Monday, March 21, 2016

The Progressive Party Day One

What I am calling for today is a new party, conceived in the original intention of the founding fathers, except not owning slaves and not deciding only rich white land owners vote. Shall we say, for the sake of my argument, an ACTUAL DEMOCRATIC PARTY, but since that name has already been copyrighted by people who now seem to be moving towards the same fascism which is disturbingly familiar in the hearts and minds of Republican candidates for the past 20 years, I am calling for a new party. Right now there is a split between progressives and Democrats. All this need for a party split is going to change the face of politics.
The Clinton-ese establishment DINOs, (Democrats in name only) have become a blue coated branch of the right wing. Basically, they are undercover Republicans and many of them have been exactly that since the sixties and only used the name to give us the illusion of caring about the middle class and not being racist.

I think they actually have deluded themselves into believing having two parties on the same side of ideological thinking is a democracy BUT those of us who view pro-corporate policies for the dictionary version of corporatism: ( corporatism  [kawr-puh-ruh-tiz-uh m, -pruh-tiz-]  noun 1.  the principles, doctrine, or system of corporative organization of a political unit, as a city or state.  ) don't want that as our version of democracy. (democracy [dih-mok-ruh-see] noun 1. government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.)
You see, people who are democratic believe in actual government for the people (and that means ALL of the people) and not for the corporative powers because that word in itself means the same thing as fascism. (fascism [fash-iz-uh m] noun  1. a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.) That definition, in thinking about it, is what some people call communism and uninformed people on the right now believe that's Democratic socialism means, even though it is the opposite.
So in order to maintain a fascist state, one must be a dictator, not a governing servant of the people, although no fascist state comes right out and says that's what they are. When I was a kid, I was told one of the biggest differences between wonderful old U.S.A. and the other countries is that we have "free elections" and other more communist countries had "controlled elections" where the people didn't really have a say it in who won. Then I got to be around 13 years old and asked a pertinent question about "the electoral college" when I was being taught about that. I asked my 'Social Studies' teacher, "Do the electoral candidates necessarily have to vote the way the people of their district vote?" and I was told, "No, they don't. They can vote however they want."  That is number one on my list of "points of corruption" in the system.
Then there are Political Action Committees or PACs as they are referred to. My question is, why are these legal and not regulated the way they should be? And now there are PACs and SuperPACs so anyone who wants to start one can go to the election commission and start one. Stephen Colbert proved that a few years ago when he started one. It is illegal to bribe a government official. But any special interest, private citizen, corporation lobbyist, etc. can go to a PAC and tell them that if your elected official/officials don't vote the way I want, I won't donate this suitcase full of money to their campaign.
Soft money contributions are now unlimited and unregulated, as of Citizens United. The reason Mitt Romney cut his campaign staff off immediately (leaving them to pay their own hotel bills) when he lost to Barack Obama in 2012, is that he / the candidate, is able to keep any monies left over at the end of campaign expense. In this manner, many candidates run for office, never expecting or even wanting to win, only to get rich by collecting soft money contributions and keeping the remaining proceeds.
Also, there are the ultra-rich, who influence the elections through political advertising, which in my opinion, should be illegal. The person who can afford the most advertising, should not be able to control information to the public without anyone regulating whether or not there are ethics involved and the ads are true. This corruption allows the same people who sell us unhealthy foods, drugs that are dangerous, liquor, cigarettes/tobacco in any form, and anything else we shouldn't be doing by lying to us in advertising - to sell us a legal policy, candidate, or politician. 
Caucuses are corrupted. The horror stories emanating from that circular firing squad were really evident in states where the "district leaders" never showed up so no one knew how to regulate the vote and therefore had questionable motives/actions throughout.
Voting machines should be illegal. They have been hacked and corrupted in EVERY election since their inception. Also, the delegate system that Debbie Wasserman Schultz made us all painfully aware of is corrupted when someone can - or even assumes that they can do what they want despite the will of the people: her actual statement was, “Unpledged delegates exist really to make sure that party leaders and elected officials don’t have to be in a position where they are running against grassroots activists,” (which is what we were told Barack Obama was) So she just said that the Democratic Party voting in NOT DEMOCRATIC. She needs to be removed from her position first. I don't know how she/whoever gets appointed or elected to office or by whom she did.
Also, is she saying that President Obama was NOT a grassroots candidate and that the whole "grassroots" campaign we heard about was fake?  I think that question needs to be addressed. The main reason it needs to be addressed is so we can return to a real democracy. When that happens will be determined by us, the voters. I think we need a new party with the name "Progressive Party" to verbalize the actual change, ideologically, of what our founding fathers would have wanted, it they weren't some slave owning White Supremacists.
In my opinion WE ARE BETTER BECAUSE WE HAVE EVOLVED so our political party should also. No more two party system. When the actual system is divided by many parties on both sides, we can't let the lines be blurred or let wealth influence us. Also, in my opinion, the guy we need to fashion and lead this party in his own incorruptible image is Bernie Sanders. Please tell me what you all think.
On my last note, I will say, Bernie Sanders is right. It is high time for a political revolution in this country and no one in congress is going to pay any attention to us until about one million of us (I would suggest several million.) show up at congress doorstep and ask them, "How do you plan on getting home tonight?" Bring a fresh rope, actually more like several. Maybe we could set up and build several gallows on the front lawn of the capital building. Start discussing a date or dates (at least one week) and we should all start organizing transportation.
Welcome to the revolution. The time has come. Let's do this.
Okay, today is March 25. 2016 and something happened. For those of you who don't know, the video has gone viral of Bernie Sanders at one of his election rallies and as he was speaking a tiny bird flew near him. As the crowd said something, Bernie stopped and asked, "What?" and then he saw the bird, As he was saying, "That bird doesn't know it..." the bird flew up and landed on the podium, watching him. The video is cute, here:

Some people on social media (Facebook) came up with this emblem for the Progressive Party:

So, another update today. This is the sort of flier for the progressive party that surfaced on Facebook today: 

Saturday, March 19, 2016

Pay Attention - This Is History!

I want to impart a little history on some of my Facebook Friends. LBJ was in office from November 22, 1963 – January 20, 1969. When Martin Luther King was personally lobbying Washington, D.C. politicians and the White House about the civil rights act, they ended up meeting in the oval office a few times. As to the exact words used, only they would know, BUT, if the recollections of people who knew both of them are accurate, this is what transpired.
Lyndon Baines Johnson told Martin Luther King that they had to be "pragmatic" and use a more subtle approach about civil rights and people of color protesting. What he was asking him to do, the same way politicians and other do today is, to tell you to wait until "the country is ready" for change. Actually only small hand fulls of people weren't ready for change. That would be Southern racists.
Recently someone from my past told me she was voting for the more "pragmatic" candidate, and because Hillary is a woman. Now think about this, feminists, politicians told you for years that you had to be pragmatic about Women's Rights. Did you want to wait some more? That isn't what I remember you telling me while you were burning your bras and marching on capitals.
In my opinion, this causes me stress to hear for two reasons. One, that word I can't stand, pragmatic, means "wait longer" and nothing ever gets done. I actually know black people who are voting for Trump and Hillary Clinton, considering she hasn't done women, minorities, or children any good for decades and was originally a Republican, I find that amazing. Her ideologies still are conservative.
I would like you all to imagine if Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. had decided to be pragmatic (wait longer for something to change on it's own) and gave up the civil rights movement which, some people don't realize, actually installed civil rights for all people, with black Americans in the forefront, which was the closest thing to reparations they are ever going to see.
Today a friend of mine saw black people like Chris Rock seeing things from his own perspective and sees Chris Rock's view as one sided. As I reminded him on social media, you never saw black people treating white people like this:

And you never saw Native Americans killing White Europeans over their native lands, or for that matter, handing them blankets full of small pox to wait and watch them die. I could go on, but the point is, it has been one sided as far as that goes. I don't blame anyone who has been s**t on for being upset. I, as a recovering alcoholic don't want to hang on to resentments (Especially ones I learned from someone else through fear and insecurity.) so, as the Dalai Lama says, "We all need to learn global responsibility". I am not asking people to not watch your back I am only saying don't let the defensive attitude control your frontal approach.
When we realize that we are all creatures of the earth and STOP letting past resentments based on fear based insecurities rule our lives, we will be free. That means no more acting superior for any reason (religion, race, social standing, success, etc.). 
No matter what you think you don't deserve more respect, love, or compassion as a human being, than anyone else by virtue of who you are, only by how you treat other people.
To those who keep wanting to be more pragmatic, and wait for life to change slowly on it's own, I have been hearing those words from people who don't want us to progress, since I was a child. I am done waiting.
I want you all to think about this one question.
Where would African Americans/Black Americans be right now in America, if Dr. Martin Luther King had waited to be "pragmatic"? Like I said, LBJ used those words in 1963 and signed the Civil Rights Act in 1964 and when I look at footage of a Trump convention I see people who still haven't learned ONE F**KING THING about equality in FIFTY TWO F**KING YEARS.
THAT is what being pragmatic with ignorance gets you.

Wednesday, March 2, 2016