Twitter: @rodgermitchell; Search #monetarysovereignty
Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Why has the ACLU recently gained so many members? Read why it’s more than just Trump.
First, a little background:
ACLU, other groups report post-election surge of donations
By David Crary | AP November 15NEW YORK — In the week since Donald Trump’s election, there’s been a dramatic surge in donations to the American Civil Liberties Union, Planned Parenthood, the Sierra Club and other progressive organizations which have pledged to resist any moves by the new administration that would undercut their causes.
The ACLU unleashed feisty fundraising appeals, including one warning that if Trump implemented certain campaign promises, “We’ll see him in court.”
The result, according to the ACLU, has been the largest surge of support in its 94-year history, including roughly 120,000 donations totaling more than $7.2 million.
“We’ll need to build up the most powerful legal organization mankind has ever known to fight for us over the next four years,” wrote HIV/AIDS and gay-rights activist Peter Staley, who pledged on his Facebook page to become a monthly ACLU donor.
The ACLU’s executive director, Anthony Romero, said the infusion of new funds would help in addressing several urgent priorities, including resisting possible mass deportation efforts, protecting the civil rights of transgender Americans, and preventing “stop-and-frisk” police policies from being adopted nationwide.
Since the election, Planned Parenthood has reported an unprecedented outpouring of support, with more than 128,000 people making donations. The organization said at least 20,000 of the donations made reference to Vice President-elect Mike Pence, who as a congressman and governor of Indiana has been an advocate of tough anti-abortion restrictions.
“We will never back down, and we will never stop providing the care our patients need,” said Planned Parenthood’s president, Cecile Richards.
The Sierra Club said it had registered 9,000 new monthly donors since the election — more than it had added from Jan. 1 until Election Day.
“We don’t feel helpless at all,” said Debbie Sease, the organization’s national campaigns director.
Other organizations reporting major increases in support included the NAACP, the National Immigration Law Center, and major LGBT-rights organizations, including the Human Rights Campaign and Lambda Legal. Lambda Legal said it received support from more than 1,000 first-time donors in the four days following the election.
The Anti-Defamation League, which combats anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry, said donations surged 50-fold the day after the election.
Another beneficiary of the election results is ProPublica, an independent, nonprofit news organization that produces investigative public-interest journalism.
Richard Tofel, ProPublica’s president and founding general manager, said online donations increased sharply the day after the election, and then skyrocketed after John Oliver — on Sunday’s edition of his HBO show “Last Week Tonight” — urged viewers to support “actual journalism” produced by ProPublica and other outlets.
“There are a lot of people who, in response to the election, feel that they need to take some sort of civic action,” Tofel said.
The ACLU published an open letter to Trump. You can read the full letter here, but a couple excerpts are:
Specifically, you promised to:
– amass a deportation force to remove 11 million undocumented immigrants
– ban the entry of Muslims and institute aggressive surveillance programs targeting them
– restrict a woman’s right to abortion services
– reauthorize waterboarding and other forms of torture
– change our nation’s libel laws and restrict freedom of expression
These proposals are not simply unAmerican and wrong-headed. They are unlawful and unconstitutional, and would violate the First, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution, as well as other statutes and international treaties.
If you do not reverse course, you will have to contend with the full firepower of the ACLU at your every step.
Our staff of litigators and activists in every state, thousands of volunteers, and millions of supporters stand ready to fight against any encroachment on our cherished freedoms and rights.
One thing is certain: We will be vigilant every day of your tenure as president. And when you ultimately vacate the Oval Office, we will do likewise with your successor.
Now, here is the real answer to the title question, “Why has the ACLU recently gained so many members?
The Democratic Party long had been the protector of the “common man,” the underdog, the downtrodden, the powerless, the so-called “99%.”
It was the progressive Democrats who brought us Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, civil rights laws, bans on racial discrimination, aids to education, aids to the impoverished, the “Voting Rights Act,” and the removal of racial origin quotas for immigration.
That was the progressive Democratic Party of Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, and Johnson.
That progressive Party no longer exists.
Today, the Democrats are the Party of Clinton and Obama, money-hungry conservatives in Democrats clothing, who have proved to be far more interested in protecting the .1% than in following any progressive agenda.
The current Democrats have been weak against the conservatives’ false narrative that the poor are “lazy takers,” who only want “free stuff,” while the rich are hard-working “makers.”
The current Democrats have lent support to the notion that Social Security and Medicare should be cut and FICA (America’s most regressive tax) increased.
The current Democrats have been weak against the Republican refusal to consider a Supreme Court nominee or the Republican states’ destruction of voting rights for people of color.
The current Democratic Party no longer can be relied upon to fight for civil rights or the less-than-affluent.
The current Democratic leaders are more interested in aiding rich banksters than in lifting the poor.
Progressives believe the purpose of government is to protect the poor and powerless from the rich and powerful. Conservatives believe the purpose of government is to protect the rich and powerful from the poor and powerless.
The Democratic Party has lost touch with its traditional progressive base.
And that is why we see the massive influx of membership and money to progressive-leaning organizations like ACLU, Planned Parenthood, the Sierra Club, and other progressive organizations.
We now have, in effect, a one-party system, with each party caring only about money and power rather than about people.
As a result, America now has elected the ultimate money/power President, a man who plans to chip away at the rights of the moneyless, powerless people the Democrats were supposed to represent.
If you lean progressive, the Democratic leadership will do nothing for you. Democrats have failed the progressives.
Until the Democrats find a strong leader in the Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson mold, you would be better served to join and contribute to the ACLU et al than to support yet another toady-to-the-rich conservative Democrat.
Hundreds of thousands now have made that decision. Many more will join them.
Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
The single most important problems in economics involve the excessive income/wealth/power Gaps between the rich and the rest.
Wide Gaps negatively affect poverty, health and longevity, education, housing, law and crime, war, leadership, ownership, bigotry, supply and demand, taxation, GDP, international relations, scientific advancement, the environment, human motivation and well-being, and virtually every other issue in economics.
Implementation of The Ten Steps To Prosperity can narrow the Gaps:
Ten Steps To Prosperity:
1. ELIMINATE FICA (Ten Reasons to Eliminate FICA )
Although the article lists 10 reasons to eliminate FICA, there are two fundamental reasons:
*FICA is the most regressive tax in American history, widening the Gap by punishing the low and middle-income groups, while leaving the rich untouched, and
*The federal government, being Monetarily Sovereign, neither needs nor uses FICA to support Social Security and Medicare.
2. FEDERALLY FUNDED MEDICARE — PARTS A, B & D, PLUS LONG TERM CARE — FOR EVERYONE (H.R. 676, Medicare for All )
This article addresses the questions:
*Does the economy benefit when the rich can afford better health care than can the rest of Americans?
*Aside from improved health care, what are the other economic effects of “Medicare for everyone?”
*How much would it cost taxpayers?
*Who opposes it?”
3. PROVIDE AN ANNUAL ECONOMIC BONUS TO EVERY MAN, WOMAN AND CHILD IN AMERICA, AND/OR EVERY STATE, A PER CAPITA ECONOMIC BONUS (The JG (Jobs Guarantee) vs the GI (Guaranteed Income) vs the EB) Or institute a reverse income tax.
This article is the fifth in a series about direct financial assistance to Americans:
Why Modern Monetary Theory’s Employer of Last Resort is a bad idea. Sunday, Jan 1 2012
MMT’s Job Guarantee (JG) — “Another crazy, rightwing, Austrian nutjob?” Thursday, Jan 12 2012
Why Modern Monetary Theory’s Jobs Guarantee is like the EU’s euro: A beloved solution to the wrong problem. Tuesday, May 29 2012
“You can’t fire me. I’m on JG” Saturday, Jun 2 2012
Economic growth should include the “bottom” 99.9%, not just the .1%, the only question being, how best to accomplish that. Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) favors giving everyone a job. Monetary Sovereignty (MS) favors giving everyone money. The five articles describe the pros and cons of each approach.
4. FREE EDUCATION (INCLUDING POST-GRAD) FOR EVERYONEFive reasons why we should eliminate school loans
Monetarily non-sovereign State and local governments, despite their limited finances, support grades K-12. That level of education may have been sufficient for a largely agrarian economy, but not for our currently more technical economy that demands greater numbers of highly educated workers.
Because state and local funding is so limited, grades K-12 receive short shrift, especially those schools whose populations come from the lowest economic groups. And college is too costly for most families.
An educated populace benefits a nation, and benefiting the nation is the purpose of the federal government, which has the unlimited ability to pay for K-16 and beyond.
5. SALARY FOR ATTENDING SCHOOL
Even were schooling to be completely free, many young people cannot attend, because they and their families cannot afford to support non-workers. In a foundering boat, everyone needs to bail, and no one can take time off for study.
If a young person’s “job” is to learn and be productive, he/she should be paid to do that job, especially since that job is one of America’s most important.
6. ELIMINATE CORPORATE TAXES
Corporations themselves exist only as legalities. They don’t pay taxes or pay for anything else. They are dollar-transferring machines. They transfer dollars from customers to employees, suppliers, shareholders and the government (the later having no use for those dollars).
Any tax on corporations reduces the amount going to employees, suppliers and shareholders, which diminishes the economy. Ultimately, all corporate taxes come around and reappear as deductions from your personal income.
7. INCREASE THE STANDARD INCOME TAX DEDUCTION, ANNUALLY. (Refer to this.) Federal taxes punish taxpayers and harm the economy. The federal government has no need for those punishing and harmful tax dollars. There are several ways to reduce taxes, and we should evaluate and choose the most progressive approaches.
Cutting FICA and corporate taxes would be a good early step, as both dramatically affect the 99%. Annual increases in the standard income tax deduction, and a reverse income tax also would provide benefits from the bottom up. Both would narrow the Gap.
8. TAX THE VERY RICH (THE “.1%) MORE, WITH HIGHER PROGRESSIVE TAX RATES ON ALL FORMS OF INCOME. (TROPHIC CASCADE)
There was a time when I argued against increasing anyone’s federal taxes. After all, the federal government has no need for tax dollars, and all taxes reduce Gross Domestic Product, thereby negatively affecting the entire economy, including the 99.9%.
But I have come to realize that narrowing the Gap requires trimming the top. It simply would not be possible to provide the 99.9% with enough benefits to narrow the Gap in any meaningful way. Bill Gates reportedly owns $70 billion. To get to that level, he must have been earning $10 billion a year. Pick any acceptable Gap (1000 to 1?), and the lowest paid American would have to receive $10 million a year. Unreasonable.
9. FEDERAL OWNERSHIP OF ALL BANKS (Click The end of private banking and How should America decide “who-gets-money”?)
Banks have created all the dollars that exist. Even dollars created at the direction of the federal government, actually come into being when banks increase the numbers in checking accounts. This gives the banks enormous financial power, and as we all know, power corrupts — especially when multiplied by a profit motive.
Although the federal government also is powerful and corrupted, it does not suffer from a profit motive, the world’s most corrupting influence.
10. INCREASE FEDERAL SPENDING ON THE MYRIAD INITIATIVES THAT BENEFIT AMERICA’S 99.9% (Federal agencies)Browse the agencies. See how many agencies benefit the lower- and middle-income/wealth/ power groups, by adding dollars to the economy and/or by actions more beneficial to the 99.9% than to the .1%.
Save this reference as your primer to current economics. Sadly, much of the material is not being taught in American schools, which is all the more reason for you to use it.
The Ten Steps will grow the economy, and narrow the income/wealth/power Gap between the rich and you.
MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY
#Monetary Sovereignty - Mitchell 
Boston Globe:
Sessions was ranked by National Journal in 2007 as the fifth-most conservative U.S. Senator.
He supported the major legislative efforts of the George W. Bush administration, including the Iraq War, and a proposed a national amendment to the Constitution to ban same-sex marriage.
He said, “I firmly believe that Roe v. Wade and its descendants represent one of the worse, colossally erroneous Supreme Court decisions of all time. It was an activist decision…it was a Court that decided to politically impose their will.”
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
O.K., Democrats, where is the impeachment? You know it’s something the Republicans would do if the situation were reversed.
LikeLike
“Richard Tofel, ProPublica’s president and founding general manager, said online donations increased sharply the day after the election, and then skyrocketed after John Oliver — on Sunday’s edition of his HBO show “Last Week Tonight” — urged viewers to support “actual journalism” produced by ProPublica and other outlets.”
Let the Mass Media Beware.
LikeLike
Donald Trump considers Mitt Romney for Secretary of State.
This is what Romney says:
LikeLike
Mr. Mitchell, you face a choice. Which of the following two options do you find more pleasurable?
[1] Having readers absorb your ideas and sharing their comments.
[2] Driving readers away by endlessly attacking Trump (who has not even taken office) while saying, “If you don’t like it, don’t come here, you bigot.”
Which of the above do you find more gratifying? You can only choose one.
At this point you seem to prefer #2.
Here is another choice that you face…
Who is to blame for Hillary’s defeat?
[1] The DNC
[2] Everyone else
“Both” is not a sufficient response, since you vacillate back and forth between #1 and #2.
If you have any reason remaining, you will consider what I say. If not, you will simply become angry, delete my comments, ban me, and increase what’s happening now.
LikeLike
Or, I simply can keep telling the truth, and allow readers to decide if that is what they want.
By the way, what were you hoping for when you cast your vote?
LikeLike
I was hoping that the other 1,207,141 Americans who voted for Stein would see that they are not alone.
LikeLike
I expected you to delete me and ban me. You did not. I am impressed. Sincerely.
Now, here’s the deal Rodger…
I loathe Trump.
However I have even greater loathing for the hypocrisy of Democrats and Hillary-bots. I loathe fake leftism even more than I loathe right-wingers. When I see someone attacking Trump, I see someone defending the hypocrisy of Democrats who have imposed neoliberalism on us for 25 years since Bill Clinton. I see someone defending endless war and destruction. I see someone defending a group that is worse than the Republicans, since Democrats are hypocrites. A group that is progressive in name only. A group whose members are not our friends or allies.
Every cry that “Trump is evil!” is a denial that Democrats are equally evil, corrupt, and arrogant. Hillary refused to go to Wisconsin during the fall campaign, even though Trump visited Wisconsin five times. As a result, Russ Feingold (a true leftist Democrat) lost in Wisconsin. Hillary lost the election in at least six other states that Obama had carried twice (FL, PA, OH, MI, WI, IA).
As horrible as Trump is, it is even worse to attack Trump unilaterally, especially on a non-stop basis, since these are excuses for Democrat evil.
You cannot excuse this practice by saying, “I have written posts that were critical of Democrats.” No. Whenever you attack the Republican corruption, you must simultaneously attack Democrat corruption. Why? Because Democrats are one half of a two-party duopoly. They will not change just because the Republican half is in power now. They did not change before (with W. Bush) and they will not change now.
Our enemies are not the Republicans, but the duopoly. To obsessively attack only one half of the duopoly is to make fools of ourselves. We must critique the entire duopoly (i.e. both halves) simultaneously, at all times. Otherwise no one will care.
LikeLike
One other thing. You seem frustrated by people’s apparent apathy about Trump. However there is a much worse apathy; one that frustrates me as much as you, and that is apathy about monetary affairs.
I constantly see people make gross errors in their blog posts and their reader comments.
They insist on believing that the U.S. government (which creates its money out of thin air) is the same as a private household (which must balance its income with its expenses).
They insist on believing that all money is created by banks as loans, and that all U.S. government dollars are borrowed from banks.
They insist on believing that the only reason we cannot have single payer healthcare is that rich people and corporations are not taxed enough.
They insist on believing that all our problems are created by the Federal Reserve. (They regard politicians as innocent, even when politicians impose gratuitous austerity.)
They insist on believing that the cause of Greece’s problems is capitalism, when in reality the cause is the Greek government’s surrender of its monetary sovereignty.
They insist on believing that the only “true” money is gold.
They insist on believing that the U.S. government is “bankrupt” and has a “debt crisis,” even though they agree that the U.S. government can “print” limitless dollars.
When I carefully, respectfully, and succinctly correct these people, they do not read it. They don’t care. They have their beliefs, and that is that.
I tell them that the “national debt crisis” is a hoax. That is, public debt is trivial, whereas private debt is catastrophic (student loan debt, mortgages, corporate leveraging, etc.) They respond with, “So there’s no such thing as debt? Preposterous!”
If I note that because they voluntarily choose to believe the myths, they voluntarily choose to be enslaved, they become angry. They call me dirty names. They call me arrogant. They don’t like having their delusions exposed.
They.
Just.
Don’t.
Care.
THAT is frustrating. So while you are bumping your head against the wall about Trump, I am bumping my head about this stuff.
LikeLike
As I’ve mentioned before, my family motto is, “Good comes from bad.”
The election of Trump + an all-conservative Congress was bad, far worse than you might think.
And the addition of more conservative Supreme Court justices will be very bad for the non-rich (though probably good for me, personally)
However, the good might be that the Democrats finally return to their Lyndon Johnson progressive base, and abandon the weak-kneed Obamaesque cave-to-the-right-wing approach and grow some male anatomy.
As for your frustration about the people who would benefit most from MS ignorantly rejecting it, my first book on the subject was published in 1996, 20 years ago.
So in poker terms, I’ll see your frustration and raise you all in.
LikeLike
“However, the good might be that the Democrats finally return to their Lyndon Johnson progressive base, and abandon the weak-kneed Obamaesque cave-to-the-right-wing approach and grow some male anatomy.” ~ RMM
Yes, it would be nice if Trump caused “progressive” Americans to actually became progressive again. However I’m not holding my breath. It didn’t happen during the W. Bush regime, and it probably won’t happen with Trump.
Meanwhile it is my hope that the ever-worsening pain from medical costs and insurance premiums will become so extreme that the desire for single payer will finally outweigh the b.s. about “How will you pay for it?”
However, I’m not holding my breath with that one either. People cling to the Big Lie as tightly as ever. They love their slavery.
Average people in other developed countries regard genuinely affordable health care as a human right. Americans, however, regard it as a privilege. For Americans, only the rich have rights.
LikeLike
And, what is your opinion of Jeff Sessions, Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, Steve Bannon and Mike Pompeo?
LikeLike
I have researched all three. They’re not just appalling; they’re terrifying.
However, this brings us back to the point I noted above. If we imagine that Hillary’s picks would have been any better, then we defend one half of the ruling duopoly. We praise one head of a two-headed monster.
Where you and I differ is that you think today’s Democrats are better than Republicans, whereas I say they are not. I say the two sides are the same. The only difference between the two sides is which side of the carousel happens to be in front of you at the moment. Bill Clinton destroyed Yugoslavia. Then Bush destroyed Iraq. Then Obama destroyed Libya. Round and round.
Your enemy is not Trump or the Republicans. Your enemy is the duopoly and neoliberalism. Your enemy is average people’s worship of the Big Lie.
Democrats are not your friends or your allies. Democrats represent the same moneyed interests as do the Republicans. Democrats did not change when W. Bush was in the White House. They will not change now. If a genuine progressive starts filling stadiums like Sanders did, then Democrats will always torpedo him. This is what you defend when you one-sidedly attack Trump.
LikeLike
They are not equally bad. The Republicans are worse. See Comment #7.
Sanders is better, to be sure, but he still mouths the Big Lie, despite having had Stephanie Kelton on his staff.
I’m dissatisfied with the Dems, as I have written, but the GOP is far worse. Clinton’s picks would have been better.
If you’re terrified now, wait for Trump’s Supreme Court picks.
LikeLike
“Clinton’s picks would have been better.” ~ RMM
If you have some way to prove that, I would like to see it.
LikeLike
Got it. Your god is still God.
Your belief that Democrats are better is faith-based, just like right-wing beliefs. It is a product of your desire to have one team to cheer for, and another team to vilify. Us versus them. (“Go team!”) It manifests your Manichean assumption (also faith-based) that life consists of an eternal struggle between goodness (Democrats / “us”) and evil (Republicans / Nazis). This is why you falsely see all wars as religious in nature, when in fact they are all political, since they are all about power.
Meanwhile for the rest of us, BOTH parties serve the rich at the expense of the rest. BOTH parties advance the cause of neoliberalism. To posit that today’s Democrats are somehow better than Republicans is to live in denial of what Democrats have actually done. Obama’s TPP, for example, is dead (at least for the moment) and yet you imagine that only Republicans were behind that. You complain about Trump’s comments against immigrants, while you ignore the fact that Obama has deported more immigrants than any president since FDR with his “Mexican Repatriation.” (And don’t forget the Democrat-led arrest of U.S. citizens of Japanese descent, who were consigned to concentration camps.)You complain about Trump’s comments against Muslims, while you bless the U.S. wars that have exterminated millions of Muslims; wars that Democrats have supported every bit as much as Republicans.
War and neoliberalism do not become “good” whenever they are pushed by Democrats. Institutionalized racism does not become “acceptable” when a Democrat is in the White House. Democrat crimes are not made “innocent” by claiming that Republicans “are even worse.”
Occasionally your madness eases enough for you to acknowledge that the Democrats themselves caused Hillary’s loss. But you instantly resume chanting condemnations of Trump and of all who do not share your religion that Democrats are better. Your word for infidels is “bigots.”
For you, everything that Democrats touch becomes saintly. For example, Romney-care is okay, since it was Obama who signed it. For you, your own “ten steps to prosperity” would become evil if Trump passed them. For you, your madness seems like common sense.
On this topic of Democrats vs. Republicans, you rationalize your cement-headedness by imagining that everyone ELSE is cement-headed, not you. And when you are shown that Democrats serve the rich as much as do Republicans, you change the topic. You harp on trivia like school prayer, or you cheer for trans-gender men’s “right” to invade women’s showers. You distract from material issues in order to keep the slaves keep bickering about minutiae, and keep them worshipping the Democrats who despise them.
On this topic we live in two entirely different universes.
LikeLike
A year from now, when social programs have been decimated, gun killings have escalated, our imports are far more costly, more America soldiers are dying, and the Supreme Court is populated with bigots, your comment will be, “Hillary would have been worse.”
And you will be wrong.
LikeLike
My comment will be, “Hillary would have been the same.”
And I will be right.
And at least we will not all be dead from World War III.
LikeLike
Incidentally your logic has been warped by your mania.
What I actually say is, “Both parties are equally bad.”
What you choose to hear me say is, “Democrats are worse than Republicans.”
For you, one of the two parties must be “good” and the other “bad.” And since you are a Democrat, it is Democrats who are “good.”
This makes you a mirror image of right-wingers who, like you, insist that they are “good,” and Democrats are “evil.” Being a mirror image makes you are a fake leftist.
True leftists are not mirror images. They regard BOTH parties as evil. They consider what both parties actually DO, not what they say. True leftists consider acting and chattering to be two different things. They consider the actual extermination of foreigners to be worse than merely talking about building walls.
Obama, like you, is a fake leftist and a mirror image of Republicans. There is nothing that Obama did that differs from what Republicans would have done and did do. RomneyCare became Obamacare. There is nothing that Hillary ever did that was different from what Republicans would did.
Once in a while a true leftist rises up among Democrats, only to be torpedoed (Sanders) or abandoned (Russ Feingold) by other Democrats. You cheer this.
There are millions of fake leftists like you. Their job and yours is to sustain the illusion of choice; the illusion that neoliberal nightmares are actually good for the peasants, as long as Democrats impose the nightmares.
Shame on you sir.
LikeLike
No bigotry here:
Whew, that was a close one. Imagine not being able to discriminate against gays!
Question for my gay friends: For whom did you vote in the past election?
LikeLike
THOSE LOVEABLE DEMOCRATS
Nestlé, the world’s largest food company, has been a leader among corporations involved in the privatization of water, often outbidding communities for the right to manage their own water supplies. Nestlé’s former CEO Peter Brabeck-Letmathe said that water is not a human right, but a market commodity.
St. Obama must be a fan of Nestlé, since Obama never fixed the lead poisoning in Flint Michigan. Despite this, Democrats are always saintly in comparison to Republicans. (Right?)
Slovenia is the birthplace of soon-to-be First Lady Melania Trump (boo hiss). Slovenia also has abundant fresh water resources, with more than half of its territory covered in native forest. Earlier this year, Slovenia was declared the world’s most green destination, and its capital, Ljubljana, was named the greenest European capital city.
The high quality of Slovenia’s water, plus the corruption of the Slovenian DEMOCRATIC Party, made Slovenia a primary target of Nestlé.
Unfortunately for Nestlé, their DEMOCRAT allies in Slovenia are not in power. They are the opposition. Thus, Slovenia’s 90-seat parliament voted 64 to 0 to add an article to its constitution which states that “everyone has the right to drinkable water.” The article rejects the Nestlé / DEMOCRAT idea that water is a market commodity, instead declaring that “water resources represent a public good that is managed by the state.”
This makes Slovenia the first and only EU country to add the public right to water to its constitution.
The Slovenian DEMOCRATIC Party abstained from voting, saying that amending the constitution was unnecessary.
Miro Cerar, the Slovenian prime minister, rightly calls clean drinking water “the 21st century’s liquid gold.” Mr. Cerar called for lawmakers to vote in favor of the amendment to protect the nation’s water resources from being stolen by companies like Nestlé with the help of their DEMOCRAT allies.
Slovenia uses the euro. This would have made Slovenia vulnerable to attack by Nestlé and their DEMOCRAT allies if Slovenia had a trade deficit. Nestlé could simply wait until the Slovenian government was in debt, and was desperate for euros. Then Nestlé could steal Slovenia’s water for next to nothing. Unfortunately Slovenia has a large trade surplus, which has been getting larger since 2009.
Meanwhile back in the land of St. Obama, Nestlé is set to triple its water extraction from an aquifer in Michigan only 120 miles from Flint, where residents have not had access to clean drinking water for over a year. God bless St. Obama.
SOURCE: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/nov/18/slovenia-adds-water-to-constitution-as-fundamental-right-for-all
LikeLike
Obviously, the Democrats in Slovenia are the same as the Democrats in the U.S. Every fool knows that.
LikeLike
They are the same indeed. Both are equally corrupt.
Most countries have a duopoly that is equivalent to the Republicans and Democrats in the USA. Some countries have many parties, but all the parties form coalitions that wind up being duopolies. In most nations, both sides are equally corrupt, although there are a few exceptions (e.g. Slovenia).
In the USA, Democrats are at least as corrupt as Republicans.
By the way, nice job ignoring 95% of the irrefutable points I make.
LikeLike
We know for sure what Hillary would have done, since her past record in public office was horrendous. As for Trump, the only things we know for sure are…
[1] The fake leftists will continue to condemn Trump for doing all kinds of nasty things in office before Trump even takes office. These charges are wild speculation disguised as “fact.”
[2] No matter how positive Trump turns out to be, Hillary “would have been better.” Trump is “evil” not because of what he hypothetically might do, but because of what he supposedly *is*. Thus, no matter what Trump does, no matter how positive, his action will flow from “evil.” Indeed, the more positive his actions, the more it will be “proof” of his “evil,” since positive actions will be camouflage for his “evil.” It was affirmed right here that Trump would be “evil” even if he enacted the “ten steps to prosperity.”
LikeLike
LikeLike
This is an “action plan.” Whether Trump follows through with it is yet to be seen.
At this point all we know for certain, based on actual past performance in office, is that Obama and Hillary are at least as bad as any Republicans.
LikeLike