All of Our Elected Officials Need a Time Out

by David T. Bruce

politics_1_tnbWith the recall elections in Wisconsin complete, the Associated Press reports that the “Democrats managed to seize two Republican state Senate seats [. . .], but fell short of the three or more they needed to take control of that legislative chamber.”  The article cites that both sides claimed victory, yet some would continue to pursue recall elections in the coming year.  This redundant, reprehensible rhetoric is representative of how our elected representatives conduct themselves, and this demonstrates the political mentality of our elected officials, not only in the state of Wisconsin, but in every state in the nation as well as on Capital Hill.

Kiplinger forecasts that our nation is potentially on the verge of another recession, and while business spending is up, retail sales are not half of what companies are spending.  Companies may be enjoying some breathing room as the government raises the debt ceiling, continues subsidizing oil companies, and focuses on the upcoming election year.  The millions of Americans who remain unemployed and the millions more Americans who are on a fixed income enjoy no such relief, as we verge on a double-dip recession.

The United States downgrading by Standard & Poor’s rating agency is yet another graphic reminder that our government is living and spending beyond its means.  The knee-jerk reaction from our representatives is to eliminate what they refer to as “entitlements.”

How perverse and insulting to attach a negative connotation to a word that is supposed to reflect what citizens have earned over the years.

After many years of representing the backbone of what has kept the United States a viable global entity, you are damned right that most Americans trapped at the lowest economic level of the United States economic echelons are entitled to at least basic medical care, a safe home, and food!

Millions of dollars were spent on campaigning in the recent Wisconsin recall elections.  What would have been a better use for those monies?  Yet these elected officials care little or nothing for the neediest of their constituents unless they are able or willing to vote in their favor.

The behavior exhibited by those politicians closely involved with the recall elections in Wisconsin illustrates how very little they care for the people that are responsible for employing them and for the potentially disastrous fiscal crisis we border on in the coming months.  As soon as they are elected, they look to the coming election or to unseating their opponents.

How pathetic.

Children behave better than those who bicker and argue over the simplest of agenda items.  Were we to survey members of White House Nannies, I would suspect many might suggest (off the record, of course) that little difference exists between the behavior of some of our elected officials and that of young children.  As citizens, we have the right – we are entitled – to expect better behavior from those that we charge with representing our interests.  Both Democrats and Republicans may claim victory in the latest playground brawl, but all of us are the losers.  All they care about is taking control.

We need to remind them that the control is ours.

In Order to Form a More Perfect Union

by David T. Bruce

independencedayOur family enjoyed watching the local fireworks display this Independence Day, and I enjoyed watching my children’s faces as the colors from the bursts reflected in their smiles.  At the same time we celebrated the day, I questioned the reality of what we were supposedly celebrating.

As a good parent, I share with my children the significance of Independence Day, and I try to instill a measure of patriotism within them.  As a citizen, I wrestle with how we tend to define patriotism following the terrorist attacks of September 2001.  If a person speaks out against a policy that is in any way tied to our military or military support, that person is considered to be unpatriotic.  If a person finds a measure of government support beneficial, that person is considered to be socialist.  Corporate bail-outs are acceptable, however.

For the right to have super department stores, credit cards, MP3 devices, and cell phones, we have pawned our right to speak freely against a government that repeatedly reveals itself to be as corrupt as that government we declared independence from over 230 years ago.  In 1776, we invoked the people’s right of revolution against a corrupt government, for “it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it.”  The Declaration of Independence provides for this right, yet like so many of our rights, we do not exercise the right to vote or speak out against possible and obvious government corruption.  What I find most chilling is that the choice to speak out is often discouraged by our peers and to some degree, depending on what community a person lives in, by local governments.

When we celebrate Independence Day, we celebrate a moment in time that was profound and inspirational.  We also celebrate a continued freedom.  I wonder, however, if we are examining closely the price of freedom, not in lives sacrificed in conflicts, but in rights sacrificed on the home front.  How ironic that for the sake of freedom, we tend to look the other way from government corruption related to business and religious conviction, thereby forsaking our rights.

I am proud of where America comes from and what America stands for in that context.  I am pleased that I have the opportunity to share these words today with an audience that may or may not be forgiving of my criticism.  I am guarded and fearful, however, of a government that is systematically forging a regime that forsakes the individual, giving allegiance only to collectives with the heaviest coffers.   Instead of resting on our laurels, perhaps we should look to the future, observing Independence Day as an affirmation of what the day is intended to signify and as a reminder of the work we, the People, still have to do.

Unemployment in America is Not a Joke, Mitt Romney

by David T. Bruce

er-unemploymentWith at least $250 million dollars in assets, Mitt Romney cannot afford to practice his stand-up comedy routine to an audience of Americans who struggle daily to remain sheltered, clothed, and nourished.  With one third of children in America covered under the Medicaid program, with over 44 million American’s on food stamps, and with over 9 percent of Americans still unemployed, American citizens cannot afford to remain complacent in terms of learning more about who they support for any office, let alone the presidency.

Make no mistake. The vast majority of politicians are not altruistic. Even with the best of intentions, the person that earns (collects?) the majority of constituent votes enjoys a lifestyle that may likely blind them to the realities of living as most Americans live. They will not want for the basic necessities of life, and in all likelihood, they will enjoy a life style with an abundance of cultural and academic opportunities. Severance pay for our each of our elected officials may run in the millions of dollars, assuring our retired or fired senators and representatives that they will never have to worry about being unemployed again.

The palpable fear of being unemployed is a daily reality for over 60 percent of Americans as they live paycheck to paycheck. The political and corporate machines feed off of one another.  In a tag-team effort, these two machines prey on the American public for their survival, leaving them just enough scraps to enjoy the moment and to forget that tomorrow we may not have a home or clothes or food. The majority of Americans do not have assets from which to draw, as Mitt Romney does. For him to compare his station, even in jest, with that of the typical American shows a profound disconnect with the reality of living in America in the twenty-first century.

At some point, we as a society need to recognize that the current corporate and political structures are set up to safeguard themselves and not the American public. Both establishments present themselves as entities whose nature is to serve their constituents, but nothing could be further from the truth.  Both establishments are self-sustaining, pandering to the American public for votes alone. They want nothing nor need anything else from the average American. Therefore, every three to four years, politicians such as Mr. Romney attempt to build bridges, comparing their reality with the reality of twenty-first century America. They make meager attempts at levity to lighten the mood and engender a sense of openness. We must recognize these façades and charades for what they are.

Mitt Romney tells President Obama that Americans “are not just statistics.”  Mr. Romney, Americans are not just a punch line either. The reality of America today is not funny, and neither are you.

The Rise of the American KGB?

statue_of_libertyAt the base of the Statue of Liberty, these words are carved in stone: “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free. The wretched refuse of your teaming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!” It was this welcoming, open-door policy that made America the land that dreams were made of. There was no gatekeeper at Ellis Island who said, “Oh, we didn’t really mean that. Your skin is too dark. You have too many kids. You think differently than we do. Your religion is wrong.”

welcome-to-arizona
Source: insanepics.blogspot.com

But now we live in a society in which the state of Arizona can pass a law that allows any state or public official, including law enforcement, to request proof of citizenship from anyone they suspect of being an illegal alien. How frightening is it that we are regressing at such a pace and that so many fundamental rights that embodied the spirit of America are being systematically chipped away? The only way a public official or peace officer can suspect someone, at face value, of being an illegal alien is because of skin color. This law is discriminatory and targeted at specific populations.

Georgia (It is easy to get confused, but we are referring to the state  within North America in this example, not the country that was formerly part of the USSR) followed suit and passed a nearly identical law that gives a ridiculous amount of power to police officers to question any person about their right to be there based solely on racial profiling.  While we were born in America, as were our parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents, Shadra has dark hair and exotic enough looks that she would fear being a target should she happen to travel in Arizona or Georgia.

The current legislation by Arizona and Georgia suggests that in comparison the potential exists for citizens of the European Union to have more freedom to get around in their home countries, where the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights mandates that “profiling will be considered as discriminatory (and therefore unlawful) where police powers are exercised in relation to individuals and the only or main reason for this is their race, ethnicity or religion.”

This is the United States, and immigration and identification requirements should be addressed on a national level. We or no one else should have to carry a birth certificate to travel through Arizona or Georgia, and we or no one else should have to worry that our children might be targeted because of the color of their hair, the color of their skin, or what religious artifacts they wear.

And if we are empowering peace officers to determine whether or not someone should reside here, what’s next: Laws that prevent us from speaking out against the government or a majority religion? Will we someday have to show that we have been baptized into an acceptable religion?

According to the Encyclopædia Britannica, when the KGB started in what was the USSR, they were “responsible for foreign intelligence, domestic counterintelligence, technical intelligence, protection of the political leadership, and the security of the country’s frontiers.”  They evolved, however, conducting “most of its activities domestically, on Soviet soil and against Soviet citizens.”

With the growing fear of terrorism and the threat to entitlement benefits, the perceived duty to place blame or eliminate probable causes blinds us to the truth that we do not take to heart that all people are created equally.  Like the Communist administrations we condemned years ago for crimes against citizens, we tread dangerous ground when we propose that officials may essentially interrogate someone walking on the street with no more reason than a suspicion that someone may not have the right to be an American based solely on the way they look.

Memorial Day Means More Than Just Beer & Barbecue

by David and Shadra Bruce

memorial-dayMemorial Day is often marked as the launch of the summer travel season. Plenty of people are traveling (even with gas prices as high as they are) and sales of beer and potato chips give a little boost to the economy. But today is about more than backyard barbecues and three-day weekends. We mark this day on the calendar as a tribute to men and women who have served and sacrificed for our country. It is important to us that we take a moment to remind our kids why we take time away from school and work.

Memorial Day was created to pay tribute to those who have fought and died for these liberties, and it gives us an opportunity to remind our children and ourselves of why the United States is the country that it is. Citizens are encouraged to visit memorials and cemeteries, display the U.S. and POW/MIA flags, and pledge aid to disabled veterans.

The two of us love any excuse to celebrate, and we do enjoy the time we spend with friends and family on these days; however, those have served and given their lives are to be honored, and we don’t want that to be overshadowed by the fun. We don’t preach to the kids about the day, but we feel that their knowledge of why we have Memorial Day is very important. We talk to the kids and tell them why the day is significant; our hope is to fill them with pride and an understanding of our nation’s history. Our children, and we as a family, enjoy the holidays we celebrate as well as a multitude of privileges. We travel, we enjoy the outdoors, we enjoy music and movies, we laugh, and we play. Easily, we could forget why we have these privileges, and many of us do.

Debates rage worldwide regarding the actions of the United States over the past decade. As well, our kids are aware of our ongoing frustration with the political climate in this country as some of our rights begin to feel infringed upon. We teach our children that it is okay to question and express concern. Our right to debate this (or any) issue is as important, if not more important, than the debate itself. We teach the children that they are free to disagree with our government’s actions and that the power they have as citizens is in the right to assemble and the right to vote.

Regardless of how we feel about the actions of our government, we teach the kids that those that have enlisted with any branch of the military are fighting for them; they are fighting for us; they are fighting for their country. The soldier’s place is not necessarily to debate; their place is to defend. Many have lost their lives doing so. This is the point we try to make with our kids on Memorial Day.

Politics do not have a place in our home on Memorial Day. In our minds and in our hearts, this day is for those that have fought and died for everyone in the United States, regardless of politics or religion. This is not the day to debate just or unjust causes. This is not the day to debate government policies. This is the day to celebrate our nation and our heroes. More so, this is the day to remember . . .

Why Abortion Must Remain Legal and Accessible

by David and Shadra Bruce

Mike Pence is anti-womenWe have put our support behind continuing to fund Planned Parenthood, and behind defeating H.R. 3, the “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act.” Regardless of anyone’s personal views on abortion, we remain firmly on the side of not having Congress legislate morality or interfere with a woman’s right to control her own body and her own life, and that is really what this bill and many of the others the Republican led House is pushing. We support the organization Stop the War on Women.

While the Republicans have removed the components from the bill (for now) that redefine rape [due to the enormous backlash] and back-pedaled on defunding Planned Parenthood, the Republicans are systematically making calculated moves to negate women’s rights by several decades. The only reason they are attacking Planned Parenthood because of 3% of their services are related to abortions and too many people are blindly repeating the rhetoric without even thinking about what this could mean to women’s rights, equality, and body control.

We are pleased to present this guest post that talks specifically to this issue.

Guest Contributor Corey Nasman

I’ll support Planned Parenthood especially because they offer that 3% service. There are plenty of situations where people are perfectly responsible but contraception is not perfect. There are also many situations involving rape where pregnancy is a result and NO woman should be forced to carry the child of the attacker. Even in cases where people are not safe, no one should be sentenced to something they aren’t ready for.

I know of too many situations where fetuses were kept and the lack of freedom to choose (mainly from overly zealous religious families or domineering boyfriends) resulted in women’s lives being, essentially ruined. Once the sperm leaves a man’s body he relinquishes his rights to anything resulting from it, so I am a firm believer that this is a fundamental right for a woman and what I see happening in this country saddens me.

People have become obsessive and crazed over so many things that don’t concern them. If people focused more on themselves, this would be a much happier country to live in. Unfortunately, far too many take it upon themselves to dictate what is right and wrong for the whole of society based purely on a religious basis and that just isn’t fair. No one searches for understanding. I challenge you to find one woman who is happy to consider an abortion. Most are probably scared to death, but the alternative is worse regardless of circumstances. And worst yet is that a woman who does have an abortion will more than likely be labeled as careless/irresponsible/slut/murderer for the decision. Yet the guy who knocks someone up is a ‘stud’.

When you sit back and think about the difference between being a man and a woman and it’s f’ed up how men are put on pedestals and women get totally screwed, yet again, when it comes to law making, work environment, pay, etc…

In most work places if a man and a woman gave the exact same sales pitch I guarantee the man’s will be given more validity simply for the reason that he is a man. Though nothing I’ve said, as a man, will amount to a hill of beans to anyone else, I would urgently ask men to reconsider what right they have to tell a woman what she can/cannot do with her body. Boys, we already make 25-30% more than the ladies, isn’t it time we give them a break? Unless one is against women working too… If one isn’t, will one get in the picket line to get them equal pay? It may seem that I’ve gone off on a tangent, but trust me, it’s all very deeply intertwined and the way things are looking, the future doesn’t seem to bright if we continue on current trends.

Abortion is not a flippant decision or topic. The need to control women NEEDS to stop. Services provided by organizations such as planned parenthood are ABSOLUTELY necessary in this country and if a situation occurs that results in an unwanted pregnancy, and it doesn’t directly involve you or your partner, I would urge you to not take away someone else’s freedom for the sake of your own beliefs and values. And please think twice before labeling someone who has gone through an abortion. Until one has literally walked in their shoes with the same set of worries and fears in their minds, one has no right to judge. There is a serious and ever-growing need of empathy in this country.

If you are interested in contributing to Ethical Revolutionist, please contact Dave and Shadra Bruce at daveandshadra@yahoo.com

An Unrealistic Vision of Reality

by David T. Bruce

911As on the day that al-Qaeda terrorists took over 3,000 lives, my heart today – the day that Osama Bin Laden, the founder and leader of the al-Qaeda was assassinated in response to these attacks – goes out to the family members who mourned the loss of those they were close to.  Maybe today they will find some peace of mind, some peace within.  I truly hope they do.  For the rest of us, I worry.

Those families who lost loved ones sought justice, at least in an honorable sense.  I struggle within myself as to what the rest of us America sought.  Is our pride so easily wounded?  Our response to the successful attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon (and the failed attack on the White House) was a knee-jerk reaction.  Up until the terrorist attacks on our country, we lived behind a veil, submersing ourselves in “reality” shows, living a fantasy funded by credit and caprice.  Al-Qaeda opened our eyes to true reality.  This reality, however, is not one that can be turned off or pre-empted.

While we can enjoy a measure of success and comfort in at least incapacitating the Al-Qaeda by permanently removing Bin Laden as the head of the terrorist organization, we are foolish to believe that we have stopped al-Qaeda or any other extremist group.  Like the multi-headed Hydra, a new leader for al-Qaeda will replace Bin Laden, and the cycle of events pitting one ideology against another will begin anew.

We must ask ourselves “what have we gained by assassinating Bin Laden?”  Outside the Capitol, citizens chanted “USA, USA,” reacting to the news they had heard about the death of Bin Laden.  How is this different from the throngs of people in the Middle East who cheered at the collapse of the World Trade Center towers?  Do our different ideologies, religions, skin color, or clothes make us all that different?  We are all still human, and the taking of any life diminishes us as humans.  The celebration of taking a life strips us of our souls.

Hypocritically, to some extent, I do feel a sense of relief that this chapter has come to an end.  Almost ten years to the day that Americans were reminded that they were a part of a larger community, we may enjoy some closure.  At the same time, I feel a sense of apprehension that we will again become complacent, retreating into our “reality.”  Will we learn from this chain of events?

The al-Qaeda will not turn the other cheek, and their convictions will carry them into the future.  We must adapt to this reality, not necessarily fighting a war that we cannot win by conventional means, but instead living cautiously, with our eyes wide open instead of wide shut.  We do not need to remain on the offensive to remain safe; we do have to safeguard our home by adopting a lifestyle and strategy that deters future terrorist attacks.  We have Guard and Reserve units who may best serve their country at home, not in the Middle East.  By conducting ourselves proactively instead of reactively, we stand the best chance of winning the war against terrorism every day.

War on Education

by Shadra L. Bruce

00military-economy-x-pslweb-org1Everywhere you turn in this country, teachers are getting a bad rap. In Idaho, they’ve passed a bill to cut teachers in place of laptops and online education. In New York, school districts are slashing teachers while paying hundreds of thousands of dollars for each small town to have is own Superintendent. The story is the same everywhere you turn: teachers have a tarnished image.

Wherever you live, whether you have kids in the school systems or not, you ought to be paying attention to what is going on with the education budget. Not only does education have an impact on individual health, there is no one thing more likely to stabilize and grow the U.S. economy than a well educated, competitive work force.

No, teachers should not get to keep their jobs just because they’ve been teaching for a long time and have earned tenure (which should go away). But implementing a high-quality, standardized national education system (no, we don’t have one now) is crucial.

What we are seeing on the national level with the budget, as the conservatives choose to target those least likely to be able to protect, defend, and advocate for themselves with cuts to Medicaid, Medicare, and other “entitlement” programs (we should be entitled to equal access to education, healthcare, and representation), is what we are starting to see at the local school district level as well.

Superintendents and school boards are building budgets that prioritize protecting their own high salaries, perks, and benefits at the expense of those who cannot fight back: students with special needs, students who benefit from arts and music programs, and teachers who perform but don’t have tenure.

We do have to make changes. If we have to make cuts, start looking at ways districts can be more efficient. Look at ways to combine small districts together. I think most parents wouldn’t even care if transportation budgets were targeted. Ten minutes longer on the school bus would be worth having a class size of 18 instead of 40, wouldn’t it?

Even though I’m not very good at math, I can do the math here:

  • From 2001 to 2010, we spent $1,291,000,000,000 on trying to recreate the world in our image in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  • We have 3,823,142 teachers in the United States. Their average annual salaries are $44,053.55.
  • If we took the $1.291 trillion dollars that we spent on war and put it into education, we could pay every teacher in the United States their full annual salary for SEVEN full years.

It is time to stop prioritizing everything but the home front and start worrying about protecting democracy here.

Domestic Nonlethal Assistance Repealed

by David T. Bruce

discretionary-spending-2011
Source: Mother Jones

As a society, we may have become numb to the reality that we have spent almost ten years in the Middle East, engaged in conflicts with Afghanistan and Iraq.  Now we find that we are compelled to join NATO in support of Libyan rebels.  To support our troops (an admirable incentive) and our habit, billions of dollars must be allocated for defense.

According to information provided by the National Journal, the Pentagon has requested $708.3 billion for this year, including $159.3 billion to continue our campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan.  During the first day of operation in Libya, the United States spent approximately $100 million.  Following the initial attacks on the forces of Colonel Gaddifi, we have recently pledged additional military assistance by sending armed drone aircraft into Libya.  This amounts to an additional $25 million of “nonlethal” [really?] military assistance.

At the same time, our representatives want to eliminate $1 trillion from the Medicaid program over the next ten years, or $84 billion a year.  This suggests that much of the money once used for healthcare in the United States is to be reallocated to support the habits of the Pentagon.

We have money enough to send “nonlethal” assistance to foreign countries, while we simultaneously propose cutbacks in what our representatives call “entitlements.”  The result of denying the disabled, elderly, and low-income citizens of America from having these “entitlements” is indeed lethal.  Apparently, saving lives of citizens in other countries is humane, while saving the lives of Americans at home is an entitlement.  Yes, we need to make changes to the Medicaid (and Medicare) programs, but perhaps the fault of the misuse or abuse is less of an indictment against the patients.

It is remarkable and yet interesting to journey down Constitution Avenue in Washington D. C.  Observe and take note of the buildings that line either side of the street: the Federal Trade Commission, the National Archives, the Department of Justice, the National Museum of Natural History, the Internal Revenue Service, the Department of Commerce, the National Aquarium, the Federal Reserve, the Albert Einstein Memorial, and . . . the American Pharmaceutical Association? . . . yes, the American Pharmaceutical Association.

Is it possible that the problem is not abuse of the system by the patients and more of an abuse of the system by providers and pharmaceutical companies?  Many incidents may be cited in which service was provided for no reason other than the bill was covered by Medicaid.  The cost of medication is on the rise, and I question whether or not pressure is being put on the pharmaceutical companies to keep their costs down.  Instead, patients are targeted.  At some point, voters must realize that our elected representatives lobby for large businesses when they should be lobbying for their constituents.

Tea Party Birther Plan: Democracy’s Future Stillborn

by David T. Bruce

president_barack_obamas_long_form_birth_certificateInformation provided by The White House tells us that the Constitution lists only three qualifications for the Presidency — the President must be 35 years of age, be a natural born citizen, and must have lived in the United States for at least 14 years.

Our first seven presidents are:

George Washington – born 1732 – President 1789-1797
John Adams – born 1735 – President 1797-1801
Thomas Jefferson – born 1743 – President 1801-1809
James Madison – born 1751 – President 1809-1817
James Monroe – born 1758 – President 1817-1825
John Quincy Adams– born 1767 – President 1825-1829
Andrew Jackson – born 1767 – President 1829-1837

We could argue that these men, George Washington in particular, are not natural born citizens, Washington specifically being a British subject prior to the adoption of the U. S. Constitution.  While we can agree that he was naturalized at the time the Constitution was ratified, he would still not necessarily qualify under the requirements written in Article II, Section 1.  We could also argue that the caveat allowing for those people who became citizens at the time the Constitution was adopted was a way for Washington, Adams,Jefferson, et al would allow for said citizens to serve as president of their new nation, with the populace’s best interests at heart.  We can also appreciate that these requirements were written with the intent to prevent a conflict of interest were candidates of foreign countries eligible to become President of the United States.  The ongoing debate, however, regarding the eligibility of President Obama under this article of the Constitution is in no way reflective of any respect for the Constitution or the Executive Office.

The argument vehemently debated prior to the nomination and election of Obama is again taking center stage, just in time for the 2012 election campaigns.  According to an article published in the Huffington Post, the Arizona Legislature approved a proposal requiring the current president and subsequent presidents to prove their citizenship prior to having their names placed on the Arizona state ballot.  Carl Seel, Republican representative for the state of Arizona indicated that the bill was not about opposing Obama.  Given the repetitive, vigorous political harassment of Obama since he assumed his position as President, Seel’s testimony is very difficult to believe.

The combined efforts of the Republican Party and the Tea Party have turned the past two and one half years into a partisan mêlée, in which little has been accomplished on behalf of American citizens.  Candidates are no sooner elected then they begin campaigning, undermining the efforts of each other, all in hopes of maintaining a life-style they all enjoy at the sacrifice of the working-class people of the United States.  The citizenship conspiracy theory is yet another political game being played by our elected representatives, in their efforts to take our attention away from the fact that they are poised to significantly diminish, if not eliminate, health benefits and food programs that help support elderly, disabled, and low-income Americans, while at the same time, they intend to extend or initiate tax cuts that benefit the wealthiest people and companies of this country, people and companies who already enjoy enough tax cuts and loop holes to pay virtually no taxes today.

If we can rationalize that George Washington was eligible to be president when the evidence was circumstantial, then we can certainly put to rest that Barack Obama is eligible to be president when sufficient proof has been repeatedly provided and courts have supported Obama’s eligibility.  This latest gambit from the Republican – Tea Party tag-team has nothing to do with loyalty to the United States or support of the U. S. Constitution.  This is yet more smoke screen and a method of maintaining the status quo that partners politics with capitalism, establishing a democratic government that works only for those who are educated, affluent, and high-ranking.