Epitaph to the Unknown: From Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini to Donald Trump?

Keywords or Terms: Fascism; Nationalism; Immigrants; Muslims;  and, “First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew; Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist; Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist; Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me” - Pastor Niemoller

Anyone who is not hopelessly blinded by illusion of the heroism of Hitler or the far-right nationalists in some parts of Europe or now, America, must by now recognize the similarity of the campaign launched by Donald Trump for 2016 White House oval office and the rise of global fascism. One could point to the similarity of the impassioned campaign for the ouster of immigrants and Muslims from America, the building of a ‘huge’ wall against the immigrants and the assignment of a register for Muslims until “we” know what is going on, as proclaimed by Mr. Trump in his campaign for 2016 White House. Are these not uncomfortable and ingesting a airy feeling of disbelief and concern by many across America and the world? The symptomatic exclusions of the “Jews” in Germany prior to the Second World War, exclusions of refugees to emigrate into some parts of Europe, now substituted for the “immigrants and refugees” in America of 2016, is probably a precursor to the rise of fascism in America, the leader of the free world, whichever way you define it.

How about the get him out of here authoritarian leadership preaching at Trump’s rally to supporters; and, the manhandling of opponents of his brand of unconventional campaign? How about the dismissal of the principles of governance delineated in US Constitution, which Businessman Trump does not seem to share or care about in his campaign for the US Presidency? How do you understand his intolerance for the Democratic process, rejection of divergence of opinions and accommodation of violence against minorities, especially Mexicans, Females and blacks? Would his narcissistic brand of campaigning qualify for nationalism or fascism; or is his boastful approach of discontenting his opponents not grounds enough to race a red flag of fascism; and or its gestation?

Peter Baker’s New York Times article of May 28^th, 2016 on: “the Rise of Donald Trump Tracks Growing Debate”, articulated rather well the similarity of Donald Trump’s campaign for the 2016 White House oval office to the ills and miseries that destroyed European Jews during the second world war; one that lends to the sub-theme of the movie of the bands of brotherhood in US; a reflection on America’s Incursion to the second world war in order to halt the spread of fascism; and multiple mysteries that attenuated the psyche of dissidents, descendants and survivors of the inhumane annihilation of innocent people across Europe from the brown shirts? An American expenditure to fight similar brand of campaign being launched by Donald Trump in his 2016 White House bid is for now expedient and no longer funny? An expenditure war that made some great men in the fury and miseries of the battle of war, offer premature act of final contrition, in anticipation of the last call of the trumpet, the very last order of the Catholic faithful before the final roll call. An accentuated call for the communion of saints, forgiveness of sins, and the resurrection of the body, in an imminent moment of destruction of innocent souls, as foretold in the use of the atomic bomb; a nightmare better forgotten, so the world may move ahead. To those who proclaim that we need not worry about Donald Trump 2016 Campaign for White House oval office rising up to the level of fascism, I say: think again!

Unwittingly, and probably not to be construed of a betrayal of American nationalistic feelings, a few among us are supporting the 2016 fascist campaign for the highest office in the land, we are fanning the flame of hate, a replica of Adolf Hitler’s and Benito Mussolini’s brand of fascism, and denying the obvious. What is now seen as unfortunate characterization of immigrants and minorities by level headed Americans and reflective survivors of the holocaust, are being termed overreaction to campaign by a prominent far-right nationalist attempting to assuage the “perceived” fleecing of America by undocumented immigrants and the world. Trump’s unconventional campaign supporters insist his campaign is nothing more than a man showing true love for America, a genuine love that has no place for being politically correct; one to which they remain unapologetic, and for this and other reasons, they claim outsiders are unnecessarily fastidious, insisting further that Trump’s campaign is only seeking to correct the excesses of the federal government on issues of trade, immigration and environmental protection that have prevented America to be number one in all things and realm.

Critics of Trump’s brand of campaign insist that his effort leaves to be desired, principles of democracy, respect for freedom, individuality and peoples’ differences in a growing multicultural society. They maintain that Trump’s supporters for 2016 White House ambition fail to recognize that racist rants are exemplary of fascisms and likening to the nemesis of the same; and the nature of his campaign can be traced to the genesis of same in prior world’s political movement experience. Touting that Trump’s campaign for the White House does not match a textbook definition of fascism is hardly comforting or consoling, after fifteen months of the same far-right pronouncements and carefree derogation of physically challenged and or opponents: “when it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, no one needs to redefine it for the outsider to his campaign, it is as ducky as a fascist!” Shortsightedness and ignorance is not an excuse in the realm of challenge here; and America’s and world’s experience of fascism of the past, demand a quick alert of the wave of change about to delude the society.

Turning away and pretending it is not happening is not going to stop this evil. Trump’s demagoguery that fascinates a rapid growing crowd of supporters across the nation, is more of a modern day version of the Nuremberg rallies; and if one erroneous discountenance this type of movement, denying it is as good as denying the existence of fascism and hate in Trump’s use of campaign messaging; or absolving Mr. Trump of conscious pitting of growing number of rank and file Republicans against the American intelligentsia – scientists who have been alarming us of the difficulties and repercussions of Climate Change. The fact that proactive parliamentary groups, brown jackets or a standing military force are not currently attenuating Donald Trump’s campaign, is no reason not to raise cautionary notes and apprehension of the growing tentacles of Trump’s supporters for the White House; especially when all you see and hear about Trump’s rallies are disorderly conduct and unusual militancy that make you stop and think.

Trump’s current campaign for the White House is a debauchery, an ideology laden “isms” based on erroneous beliefs rather than a system of political philosophy, a perfect case of extreme nationalism; the rise again of the far-right philosophy of the past decade in Western Europe and far East Asia. It would have been an easy matter for outsiders to his campaign to fail to acknowledge the militancy and avoid raising cautionary note, were it not for current Donald Trump’s machination or manipulating of mass media communication, using Television, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, or what have you, in his pursuit of the White House. It goes without saying that these modern-day medium of mass communication, may propel him into a psychic cautiousness of voter that prevents them from making objective assessment of the credibility of his candidacy; ultimately creating irreparable blunder or creeping into the minds of voters to doubt the efficacy of our Democracy, or one man one vote. Yes, even in a thriving democracy, mass media has been used to create blunders to the psyche of the populace, by the lone shouting and intimidating voice that bullies others, just the way many minorities and opponents of Mr. Trump’s campaign for 2016 White House, now laments.

For close to eight years, since the last recession and the ascendancy of the first African-American President in US History, a huge number of Republican far-right nationalists, who perceive themselves as disenfranchised middle income Anglo-Saxons, some say perceived victims of globalization of commerce, associate their deepest fear of losing grounds from the long-standing economical privileges that appear to be fleeing, as mostly fault of American government for entering into foreign trade pacts as the TPP and NAFTA. For this group, their stagnated wages, inability to create a balance between home and professional life, because of uncertainties associated with not having lasting employment, health care and comfortable retirement packages, are creating deeper fear among them and having the potential of ruining American households and families. Donald Trump has craftily tapped into these discontents to label every other opponent of his in the 2016 White House race, as part of the “grand scheme” that has prevented this people from attaining their lofty heights, or quickly achieving the American dream.

To this group, most of whom form the basis of Donald Trump’s support for the White House, this is a blunder that has been allowed to fester for far too long under too many White House Administrations, Republicans and Democrats. Further, this blunder is one, if radical reforms are not instituted, including deportation of undocumented immigrants living in America, roll back of tenets of signed international trade pacts, sending minorities and women back to “where they belong”, correcting perceived marginalization of America’s interests, it is going to be difficult, if not infeasible to get back to equilibrium or a buoyant American economy. Finally, to achieve this new equilibrium or buoyancy, it is better to rely on an outsider to mainstream American Political Party politics and experience, even if that “savior” is a racist, quixotic and probably slanderous office seeker, who is probably ignorant of the difficult terrain of the legislative wheeling and dealing process that leads to bills being passed in US Congress to address the perceived blunder.

Unfortunately, supporters of this kind of reasoning and dogma, are short sighted and fail to understand or appreciate the democratic process. They fail to understand that anti-establishment politics, filled with angry drivel and irate pronouncements have the potential of undermining the same processes needed to correct whatever grievances they have; and or economic and political shortcomings. Launching on to Nationalist ranting, spewing hateful messages and aggressively antagonizing other minority groups within the society, a precursor to what the World experienced in Europe and Japan of 1930’s, is the first step to slippery slope of fascism. To put it bluntly, this how the ‘Germany First’ ideology that led to the mayhem of the second world war began. If Donald Trump’s campaign for the White House defaults to the ‘America First’ missive, there is hardly any difference between what happened in Germany in 1930s, and some say, is coming back in countries like Austria, who narrowly nearly elected a far-right ultra-nationalist as the country’s prime minister in 2016; and would ultimately reach America with the ascendancy of Donald Trump to the Office of the US Presidency.

The singularity of the return of de facto fascisms to Europe, which is synonymous of what is gradually happening in America; and or, symptomatic of Donald Trump’s campaign for 2016 America’s White House, is a spread of an old age plague that not only damaged people, nearly extinct a race and crippled former bustling societies; but, also created fear and mistrust among citizens of some nations. It is a plague that must be talked about and referenced, so it is not allowed to once again, raise its ugly head in the world and probably, America. Fascism cannot be the ultimate answer to disequilibrium economic apparatus or undocumented or illegal immigrants; there are better and superior answers out there; and many of us are wise enough to have learned from the experience of history. We just need the right person to lead us to the promised land; and Donald Trump does not fit that bill or person, as many of us conceive him or her.

Succumbing to a rhetoric of hate in a campaign for political office is a bad omen for everyone. To some doubters of the trending fascism in America Presidential Campaign Experience, a few political philosophers understand Donald Trump’s campaign for the White House oval office in the context of fascism; using derogative languages and not-so much obvious and understood epithets of political extremism, nationalistic sympathizers of the swastika in American Presidential Campaign experience, similar to what the Bones at Yale could have informed us about the American German Cultural Society, a Nazi front in America intelligentsias of the 40’s, as documented in history books. If fascism entails outright rejection of democracy and a harsher definition of order, plus an ultra-right party followership as referenced in Peter Baker’s essay in the New York Times of May 28^th, 2016, maybe that is probably where the Tea party and supporters of Donald Trump’s campaign are drawing their strengths, or probably heading, if he ever ends up winning the US Presidency. The anti-deregulation rhetoric and get-off my back, rugged individualism as advocated by Mr. Trump and his supporters are pedestrian to a fascist society in a very near future, if we all fall asleep at the switch.

Diligent observers of many presidential campaign experiences, see nothing more than hate and misery in 2016 Donald Trump’s White House bid and campaign messaging. They visualize what his leadership of the US Presidency and by default, the free-world, can lead; and, admonish the possible convergence of misery in trolls of coffins of returning military brotherhood that may enlist in his prospective parliamentary hate enforcing groups, who will end up fighting wars, here and abroad, and probably one day arrive at Dover Air Force base, Delaware, under a sad and remorseful rendition of the Star Spangle Banner. For those who forgot, this is the receiving port of America’s fallen heroes, that was kept away from many in the society during those turbulent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. For those families who experienced grief, who celebrated aguishly and reflect deeply during our memorial days, a day set aside for reflections and remembering America’s heroes and those who served selflessly in the company of heroes, who once sacrificed themselves in the fields and mines of Europe and Asia, maybe it is time for all of us to speak out against hate and fascism; maybe it is time to tell those hawkish leaders and budding dictators, who delight in building up our military at the expense of good public health, decent and safe neighborhoods, and clear and even handed justice system, it is time to quit; it is time to stop spreading hate and xenophobia in their broadcasted messages in the quest for the White House oval office.

Finally, I know there is something really wrong with the extreme wave of winds of nationalism and fascism that encompass the campaign of Mr. Trump for the 2016 White House oval office. When you hear a man who does not know what he was doing or where he was going when he entered the race for US Presidency, who once or twice took a buy on enlistment because of his parental affluence, promising to use the atomic bomb or use interrogation tactics worse than water boarding, cuddling the worst of the dark side of the human minds, screaming to build a wall against other unfortunate souls, in his campaign for US Presidency, you know you’ve met a de factor nominee that must step aside so a more prudent and seasoned person take the mantle of the office from the current incumbent, so that another American soul is not wasted in another manufactured misery in a foreign land. Heroes never want to be afraid of deaths, even lesser mortals that are trained tough and hardy, bemoan belatedly wounds of war. Men and women who were prepared for wars, gone through the maneuvering and training of how to parachute in the midst of pandemonium, who were quarantined by military marshals, debriefed of ghostly commission with little unforgiven excuses, men and women who really know what to do when the trains and trucks of ambulances and ammunitions are lined up in sequence of military protocols, see their brothers and sisters fall to the ground on the battle fields, the most miserable place ever described, men and women who tell us war stinks to kingdom come, are today admonished by a fascist political neophyte? How are the mighty fallen and weapons of the war perish!

Main reading room, the New York Public Library, c. 1910. (Photo: Library of Congress/LC-DIG-det-4a24347)

LATINO COMMUNITY, GOVERNOR SUSANA MARTINEZ AND DONALD TRUMP: HERE WE GO AGAIN!

Keywords/Terms: Chronic Capitalism; Latino Community; Donald Trump; NALEO; Important Trade partner; San Diego; New Mexico; Animosity; Republican Strategist; Hate; Polarizing; Democratic National Committee (DNC); Establishment Democrats; Establishment Republicans; ALEC Group; K-Street Lobbyists; and Retrogressive Fund Raising Strategy

There was confusion in San Diego, California yesterday, May 27, 2016, at the venue of Mr. Trump’s rally and no one can exclude the Latino bolshevism: the object of the conflict is the opposition to comments from the presumptive Republican nominee regarding members of the Latino community in the United States. The war against immigrants, the more than offensive categorization of people from the Southern borders of the United States, as criminals, rapists and not the best the continent has to offer, were hardly lost in this San Diego, California protest. There had been some objections less than one hour of Mr. Trump’s kick-off of his 2016 White House campaign in New York, about twelve months ago, regarding the bias and absurdity of his comments about a huge segment of the Latino community; with many leaders of the community lambasting the real estate mogul as not being able to separate fiction from reality. Mr. Trump’s diatribe elicited acrimony within the Latino community to an extent that, Mr. Arturo Vargas, Executive Director of National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials (NALEO), lamented in an email to the press that, developing a sound foreign policy with the most important trade partner to the United States, is not the same as a reality TV show!

The acrimony between Businessman Donald Trump had persisted throughout his campaign for the White House oval office and since attaining the height of the Republican flag bearer, Mr. Trump has not taken the advantage of building a bridge to the community; rather, he had continually hunkered down on building a “huge and tall wall which Mexico is going to be made to pay for” against members of the community. To compound the bad blood and sitting resentment of inaccurate categorizing of members of the Latino community, Mr. Trump went after the first and lone standing female Republican governor of the State of New Mexico; a poor judgement that appears to be a key and new rallying point against his candidacy in that community. The unfortunate swipe against Governor Susana Martinez of the State of New Mexico, as the cause for all the economic woes of her state; and, the uncharacteristic nose-thumbing and denouncement of the first female Latino governor in the United States, from a White Caucasian presumptive Republican Nominee, are more than enough reasons for the anti-Trump rally in San Diego; a situation that is now very concerning for many members of the Republican Party, who have been working hard to woo this segment of the American voters, lately.

America now has a high flying and trending major party presumptive nominee, who has been able to stare up a hullabaloo among a huge segment of her voting population, to the extent that close to none of them, want anything to do with his candidacy, or campaign for the White House oval office. The animosity between the Latino community in the past fifteen months, since Mr. Trump proposed building a wall in the Southern border to keep members of the Latino Community out of the United States, has been rather offensive and enigmatic to members of this community. Even, seasoned Republican strategists and power brokers wondered and question, why Mr. Trump went after Governor Martinez in her state in the first place, considering his reputation with that segment of the American voters; and, the possible repercussions this may have in coalescing support behind his candidacy and ensuring victory for the Republican Party in November general election. Say what you may, the die has been cast and the battle and close to riot at the Sand Diego Convention Center yesterday, appears not going to be easing very soon as many segment in this group of voters have vowed to restore not only the honor of Latinos but also that of the first two-term female conservative Republican, who has won two statewide elections in a blue state with a large Hispanic population. Like two of the placards carried yesterday by protesters at San Diego Convention Center said: “Trump Equals Hate”; “Trump is Polarizing.”

Establishment Republican Politicians seeing this type of placards about their presumptive nominee, are wondering what to do next: 1) side with a party presumptive nominee, whose hateful ranting has propelled him to the front of the row and advanced his ambition to the White House, readily; or 2) suffer the consequence of reaching out to a promising up and rising Republican Latino female who has been successful in burnishing her image with the opposition party in a state that is largely Democratic, by winning two consecutive gubernatorial elections? The choice is not as easy as you will expect; it is like being caught between the sea and a hard rock! Political historians documenting the power play in the Republican Party and the new paucity in support from the Latino Community in this round of contest for the White House oval office, are probably alarmed by the distortion of the image of Latino decent from the eventual Republican nominee; and wondering if other voters in the Republican party will unwittingly side with hateful speeches in the bid to coalescence behind their party’s flag bearer? The illusion of supporting the party’s eventual nominee for the sake of having a unifying front against the Democrats may be alluring at this time; however, after the general elections, where does the party go from here?

It is sufficient to recall that until most recently, many establishment Republicans denounced Mr. Trump’s brand of campaign for the White House oval office, with many calling him racist, unfit to be president and con man in some cases. It is also amazing to realize that since his controversial campaign strategy has propelled him to the fore-front, many republicans are wondering what is their party turning out to be; or, what exactly is the party of Reagan charting as its new course in 2016? The rather offensive pronouncements of the Republican nominee against a huge segment of American minorities would have been frowned upon and discouraged; however, it now appears that the executive and establishment Republicans find themselves helpless with the new scenario of voting and support within their party. Mr. Trump’s brand of controversial campaign strategy, formerly denounced and discouraged by many establishment Republicans is now the order of the day and the shining example of what the Republican party may become in the future; and hopefully will not entomb or comatose conservative Republicanism. Such is the change that is in vogue today with the Republicans; and, thanks to the failure of the party’s executives to act on time to discourage this brand of campaigning from their party’s presidential aspirants?

Grounded Republican Conservatives who distant themselves from the brand of Trump’s campaign for the White House may suffer a radical parting of ways with the rank and file that form the basis of support of Mr. Trump’s campaign. Some who are skittish and afraid of what they might get for parting ways from the presumptive Republican nominee on this round of general election, may see what is happening to New Mexico governor and say, it is so sad and I don’t want to be part of it; or roll over and say, that’s just the nature of politics; you either beat them or you join them.

Now, if you are so worried about how acceptable mistreatment of those who go against the current day fad or grain in the Republican Party campaign for the White House, if you are so enameled with the fact that, despite Donald Trump’s unconventional campaign strategy undermining the rights of minority groups to full respect within their country, how a campaign of bigotry and misogynies have given Donald Trump a leg up in the campaign for 2016 White House, wait until you find out what the Democratic National Committee has been up to with campaign fund raising and associated, undermining of progressive rules championed by former candidate Barack Hussein Obama, in his run for the White House in 2008 and 2012 under the banner of Democratic Party.

As reported by Washington Post, May 27, 2016, Friday edition, the Democratic National Committee is in cahoots with K-Street Lobbyists, Federal lobbyists and Political Action Committees, in undermining whatever is left of the restriction on receiving campaign money from policy influencers, money that has so much undermined the foundation of America’s Democracy. It appears the Democratic National Committee has not only sold its soul to the devil by succumbing to big money interest groups, seeking to take the power away from the voting booth; it is scrumptiously accommodating opportunities for outside influences to roam the corridor of power with impunity, once again. If you are disgusted with past stories of the ALEC Group’s influence in writing and passing bills in US Congress and State’s capitol, you’ll probably be shocked to your bones, how the Democratic National Committee has chosen to reverse course and allow the Democratic process to be undermined by political marauders, ill-reputed men and women, who are readily available to use the power of excessive money to undermine the true essence of America’s Democracy. If you wonder why an outsider to the mainstream political party process is turning upside down the house of Republicans, you must not be surprised, if progressive groups confront Democratic Establishment regarding its choice to reversing a course that could have liberated our Democracy from excessive influence of money in modern day politics.

The Democratic National Committee is once again, permitting itself to arbitrarily accommodate a phenomenon that is considered unreliable and unacceptable in a free, fair and transparent democracy. 2016 Democratic National Committee has strikingly disregarded common sense policy and guideline that could have taken back power for the people; a party progressive policy that could have wiped out a culture of corruption in American politics. When will it be possible for the Democratic National Committee to take the high road, of choosing to be above board as it raises campaign money; action that could have shown how distinctly respectful the Democratic Party is of the power of the rank and file, the power of the acclaimed disenfranchised, the same group of voters that are creating the upheaval that everyone is criticizing as unwholesome for establishment Republican party. The same reason Bernie Sanders is calling for a revolutionary campaign to take back power for the people. If any establishment Democrat is wondering why Bernie Sanders is doing so well on the ground and why many of his supporters are vowing not to vote Hillary Clinton, this is one of the reasons. The campaign system for office is so fraught with so much disgusting fraud that only a complete house cleaning, as advocated by Senator Bernie Sanders, can help redeem our Democracy. For many Democrats who are wondering why Bernie Sanders has not thrown in the towel and yielded way to Hillary Clinton to be the party’s flag bearer, here is a true example of what is so disgusting about mainstream Democratic Party; and another reason, why many rank and file supporting Bernie Sanders, are calling for progressive revolution in the party.

It is not just okay to begrudge Donald Trump for being so distastefully disgusting in running an unconventional presidential campaign that railroads the right of minority groups in America. Now, we know that Hillary Clinton is in a joint fund raising imbroglio with the Democratic National Committee that poo-poos any circumstellar superiority claim to the Republican party by Democrats. The probably Democratic National Committee’s preferred nominee for party flag bearer is in bed with moneyed interest groups that continue to do damage to our democracy, with implicit consent of the Democratic National Committee. If you are frustrated with why the whole system appears as corrupted, and you wonder why Donald Trump continues to assert that Hillary Clinton is crooked and untrustworthy, or are imagining why the Democratic National Committee is introducing new rules in the middle of the game that will advantage the former US Secretary of State, or is frustrated with chronic capitalism and why it is doing damage to a free and fair electoral democracy, here is your time to say no to a very bad and unacceptable reversal. Here is an opportunity to refuse to follow what is manifestly unacceptable and retrogressive in campaign for the highest office in the land; and call for total reform and complete ouster of overwhelming money influence in American politics. Here is the time to identify with what Bernie Sanders categorically condemns and proclaims as disgusting and unacceptable in a free society; and, demand that the Democratic National Committee find other means of raising money to facilitate elections and Democratic Party victory.


                                           The Cathedral Churches of Cefalù and Monreale

Negotiated Platforms and Bridge Building in the Democratic Party: Is it too early or is it different out here?

Keywords or Terms: Liberal Democrats; One payer healthcare system; Comprehensive Criminal Justice Reform, Immigration Reform; Income inequality; Negotiations; Reconciliations; Californian Primary; Nevada primary; Bernie Sanders Hillary Clinton; Donald Trump; Rank and File; FBI Probe; Private Email US US Secretary of State; Philadelphia Convention; Denver Convention; and, DNC Chairperson, Debbi Wasserman Schultz

Whether you are a Liberal or ultra-liberal Democrat, the recent negotiation or tentative reconciliation between the Clinton and Sanders camps, may delight you or put you at an askance, what’s next? Is there going to be a rapid whine down of competition between Hillary and Bernie? Is there a flight by night love and unity parterre in the Democratic Party, or what? What will happen to Bernie Sanders convincing and revolutionary campaign for the 2016 White House? Maybe, if you read Chris Megerian and Kurtis Lee of Los Angeles Times reporting with titles as, “Thanks, but no thanks – Hillary Clinton says no to a debate in California” and, “Bernie Sanders says he will be in 'strong position headed into Democratic Convention”, you will be all the more confused? Is there a reason Hillary Clinton is backing out of another debate with Bernie Sanders, hours before the California State Primary? Who is afraid of Bernie and why would Hillary believe her time is better spent campaigning with Californian voters? Could the scathing report from US Inspector General regarding exclusive use of private emails and or server in conducting government business while Hillary was the US Secretary of State, a contributing factor to her refusing to debate Bernie Sanders in the eleventh hour to the Californian primary? Could the quick desire to begin an onslaught campaign fight against the presumptive Republican Nominee by Hillary Clinton an overbearing concern in denying the debate request from the Sanders’ Camp?

Why does Bernie Sanders believe his campaign is in a strong position to influence Super delegates at the July 20^th convention in Philadelphia or was that all hot air, as he proclaimed in East Los Angeles to reporters that, he is in a stronger position to fight for an economy that works; and that five of his supporting delegates have been named to the party’s platform committee by the Democratic National Committee? Hillary Clinton will have six of her supporting delegates and the DNC four of its own chosen delegates as reported by Associated Press. Is the Democratic National Committee seeking harmony by creating a balance in the Democratic Party Platform Committee or is the committee forgetting that the private email server issue scandal can boomerang to an extent that Hillary Clinton’s campaign for the White House collapses and the eventual nominee ends up being Bernie Sanders, for expedience sake? In fact, can the selection of close to a balanced representation on the DNC party’s platform committee a ploy to make Bernie Sanders believe that his opinions and biases will be represented in the final Democratic Party’s platform in the 2016 November contest? If the idea of a balanced platform committee is to create a facade of unity in the Democratic party by DNC Chairperson, Debbi Wasserman Schultz, why then is Bernie Sanders charting a further ultra-liberal agenda on campaigning for themes such as one payer healthcare system, comprehensive criminal justice reform, immigration reform, income inequality, and maybe the most recent one for the Californian audience or voters: legalizing marijuana in California!

All these questions are eye openers to close observers of Democratic Party Presidential Campaign for 2016 White House. Politics is a rather difficult animal and events and news at any moment of any wrong doing, or suspicion of wrong doings, by any aspirant, may cause the aspirant to lose compass and or steam for his or her brand of messaging to the voters. This is probably why Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee, jumped on the news from the US Inspector General’s office that former US Secretary of State Clinton's use of private email server in conducting government administration ran afoul of public law; and thus, an indication of her untrustworthiness? And that her refusal to cooperate with the Inspector General or failure to release about four emails on the probe into the US State Department lacked oversight on private email server use in conducting government business, is part of Hillary’s crookedness, as offered by Donald Trump? Fessing up and acknowledging the use of private email was a mistake by the former secretary maybe satisfying to the Clinton’s campaign camp; however, if one understands the gravity of this mistake and implication for national security, one can now appreciate why the FBI is instituting a probe to the whole affair of using private emails or server for conducting government business, especially when one of the Secretary’s handlers or assistants had made caution of the implication of using personal emails for conducting government business. The fact that some of the emails that had transferred through private servers were censored for national security reasons and others withheld for containing top national secret material are enough reasons to know that this is rather an unforgivable mistake; and one that should not happen for someone seeking the highest office in the land.

Demonstrating a level of honesty, transparency and ethics in managing the affairs of government is rather essential when it comes to holding the highest office in the land. Violating government agency policies, especially those that have the potential of impacting the archiving of government documents or operational information, which may end up being sourced under the Freedom of Information Act by the press and public, calls to question Ms. Clinton’s good judgement and respect for tenets of the Office she was holding while with the US State Department. Mouthing there had been a change in rules governing use of emails within a government agency after your exit from office, does not jive with need to default on the side of caution as you handle government administration; nor does it shine a good light on someone aspiring to be guardian of what is true, just and precinct about the office she is seeking. Being the President of the United States, is everything to be defended on the grounds of the utmost respect for doing things that is right in the first place, before being cautioned that one’s past error or effort, is not allowed under government policies and regulations. Being proactive in instances of this nature is the key to success and an essential recipe for being the head of custodian of all US government’s missives.

To a former government agency head, Clinton probably has nothing to lose where the rules were loose and blurry; however, as a presidential aspirant, her error at the US State Department may be unforgivable by some voters or Americans, remote from the events and complaints that led to an FBI probe of a former administrative action of a potential major party presumptive nominee for general elections.  Looking through the rear-view mirror as it used to be on complaints and errors like these, are often informing and sometimes, redeeming; however, in a situation where major polls from NBC/Wall Street Journal and Washington Post/ABC News are putting the competition for the White House oval office, at a neck to neck between the presumptive Republican nominee and probably the presumptive Democratic Party nominee, no one must discountenance the type of damage that the news of erroneous use of private email for conducting government administration may wrought; and none can anticipate all things that may happen in the general election. It also does not give enough solace to people working hard to ensure that the Office of the US Presidency remains in Democratic hands. Neither is it comforting to know that your prefered candidate to replace the outgoing President of the United States, is one person that has been alleged to have broken trust, violated government policy, or made a cautious error in using her private emails to conduct government administration. It is therefore not out of character to question the veracity of having former US Secretary Clinton as the Democratic Party flag bearer in 2016.

The Presumptive Republican Nominee, Donald Trump has been having a negative press since rising to the pedestal of the party’s flag bearer; yet with all the bad press about his propensity to embellish the truth, mistreatment and abuse of women and rather bizarre public policy proposals, he is still able to keep a margin of preference within error, with the NBC News/Wall Street Journal, putting Ms. Clinton’s polling at 46% and Donald Trump’s at 43%. Within this margin of difference and or preference, either of these candidates may end up in the White House. With an adverse press concerning FBI investigation of past judgement or decisions of Ms. Clinton while in office, things may get testy to the extent that she loses the voting in November general elections? Is there a plan B for the Democratic Party? Could Bernie Sander’s ultra-liberal message be the plan B or is this just too much presumptuous in this fluid period of changing polls and margin of error concerning outside polling results for the 2016 campaign for the White House?

Two mistakes are essentially possible under current scenarios. One is the failure by establishment Democrats to understand the radical wind of change that has bemoaned the opposition party – the failure by establishment Republicans to appreciate the level of disaffection with their wing of the party and probably their custody of legislative governance at US Congress - probably led to the choice of an outsider to party politics, Donald Trump, as the party’s flag bearer, in this round of campaign for 2016 White House. The failure to realize that the disenfranchisement of the rank and file within a party may lead to a revolt within the party, ending up toppling the power structure and encouraging wide spread ideological fight that consequently undermines the position of strength of the executives of the party, and challenges future coexistence of party executives and probably establishment causes, against the rank and file choices for the future of the whole party, may end up being a kicker. Either the disaffection with establishment politics by rank and file leads to the entombment of the Republican Party, or the current elitist and somewhat aloof stance of Republican establishment will prevail in 2016 general election (an even if Donald trump loses the general election in November, the Republican party and their executives would still have to go through some soul searching).

The second and equally prevalent mistake is to assume that the disaffection in the Republican party will not come to the Democratic Party. To assume a disassociated link of what is happening within the Republican Party from the happenings in the Democratic Party is probably erroneous or mistaken; with the rise of an ultra-liberal agenda from a 2016 presidential aspirant that has gained huge momentum, that the author of the movement is insisting on taking the fight of party nomination to the floor of the convention in Philadelphia, there is enough reason for establishment Democrats to be concerned that a Republican-like revolt, may come to the Democratic Party. The assumption of ‘not in our house’ trajectory, is an erroneous judgement that can skew the perception and threats of the power of rank and file to undermine the credibility of the establishment Democratic Party before voters and the generality of the American population, just the way it has done in the Republican Party. The misconception is fraught with tragic consequences of national implications; it may imperil the political parties, Democrats, no less the Republicans. One may not await the results of the 2016 general elections to appreciate the misapplication of establishment Democratic party’s awareness of the disjointed or dysfunctional power structure arrangement, that have made the consideration of all the concerns of all members and factions within the party represented in the party’s national platform.

Probable skepticism that a truce will come to the Republican Party and that an accord can be reached or fashioned out between the Sanders and Clinton’s campaign camp in the 2016 Democratic Party, so that some of the rumbling disaffections with the supposedly establishment candidate, Hillary Clinton, will not lead to the failure of her candidacy for the 2016 White House office; and or, erode the power structure within the Democratic Party, the way it has happened in the Republican Party, is a telling consideration and matter that must never be swept under the rug. Chang will come; and, Change is the only thing that is constant in life and politics.

For current contests for nomination within either major American political parties, the word “reconciliation” can serve as an instrument of unity. Where the rank and file of the party consider themselves as the oppressed, the possibility of acting in unity with the establishment is often hard, as the disenfranchised carry grudge(s), that their issues are not attended to, or are excluded in the priority of party’s establishment, therefore creating a disjointed coexistence within the party. There is no such thing as misinterpretation of the purpose and goals of the party: the object of enthusiasm from any quarter of the party, is grounded in the beliefs that concerns from all sectors will be acknowledged and the higher echelon of the party, are fair and responsive to the call to action, to address the ilk’s and or misgivings within the party.

In recent realm, about the last three weeks in the Democratic Party nomination process, there has been some element of frustration acted out in Nevada and California primaries by supporters of Bernie Sanders, based on the notion, truly or untruly, that the establishment is railroading their concerns and is just making effort to see that Ms. Clinton becomes the party’s flag bearer, without considering her strengths, or possible lack-off, against the potential Republican flag bearer, Donald Trump. For supporters of Bernie Sanders, there are reasons why he continues to win delegates in many states, despite the so called huge delegates’ gap with respect to Super-delegates in the Democratic Party nomination arrangement. And with the coming of the possible FBI probe of Ms. Clinton’s private email server use at the US State Department, no one knows where the probe will lead. Thus, it is just too early to call for Bernie Sanders to surrender his ambition for the 2016 White House. The decision of when to call off a campaign must be left to the respective candidate to make, not from any higher up whimsical wishes, or a somewhat colluding arrangement that many rank and file of the party, consider rather shady or distasteful.

If it is true that DNC Chairperson, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, is a respecter of party unity, she must now play a more positive role, as some of the rank and file of the party, majority who are supporters of Bernie Sanders, are already calling to question her role to remain unbiased. Under this atmosphere of doubt of the Chairperson being a unifying force within the party, there is that grudge, that a particular aspirant and his courses are not being treated evenly with the opposing counterpart. The decision to suspend Bernie Sanders’ DNC database access in December, 2015; the violation of joint campaign fund raising agreement; and probable restrictions of Bernie Sanders supporters involvement in plate form writing discussions, have been raised as issues where some of the rank and file perceive that there is some culpability or potential bias of the part of the party’s chairperson. To avoid this perception or probable entrancement from the upper echelon, it is important that the executives as well as big whig establishment, listen to those on the ground, those, who consider themselves as the life of the party; yet probably still disenfranchised or discountenanced by the power that be.

TUESDAY PRIMARY RESULTS IN KENTUCKY AND OREGON: EXPLORING DEMOCRATIC PARTY NOMINATION PROCESS

KEYWORDS OR TERMS: Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center; T-Cells; Toxic Demagoguery; Barking Carnival; Muslims; Religious Bigot; Babbling Baby; Conspiracy Theorist; Kentucky; Oregon; Ideological Surrender; European Union; RNC Chairman Reince Priebus; NATO; NAFTA, TPP; National Debts; Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan

In an age, when Seattle’s Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center is working hard, seeking how to use T-Cells modification to fight Cancer cells, a disease that continues to ravage American lives and wrought misery on American families, Donald Trump, the Presumptive Republican Nominee, is content discussing the sex life of a former President who is not a candidate on the ticket for 2016 White House? When the debate for the White House has moved from creative and inventive public policy of the future, or innovative science discoveries that can change lives and make our livable space more environmentally friendly, or our weather better predictable, a major American Political Party presumptive nominee will rather discuss a mix of toxic demagoguery and sexual innuendoes splinted with a dose of barking carnival of a disheveled racist, Houston or America, we sure do have a problem?

Would someone help me understand Republican voters and Americans who still support a morally and intellectually bankrupt, and probably a tax dodging cheat, with penchant for marrying immigrants rather than indigenously-born Americans, who enjoys insulting minority groups, including calling hard working Mexicans as rapists and not the bests South America can offer? How on earth, a Republican that consistently violates ethos of conservative principle is now enjoying the largesse’s of republican leaders and few conservative radio hosts, who have chosen to look elsewhere as they sweep under the rug, the obvious deficiency of a lost rabble rouser, a candidate least fit for dexterity of a leader prepared for the challenges of the highest office in the land? Until Republicans figure out how their party got to the junction of transitioning from a respectable conservative bastion of hope to an embracer of a cave-man religious bigot, who will like to underpay labor and keep all Muslims out of America, I will resolve to discussing the primary contests between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders in the States of Kentucky and Oregon.

My transition is probably fraught with danger. Democrats are not showing the type of demeaning and insult ridden or trading theatre that the Republican nomination process had become; but remain a stable competition of ideologies and opinions regarding authentic liberal values, best embraced as a future direction for America, as espoused by either Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders. While there are indications that the contest in the Democratic Party for nomination is narrowing down to Hillary Clinton being the presumptive nominee as she amasses extra delegates in her narrow victory over her rival in the Kentucky primary, there are still room to talk about the formidability of Bernie Sanders as an alternative candidate. Bernie Sanders, with his slim chance of being the Democratic Party nominee, still evokes frenzy aura as he knocked out Ms. Clinton with a nine percentage spread in an ostensibly Democratic Liberal State of Oregon. Further, rather than concentrate on discussing other possible public policy options against the liberal or ultra-liberal policies, as advanced by the probable Democratic party presumptive nominee or her rival, America must now hold her breath because of what the RNC Chairman has said, that are rather concerning or mystifying. In addition, rather than contemplate why there is still a split between Americans supporting Bernie Sanders, whom many consider as too liberal or Socialistic for America, and concentrate our attention on evaluating in depth the policy proposal of Hillary Clinton, America is now burdened down to discuss the steadiness and color of the toupee worn by a sixty-nine year old adult spewing words like a babbling baby in campaigning for the White House oval office, because all his offensive and demagogy language hardly matters to some Republicans and their party’s chairman.

Of Course, the Democratic party nomination process has not degenerated to a choice between a low knowledge, judgmental and temperamental juvenile to more astute and better prepared politicians, who have remained on the sidelines for far too long as the Republican party’s house was about to burn down. As difficult as many Republican leaders now falling in line to kiss the ring of a demagogy presumptive nominee to believe, the Democrats actually have two formidable candidates that are better prepared and very much qualified to hold forth the challenges of the White House oval office in 2017. As critical of Bernie Sanders as a Red Socialist can get, he has the laurel and history of public service that he can readily call or draw on if he becomes the Democratic Party Nominee and eventual President of the United States. No establishment Republican conservative worth his salt, can stand out with broad shoulders and a shot out chest to proclaim, his party’s presumptive flag bearer, has the discipline and candor to restrain himself as he talks about conservative public policy choices and challenges; and or, address issues of public trust and probable challenges for the nation in leading the world to a new horizon of scientific advancements, since their presumptive party flag bearer is a science denial.

If the Republican Party’s chance of winning the 2016 White House fails, the meager cohesion within the party between establishment and the rank and files, will fall further, which could in turn provoke a complete breakdown of the party. The destructive stereotypes of bad mouthing immigrants may be gratifying to some segments of the Republican party at this time; however, it is statistically impossible for the Republican party to win the White House oval office if Donald Trump loses eighty percent of the female voters, all but probably five percent of Mexicans and blacks and about sixty percent independents. It is not just possible to win the White House only with White male votes, the voters’ demographic terrain has long changed; and the narrow nationalistic opinionated political campaign politics is now part of history. Though there are profound possibilities that the Republican party could reformulate and bring itself around the old GOP conservative values with a more reflective flagbearer, the chances of transitioning from a completely broken down party because of the choice to capitulate or surrender to a mean-spirited ideologically different and probably unstable flagbearer, has its own cost and consequences.

While there is speculation that Donald Trump can actually win an election against the eventual Democratic Party nominee, Hillary Rodham Clinton, because she appears to be a flawed candidate as Donald Trump, there is hardly any good feeling to appreciate that the occupier of the White House oval office after January 20, 2017, is an anti-science, anti-intellectual, protectionist religious bigot, with flair for conspiracy theories regarding American Press. America’s leadership role in the world does not accommodate a nut-job without commitment to leadership decorum warranted of respectability in the corridor of world’s politics. Oppositions to foreigners, immigrants and anyone not American in a global market, and in a world shrinking so vastly because of advances in information technology, guarantees that America would have a tough time dealing with many global world issues that the country is known to have and had shown leadership in the past. There was a time in which our leadership was able to hood-wink part of the residents of the globe; now, change has come even to remote regions, including the Amazons in Brazil. Except you are living under the rock lately, you must have heard that the first female president of Brazil was suspended and eventually booted out of office with an impeachment. What is good for the goose is now unavoidably, good for the ganders!

How can a leadership under a fascist-like President Donald Trump fashion comprehensive economic negotiations with the European Union or East Asian Countries, if these nations are aware of his protectionism flair or nationalistic choice of bastardizing his competitions? NAFTA and TPP were fashioned as economic agreements to open up broader markets for American products and services, and to open some door for technically savvy intellectual minds from other parts of the world, coming to work with our intellectuals to transform many industries with our leadership and innovative advancements. How are we going to accomplish these ambitions, ambitions that the world has recognized our leadership and comparative advantage, with a President that sees all Mexicans as rapists, low-life and never do well, who are trying to take advantage of the slacks in our immigration system?  When Donald Trump hypothetically becomes America’s President in January, 2017, I hope he will be able to walk back his proclamation about Muslims of the world as he attempts to resolve the long thorny disputes in the Middle East, negotiating extended American Debts’ rescheduling to the nation of Saudi Arabia, or winding down America’s presence in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan – these are all Muslim nations?

There is more to be learned from the Democratic Party’s primaries in Kentucky and Oregon. It is time for Democrats to take Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton to the wood shed and fashion out a singular way forward for the Democratic Party preparedness for the November contest against the Republican Party. Yes, Bernie Sanders can win more delegates in the remaining primaries in June and July; however, there is no path for him forward. His campaign is probably aptly described as a spoiler’s campaign at this time, that will lead to no good for the welfare of the party. More precisely, his recalcitrant and agitated campaign doodling in the past three weeks, appears to be a knee jerk response to knowing that all his efforts are not going to be rewarded as earlier anticipated. Many key points and policies his campaign highlighted are important and relevant to progressive democratic movement; however, it will hardly win the party victory if the potential winner of the nomination process is beleaguered and damaged by the time the contest between the two major party’s candidates get into a dwell. The actual restructuring of policies to facilitate changes in the economic system, to accommodate reflective liberal values, are better accomplished with a strong and wholesome candidacy, ready to take on the competition at the first encounter or bat. A spoiler’s alert is not going to accomplish this; and having Donald Trump in the White House, is not going to achieve an acceptable option for many progressives.

Unlike the Republican party. The Democratic Party is not in an apprehension regarding either of its prospecting aspirant being the party’s presumptive nominee, because of an unending number of gaffs that may be likened to excessive biases or political earthquake in use of language with average American voter. The current infighting between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders has been likened to a civil war in the fight of ideas in the realm of liberal thoughts. Precisely, the competition between the two standing Democratic aspirants aims to sort out, which of the liberal ideologies deserve more attention than the other. Except for the Anti-Wall Street language from Bernie Sanders and a few of his ultra-liberal proposals on public higher education and Medicare, mainstream Democrat’s fragile Dante with Bernie Sanders and his supporters has not risen to the level of fear of the position of the erstwhile Senator; or, a complete ideological surrender as found with the establishment Republicans in an attempt to accommodate Donald Trump and his team of over ten million supporters. Bernie Sanders is not fanning the flame of discontent in his recent victories in Indiana or Oregon, or opting to break up NATO as you find with the presumptive republican Nominee. Nonetheless, there are still some aspects of Bernie Sander’s campaigning a few venues that calls to question or put pressures on claim of complete civility in Democratic party campaign for 2016 White House.

Active competition for party nomination within the Republican Party has further reduced with the withdrawal of Ted Cruz and John Kasich about three weeks ago. However, within the Republican Party, is an unsettling feeling and apprehension on the part of establishment Republicans that the likely presumptive party nominee is not foreign policy savvy with his use of language and has other shortcomings, including prior likely behavioral deception, where he had represented himself as a “John Barron” or “John Miller” persona; a supposedly publicists of his, who was attempting to explain away some of his messy broken marriage relationships. The creepiness of this alleged behavior has been found disturbing by many political leaders, including some of his former rivals for party nomination, including Marco Rubio lambasting him as a con man; Ted Cruz calling him a pathological liar and Bobby Jindal, relegating him to the status of a narcissistic. A few journalists and those who listened to the creepy phone calls from the John Miller or John Barron persona have called Americans to reflect on putting a probable vain, misogynist and freighting needy character in the seat of the President of the United States.

To add anything more at this time regarding what America has learned from the primary results of Democratic party primaries in Kentucky and Oregon, or the newly awakenings going on with establishment Republicans with respect to their party’s presumptive nominee, will be alerting an inconvenient truth regarding how America selects political party flag bearer and probably the President of United States in the twenty-first century. Does political party ideological principle or past behavioral indiscretions matter anymore? After all, the Chairman of the Republican Party, Reince Priebus, a major voice in American Political party landscape or experience says, it hardly matters, if his party’s nominee misunderstands the US Constitution, lambast Mexicans as Rapists, identifies with Japan and South Korean owning and getting nuclear weapons; or, punishing American women for seeking abortion even in instance in which the life of the women is at stake. Welcome to the new Republican Party; Welcome to the new America of tomorrow.

Sanctimony: Would Donald Trump show Americans his tax filing?

Keywords or Terms: Tax Filing; Baulked, Peeker-boo; Ben Franklin, Father of US Postal Service; American Political Parties; Public Office; Secrecy; ABC NEWS George Stephanopoulos; Republican Nominee; bankruptcies filings; Insistent Outrage; Credit Worthiness; january 20, 2017

This is Billionaire Donald Trump, inventor of the hullabaloo about 2012 Presumptive Republican nominee, Mitt Romney, not showing his tax filing records to America, as soon as they showed interest. The same suspiciously egotistic, sexists and xenophobic aspirant, who once begrudged another former Republican presumptive nominee, Mitt Romney, to live up to the transparency and probably, the responsibility a seeker of the highest office in the land, is expected to live up, or show a candor for the same. When the question arose in his case in 2016, he baulked, baulked so badly that many wondered, are we having a sanctimonious candidate just as the probable, boss of bosses from Manhattan New York, this time around? The same citizen in 2012 who so much wanted candidate Barack Obama to show his birth certificate, responding to question about releasing his tax filing with: “[Trump’s] tax returns is none of your business!”

This is a goldmine for anyone who understands political history and appreciates how political aspirants attempt to play a Peeker-boo anytime things are appearing too uncomfortable, or how best to remain opaque if time allows, unless the public continues to show a demanding determinative interest or insistent outrage regarding suspected secrecy on the part of the aspirant, and chose to grind the issue out until they get answers to their questions. Unless this scenario is the case, unless many American voters consider any secrecy on the part of an aspirant as justifiable and logical to waive their right to know, it is within the prerogative of these voters to get answers to their questions regarding any candidates’ tax filing. Candidly, considering that Mr. Trump has projected an image of a mega rich businessman, who will go the length not to pay much in taxes; and given the choice, many other aspirants like him would rather not show the public their tax filings, it behooves the voting public to continue to ask, even if the political spirants for public office appear to be baulking and refusing to release their tax filings at first. Remember the old entitlement society, the most privileged among us, are often mystified why anyone should be asking about their records of tax filing? Hard to tell what First American Librarian Ben Franklin meant in his 1789 letter: “Our new Constitution is now established, and has an appearance that promises permanency; but in this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes.” If Mr. Trump pays his actual share and ratio of tax due from a Billionaire, no one can tell, until Mr. Trump fesses up, until he shows his tax filing; else, we will continue to see the sanctimony in all his past actions about other political candidates.

Americans are familiar with the seven questions journalists seek answers to with any interviewee: who? What? Where? When? Why? How? And How much? Every American at this time is curious to know, who is paying what and who is not paying much or who is dodging the tax man; and, why he or she is failing to rise up to the responsibility of paying adequate ratio or fair tax for his or her income bracket? Mr. Trump must have asked himself at certain times in his business career, if he is paying too much taxes or if he is actually paying his fair share? After all he is probably paying his legion of tax accountants to explore all possible loop holes in the tax laws to help him save a lot; or deny paying anything in tax, if possible? If Mr. Trump was a business man without an interest or ambition in the highest office in the land, maybe it is none of the public’s interest to know his tax filing papers. However, as a presumptive nominee of a major American Political Party, and probably the future President of the United States, there are many seminal issues about his tax filings that deserve in-depth examination and elucidation; and for this reason, it is rather expedient that he shares his tax filing information with those he is aspiring to rule over.

How else can a future US President ask the ordinary American to pay his share of taxation, if he is skittish about the citizens finding out if he had been paying his fair share in taxes? How can the average ‘joe six pack’ know that he has not been taken as a fool, as he works off his butt to pay his taxes and his possible future President, has been avoiding paying taxes or shying away from paying the true ratio of his earnings, comparatively? There are Americans who will easily default on Mr. Trump’s right as a citizen not to make his tax filings information public; however, there are millions as well, who will like to know if their future President has been an honest and transparent citizen. If Mr. Trump has been paying his taxes and or fair share of taxation, sharing information about his taxes must be effortless; if otherwise, then there is a problem: naysayers have the right to know if their future President is trustworthy and fair?

It is not strange or news that some Americans have taken a sabbatical from paying Uncle Sam, yearly taxes. No one at this time is alleging the presumptive Republican Nominee has some of his wealth hidden overseas; and, if Americans take Mr. Trump at his words or on the surface, he does not have an offshore account, where he is attempting to evade paying taxes. However, if Americans are curious to find out the “what’ and “how” of candidates who have been found as operating offshore accounts or hiding money in foreign countries to evade paying Uncle Sam, it is not unexpected or unusual for the American voter to be curious about whether Mr. Trump has been paying taxes and what tax brackets he falls? If presumptive Republican nominee wants average American to believe that if they vote him or anyone into office, they will necessarily seek to better their welfare and improve their lives, there is no reason to question their right to know; the right to know if they are dealing with a candidate that is having an overreaching or under reaching mission? This is part of the equation of wanting to be the President of the greatest democracy on earth. This is part of the unwritten requirements that decorum now demands and this is why information regarding any aspirant seeking the highest office in the land, is of public interest.

It is funny at this time that the “what” and “why” had gotten lost in the long twist of Mr. Trump’s response to ABC NEWS George Stephanopoulos’ question on Good Morning America the other day. The presumptive nominee had become animated and self-focused rather than purpose -focused. He must have contemplated the purpose for which the question regarding his prior years’ tax filings were being asked by the news anchor; and his response that that information is no one’s business, is probably an underestimation. The reality is, when you are asking Americans for their votes, your prior or current tax filing information, is part of the criteria they may choose to evaluate your authenticity as a candidate. If the presumptive nominee had attempted to explore the “why” of the question, maybe his response to the question would have been wisely different. Conveniently, he anticipated he had an audience that could be hood winked, with a stroke of one sentence designed to shut-voters’ inquisitively down. Now, Mr. Trump is not the first millionaire presumptive Republican nominee to have had problem with questions regarding their tax filings. Mr. Romney had similar problem in 2012 and ultimately obliged; and this is most likely going to be the case for the 2016 presumptive Republican nominee.

The “what” question is one that American voters must have thought is universal for most tax filers that are secretive about information regarding their tax filing. What exactly is the problem with this question; what exactly is in those tax filing that appears Mr. Trump or Mr. Romney are secretive about: What is their source and amount of wealth? Will someone in either tax bracket qualify as appreciative or understanding of the plight of the average American voter? Since this time around, Mr. Trump is the one seeking the White House oval office, it is not presumptive to ask Mr. Trump, what are his source of income; especially, where there are records of at least three bankruptcy filings? Although long known that Mr. Trump has filed for Chapter 7 and or 11, the reasons for those filings are not public information and no one except close associates, lawyers and accountants who have information regarding what led Mr. Trump to file for bankruptcy. Was he attempting not to pay his creditors or was he in a tight spot and needed some time to make good on some loans and or credits? What are those sources of loans? Is it possible that an old creditor may use his absolved debt at bankruptcy to blackmail a US President? American voters, Republicans and Democrats, deserve to know, who are, or if Mr. Trump’s creditors were in a bind; or, if they suffered a disproportional and or disparaging loss from his bankruptcy filing(s); and may in turn use their misfortunes against a US President while in office.

Use of money and management of credits have become part of assessing one’s level of dependency. One’s credit score has emerged as means of defining who we are as persons or trading partners in a national and or global market. How much debt you are carrying and how many bankruptcy filings you have had are known to define business relationship(s) with other people and enterprises. “How” much you owe as a person and CEO or leader of a business decides if people or businesses are going to go into accord with you, or offer you additional credit lines. If a potential creditor determines you are a huge risk, it is unlikely he is going to do business with you or the business you head. If the person or business finds out you have a tradition of filing for bankruptcy, he starts to believe you are a greater risk than anyone who has not been in that same plight. While one credit score does not completely tell the whole story; however, because businesses and people have now considered your credit reliability as a measure of your dependency; one’s ability to maintain and expand credit worthiness depends on one’s credit score and how many bankruptcies one has been engaged. Like it or not, filing for bankruptcy is a break of trust; no American and or business would like anyone, unable to live up to his words, occupying the White House oval office, because of the associated risks and overall welfare of the nation we all love.

Next, if Mr. Trump considers tax evasion as an alternative or cushion chair which all rich Americans take advantage of, as he retorted on that Good Morning America question from ABC NEWS George Stephanopoulos, no one must henceforth consider the rich as honest businessmen and women because their first choice in harnessing their wealth is to pay the littlest or evade taxes. Intention(s) not to pay one’s tax or refusal to share information regarding whether one paid enough taxes or not, are actions susceptible to multiple interpretations; however, whichever one any independent voter defaults, determines if a candidate is the ideal candidate to support or vote for into an office. Interestingly, since Mr. Trump had proposed as a policy the likelihood of not paying the face value of American national debt, his past affinity for filing bankruptcies are indicators of where he stands on the issue of reliability in settling debts and is a measurable indicator of his recalcitrance as a loan defaulter and probably, an indicator of why no voter must consider him an honest and dependable leader.

At a personal level, filing multiple bankruptcies have long had a negative image problem, deserved or not. The most devastating impact on one as a private person or business owner is that he or she is either called to pay higher interest rates or denied further credits. Mr. Trump may consider his past personal and business bankruptcy filings as personal or restrictively business decisions; however, this is hardly how those who have played by the rule of the game or the market take it. Like a bank manager, repeated bankruptcies are measure of one’s poor credit-worthiness character. How would anyone of us, like this on their epitaph; “A chronic debtor who sought to rule America after filing multiple bankruptcies!” Would that be a commendable legacy; or, what would passerby say? Most importantly, what would other nations say: “America now has in the White House, a stripper as a first lady and dead beat as a President?”

Voters in 2016 general elections have the power and prerogative to determine what is more important to them at the personal level; and to the nation, as a whole. They have the power to determine the image they want the nation to carry after Friday January 20, 2017 inauguration. Whether personal character and past choices matter in determining, future decision and determinations? This question matters, no matter what any presidential aspirant wants America to believe.