign economies. This action also made use of money as a tool to keep countries functioning and avoiding major depressions. Money was no longer an object of value for governments. Each government could produce it at will. It now became a means that could be used to control economic conditions. This action became Bernanke’s contribution to the principles of economics.

*******************************

Janet Louise Yellen assumed office as the Chair of the Federal Reserve on February 3, 2014. She had been the Vice Chair from October 4, 2010 to February 3, 2014. Prior to that she was President of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco from January 11, 2004 to October 4, 2010.

 

Dr. Yellen is married to George Akenlof, a Noble prize-winning economist who is a professor at Georgetown University. Their son, Robert Akenlof teaches economics at the University of Warwick.

 

During her nomination hearings on November 14, 2013 Janet Yellen defended the more than three trillion dollars in stimulus funds that the Fed had been injecting into the U.S. economy. She also testified that U.S. Monetary Policy would revert toward more traditional monetary policy once the economy returned to normal.

 

Yellen is the first woman to hold the position of Chairperson of the Federal Reserve. On December 16, 2015, with Yellen as Chairperson, the Federal Reserve raised its key interest rate from 0% to ¼ of one percent. Since that time the interest rate has been raised twice, each time by ¼ of one percent. It now stands at ¾ of one percent. It has been announced by the Fed that there will be additional increases over the year 2017.

 

My overall impression of the Chairlady is that she is very caucus in all her actions. She initially misinterpreted the overall effects of the 2008 Housing Debacle feeling that it would not be that serious. She doesn’t want to make another mistake.

 

While the cost of a non-existent or very low interest rate has kept the cost of borrowing money down and has led to a resurgence in home buying it has also kept down the cost of interest the banks pay their depositors from whom they get the funds to lend out. Banks have and are paying as little as 1/10 of one percent interest to many of their depositors. In essence interest that the banks pay to their depositors is so low that the financial institutions are just about getting their money for free.

********************************

After the Presidential Election in 2016 of Donald J. Trump to the presidency Dr. Yellen vowed to protect Dodd-Frank, the law that limited the actions of the banks that was passed after the Housing Debacle of 2008.

 

Trump had denounced Dodd-Frank, stating that he will do away with it. Trump has also stated that he will not reappoint Janet Yellen in 2018, when her current term ends.

 

Janet Yellen is a Keynesian economist and advocated the use of Monetary Policy in stabilizing the economic activity of the business cycle. She has also stated that occasionally letting inflation rise could be a “wise” and humane policy if it increases output. She has stated that each percentage point drop in inflation results in a 4.4% loss of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP).

*************************************

Dr. Janet Yellen’s term ends in 2018. It is then up to the President to reappoint her or to appoint someone else as Chair of the Federal Reserve. President Donald Trump, if he is still President and if he follows his pattern of appointments, will probably appoint a non-economist to that position. It might even be a banker. What will the result be both to the country and to the Federal Reserve?