The U.S. economy is, uh, “doing well”

Image courtesy

Trump likes to brag about how well the economy is doing, usually referencing the Dow Jones Industrial Average, which is currently hovering around an astronomical $26,000. Other economic indicators make the economy look great, like an unemployment rate near 4% which is near full employment.

I won’t lie. The economy is, for now, doing quite well. After the worst crash in US history, worse than even Black Tuesday in 1929, the economy has been steadily growing thanks to Ben Bernanke and Barack Obama’s leadership in 2009. The Fed cut interest rates to spur liquidity and Obama signed the famed stimulus package into law, thus establishing the economic movement that prevented further losses and eventually got everybody back to work. Things could have certainly been much, much worse without these key decisions. Compared to what could have been, we are doing quite well.

But that was 2009, almost a decade ago, when the Fed cut interest rates to historic lows. Today in 2018, rates are still at 1.25%. We’ve seen very little in the way of raising the rates because, as we are told, raising rates too fast could spiral the economy back into recession. So if this is true, but the economy is doing well, what’s going on? Is the economy actually stable?

Today, even though a solid savings is the bedrock of personal finance, you would be stupid to put your assets into savings. Again, rates are so low that it just doesn’t make sense. Bonds, certificates of deposit, savings accounts, all of these stable investment vehicles are bringing back less than the rate of inflation – meaning you are essentially losing money by investing in them. While they still beat stuffing cash under the mattress, most people are moving their money around. They are spending, taking on debt (mortgages are extremely cheap right now), or investing in mutual funds and stocks which are expanding faster than the rate of inflation. And the banks are playing this game too, with so much “cheap money” it would be silly not to take advantage of it. All of this comes back to that 1.25% interest rate. All of this is by design.

When the Fed cut interest rates the last time the economy collapsed it got money moving around again, but now we’re addicted to it with no end in sight. As soon as people find out (once the entire country isn’t forced to invest in stocks due to the economic structure), their stock price will correct. In other words, much of the “gains” many companies have made have not been real.

And yet we’re supposed to believe a DOW of $26,000 is a sign of an economic boom. Are stock valuations actually climbing that high, or are Fed rates giving people no choice but to invest in stocks, thus artificially driving demand? I’m no economist, but to me the answer is obvious.

Let’s combine this with the fact that the United Nations is investigating extreme poverty in the United States, that wealth inequality between whites and people of color is getting worse over time, that economic inequality in the United States keeps getting worse, that 6.5 million children in the United States live in food-insecure households, that 69% of Americans work more than a full-time job to make ends meet, that worker productivity has skyrocketed while worker pay has stagnated, and on and on and on. Yet, we turn on the TV and we see Wall Street is exploding, so we must just be making up all of our personal economic troubles.

Oh, and then we’re told recently that if we don’t cut taxes on our wealthiest people and corporations, that the economic “gains” we’ve made in the last decade might go away again. Is this wealth creation? Are these companies actually increasing their economic value? Or is this wealth usurpation – usurping value from our government and from our poorest Americans? Again, if stocks were trading at their true value, their valuations would be strong independent of the tax system.

This is why the only path forward is progressive politics. The capitalist class has built a world economy solely for their own self-interest. They are not providing more value to their shareholders, they simply lobbied the government to break the system so that all money flows towards Wall Street, and by extension their own pockets. Wall Street is our enemy. Jeff Bezos is not our friend. Elon Musk is not our friend. Warren Buffet is not our friend. And neither are any of the banks or any of the capitalist class, because they have no plan to prevent another crash which will inevitably be worse than ever because we haven’t solved the fundamental issues that led us here in the first place. And if interest rates are already at historic lows, there will be no options to solve the next crash. What are we supposed to do, cut rates to 0%?

And when the crash comes it won’t be billionaires and bankers who receive the punishment, it will be us – unless we use the levers of power to change this right now before it’s too late.

UPDATE 2/5/2018, 5:29 pm: Yikes.


Is there even one good reason net neutrality had to go?

Ajit Pai, Chairman of the FCC, courtesy

Today Ajit Pai, chairman of the FCC, went ahead with the vote to get rid of net neutrality. Much ink has been spilled about net neutrality, but the basic premise is that the internet was regulated as a public utility, meaning certain consumer protections were built into its regulation. Today’s vote was to end that regulation of the internet, which opens up many profit-seeking behaviors from corporations – most infamously, “blocking” and “throttling” the internet in order to charge more for certain content.

We all know why net neutrality should have stayed. Currently the internet, being regulated as it is, protects consumers by providing uniform access to the same internet, treating each packet that travels through the internet equally. Everyone who has access to the internet in the United States has access to the same internet, and within their network each website or web service is accessed at the same speed. This is the “neutrality” part of net neutrality. Compare this to internet in countries like China, where websites the Chinese government doesn’t want their citizens to access load at incredibly slow rates, which funnels Chinese citizens into websites that can be monitored and censored by their government.

But why did net neutrality have to go? Does anybody even know? The obvious answer is to provide more profit opportunities for large media corporations on the backs of average citizens, but is there a consumer-centric argument for getting rid of net neutrality? I’ve been following the net neutrality debate for more than ten years now, and I’ve yet to see one. Usually the argument on the other side follows Ajit Pai’s defense – that it will open up investment opportunities that will “set the internet free.” What kind of investments though? Was there some problem with investments in the internet today that getting rid of these regulations would solve? I mean look around you – it seems to me that large and small companies alike are investing in the internet and web services just fine.

The real “problem” here is that giant conglomerate media companies have built an infrastructure around traditional media for generations, and now they are seeing that infrastructure threatened with open access to the internet. We all remember when Napster caused all of the giant music companies to lose their minds, but now it’s not just about pirating. Netflix, Hulu, Spotify, and other companies from silicon valley are jumping over the whole “build the infrastructure” business model and using existing cable lines to provide the same (often better) content to users for far less money than what other media companies charge – and this has media companies like Comcast in a panic. Comcast, who has been running fraudulent ad campaigns pretending they are in favor of protecting net neutrality, alone has spent millions of dollars lobbying to get rid of net neutrality.

The truly disgusting part of all of this was that net neutrality has had huge public outcry for its defense every time this subject gets brought up, so you would think they would just stop bringing it up. But no. After threatening to get rid of net neutrality over and over again the last few years – with billions of lobbying dollars putting wind into their sails, this time the FCC just went ahead and voted it out anyways while ignoring the millions of public comments on their website. They ask for public comments on their decisions and then do whatever they were going to do anyways.

The plan has always been to get rid of net neutrality. Each round of “public comments” has been a fraud. We’ll see if there was any consumer benefit to this in the coming years, but since I don’t feel your average consumer is personally affected by Comcast’s bottom line, I somehow doubt it.

The GOP props up immoral scumbags to get tax cuts for the rich

Roy Moore, child molester, frontrunner in the AL senate race. Courtesy

Isn’t it a little strange that Fox News, which was pretty critical of Trump in 2015 before it was clear he had clinched the GOP nomination, now acts as Trump’s personal state propaganda? Isn’t it strange that Breitbart news – the most racist, misogynistic, xenophobic media outlet we might have ever seen in our lifetimes – was bankrolled by the billionaire Mercer family? Isn’t it weird that many on the right wing are still defending Roy Moore who, on top of already being a homophobe and racist, is now clearly a child molester?

It has been obvious for a long time that the Republican party as a whole would much rather rile up racists and xenophobes with culture wars than talk about their actual policy goals, because their actual policy goals – gutting social services to pay for tax breaks for the rich – are extremely unpopular. The Republican party has been a strange marriage between racists, Christian conservatives, and the business class for a generation at least. But this level of immorality is a new ballgame, and the marriage is unsustainable.

The Republican party has already crossed the line in accepting Trump, who has been accused of sexual assault by at least 16 women. Now they are willing to go about as far as you can go politically by defending a child molester. This is because they are on the verge of an enormous tax cut for the rich, to the tune of $1.5 trillion of reduced federal revenue. It’s so close! They can’t let distractions like literally supporting a child molester make them lose sight of their ultimate goal now!

The Republican donor class’ tax cut dream is so close to becoming a reality, and that’s what all of this is really about. All of this culture war garbage, all of the liberal boogeyman fear mongering, the incessant Trump worship on Fox News, the xenophobia, the misogyny, the homophobia, all of it. The donor class needs the voting base to support Trump, and support guys like Roy Moore against all of our better moral judgment, in order to get their tax cuts. And if they don’t get their tax cuts, the party will pretty much implode.

One half of the makeup of the GOP is culture war nonsense, and the other half is donor class interests. And the donor class is getting really fed up with their lawmakers’ inability to pass tax cuts (and de facto tax cuts like the gutting of social services). What’s left after the GOP stops supporting and funding what is generally referred to as the “responsible” wing of the party? Who’s left besides the Roy Moores and Donald Trumps of the party, heavily backed by white supremacists like Steve Bannon?

If the GOP doesn’t get tax cuts passed, it could very well mean the implosion of the Republican party as we know it. They have attached themselves and fully embraced characters like Roy Moore, and if we think Roy Moore – an open homophobe, open Islamophobe, and closet pedophile – is the end of the slippery slope… well, we’re just not thinking creatively enough.

I don’t know what that would look like, and I won’t speculate on the unknowable (I mean, it would be pretty unprecedented), but a party that has accepted and propped up idiots of the lowest moral character in total desperation to get stupid, extremely unpopular tax cuts passed just simply doesn’t have much further to stoop. Their policies, simply put, are not popular. For the time, racism and xenophobia was just popular enough to get them limping over the finish line with a plurality or electoral college majority, but the country is shifting. Demographics are changing, young people are making up a larger percentage of voters and are more progressive and more politically motivated than ever. Policies driven by a global financial system on the verge of collapse aren’t just unpopular, they simply aren’t working for enough people any more.

The donor class’ acceptance of white supremacy is an act of desperation to sustain their stranglehold on our government. It won’t work forever.

Why I was wrong about the left

This is the new right wing. A former editor of Breitbart singing to real life Nazis who love Hitler, courtesy

Around the time of the Democratic Socialists of America convention (early August), I planned on writing something about how liberty was under threat from a socialist movement on the left. Being a liberal myself, or probably more accurately a “neoliberal,” I felt that a movement literally based around socialism was a threat to democracy, especially with the types of threats to democracy from socialist governments like Venezuela and throughout history. Then Charlottesville happened and my whole worldview got flipped upside-down. It was those same people, the DSA, who were out in full force resisting the Nazi march (one of whom, Heather Heyer, gave her life in this fight). You can see the entry I actually ended up writing here.

Well I should say, my worldview got flipped upside-down twice in the last year. Last November, I was convinced Hillary Clinton would win, like most of America I’m sure. I knew Trump had courted an enthusiastic base, and I knew his chances were better than most media outlets were giving him, but in my world there was no way enough of the “political middle” would come over to his side to actually win enough states.

Well, I was wrong. Turns out, I was wrong about a lot – more than just who would win the 2016 election. I was wrong about our liberal institutions working for the majority of Americans. In my world before that, I knew poverty existed. I knew people died due to lack of healthcare, went malnourished or in poor health due to lack of resources like clean water, nutritious food, and decent housing. I knew a large portion of our society was saddled with more debt they could afford. But I also believed in the slow march of progress, that if we trusted the democratic process, our voices would be heard and, little by little, these problems would be eased.

Well now our country is being led by white supremacist forces and reactionaries who unironically subscribe to 19th-century ideas of eugenics, ethnostates, and other long-debunked bullshit. The current government is pushing, with all of the king’s horses and all of the king’s men, for policies which a vast majority of the country rejects. So much for the slow march of progress. We’ve only circled back on ourselves as a society, and those issues of human suffering in our country I just described are only getting worse with direct threats to our well-being getting tossed around by the day in D.C.

I had underestimated just how badly liberal institutions had failed Americans. I had underestimated just how much Americans had lost faith in our institutions – in the government, the media, capitalist markets, the corporate structure – all of it. The preservation of those institutions means nothing to your average person if their basic needs aren’t being met, if they are constantly struggling just to survive, to get by to next week.

Americans’ willingness to turn to xenophobia in desperation, to try anything different, is not new. This has existed in human society forever. When things get bad for the average citizen, the first thing they want to do is exclude. “Why should we be letting new people into the country when there are people already living here who can’t get by?” Sound familiar? It’s instinctive. In a world of finite resources, where even your basic needs and having a reasonable standard of living are increasingly scarce, the last thing you want is more mouths to feed.

However, resources are not scarce. America is the richest country the world has ever known – by far. We have the means to ensure every resident has a decent standard of living, not one human being excluded, and it is piss-poor leadership to court this instinctive but monstrous sentiment for political points. The $80 billion military spending increase that was near-unanimously passed recently by congress would pay for tuition-free public college with room to spare. And yet we are told that ideas like this are too expensive. Not only that, but we are told can’t fund Medicare and Medicaid, that we can’t afford Social Security, that we can’t afford to expand healthcare and must make drastic cuts that hurt our most vulnerable neighbors. It’s nonsense.

I had been actively against changes in society that would be too disruptive – up until Charlottesville. I had been against them because they would be too disruptive. I had believed that the current system was doing a good enough job and it just needed small tweaks, but clearly I had been wrong. What is more disruptive – expanding the federal budget and reorganizing industries that aren’t working for enough people? Or a white supremacist government that courts literal Nazis for political gain, that is always trying to let more of our citizens die than already do, led by an actual buffoon, that is always two steps away from total collapse?

As I’ve said before, there is a battle of ideas in America right now. One side is going to win. Either we will build more walls and shoot more people, devaluing the human lives of those left behind by the failures of our institutions. Or we say no to all that and ensure that each human being has power over their own life – not one excluded. Either way, the “political middle” doesn’t exist any more. Not when the “political middle” voted for Trump in 2016. One side will win. If Democrats are not listening to and courting the left, then inevitably, the other side will win elections. And we can’t afford to let that go any further than it already has.

We are in a moral crisis, and there is only one solution

The deadly attack in Charlottesville at the hands of a white supremacist, courtesy

I haven’t been writing much lately because, well, there just isn’t much to say. By that I mean there is actually too much to say, and it is emotionally overwhelming. The events of the last week and a half have had me so morose, misanthropic, and ashamed for my country that frankly there just isn’t much to write about that hasn’t already been written about elsewhere.

All in one week, we have a President who threatened nuclear war with one country, threatened military action with another country, both presumably (and hopefully) with no plan on actually backing these threats up. Which is rich for a President who made a career out of criticising Obama for his “red line” comments on Syria.

Then things somehow got even uglier. The violence that left several dead and dozens injured in Charlottesville Friday and Saturday have shown that this country is in the middle of a deep, widespread moral crisis. White supremacism and white nationalism (which, because they’re not much different, I will here on out refer to simply as white supremacism), while they have always existed in this country, are now out and proud again.

Let’s be clear here – this movement is only out and proud because they have a leader in Trump. Trump has given these people and their toxic ideology legitimacy, which has emboldened them to come out from the online message boards where they have hidden for the last several decades to fester their hatred, and bring it out into the open for all the world to see. Trump is wholly responsible for the madness we are seeing now – and by refusing to refute them in his remarks on the subject, instead calling out “both sides” for violence (as if the small minority of leftists causing violence is somehow equal to the terrorism of white supremacists that has left one dead and 19 injured) – he has entrenched his position. By refusing to denounce these people and their ideology, by staying silent on white supremacy, Trump has said all he needs to say. And trust me, this has not gone unnoticed by white supremacists. Just take a look at this post from the Daily Stormer, a website dedicated to hatred, in response to Trump’s address Saturday:


Trump, and Trump alone, can take the wind out of the sails of white supremacy by strongly denouncing it. And if he can’t do that, he should resign because his mere presence gives fuel to the flames of their hatred. Since he will do neither, there is only one option to proceed – he must be removed from office. While this alone gives more legitimacy to his impeachment, I am hesitant to go down that path because it is a very political path, and a democratically elected leader should only be removed from office in the most extreme and dire circumstances. The circumstances should be so severe that the President has lost his democratic legitimacy, such that a vast majority of the country (80% or more) has stopped supporting him, and we simply are not there yet.

This leaves only one option for now, and that is a very boring and obvious one – defeat him, and the leaders and representatives who have his support, in elections. In 2018, the left can deal Trump a crushing blow by wiping out Republican majorities at the state level and Congress. We can turn Trump into a lame duck (if he isn’t already), at least as far as lawmaking is concerned, by coming out hard to the polls next year. And the state level may be even more important than the federal level. As our voting rights are now called into question more than ever, the most powerful ones who can stand up to voter suppression are those in power at the state level.

Then in 2020, Trump must be defeated by a candidate that the left can unite around. If the left cannot come together now, all is lost – the damage that has already been done will be expanded, cemented, and ripple outward for decades. Now is more important than ever to unite, and this is a message intended for both liberals and progressives.

policy must now take a back seat to taking power out of the hands of a man who is eager to court hatred and white supremacism for his own political gain

I am a liberal, in most senses of the word. I believe in free markets, in the power of capitalism to lift billions out of poverty, in individual liberty. I also believe in improving quality of life wherever capitalism has failed, but more than anything I believe in the rights of individuals to their own personal liberty, for the power to make their own direction in life free from state interference. That said, I am ready to unite around any candidate that can inspire the left, because the time to squash white supremacism, hatred, and political violence was yesterday. It was 2016. We are already too late to this, but it is better late than never to put it to bed. Given the current climate, I understand this probably means getting behind a candidate who I do not wholly agree with on policy, but policy must now take a back seat to taking power out of the hands of a man who is eager to court hatred and white supremacism for his own political gain.

I understand that candidate must be somebody who has a strong background of public service, of principled dedication to issues like a $15 minimum wage, and other policies which I find potentially ineffective. But this is not the time for purity politics, whether that’s on the left or the center. I am ready to get behind anybody who has the biggest tent to inspire and unite the left, and you should be too, because we cannot let the legitimacy of this hatred and violence go on for one day longer.

EDIT, 12:44 PM: Trump is finally denouncing white supremacists, the KKK, and Nazis as hate groups. Too little, too late. He has allowed this to go on too long, and benefited from it politically for too long. I am glad he has finally said something, but Steve Bannon, Sebastian Gorka, and the like are still holding positions of power in this country. They must be removed immediately, and he must continue to strongly and vocally rebuke white supremacism, if he wants any shot at legitimacy.

The fundamental misunderstanding at the heart of this administration

Jeff Sessions swearing in as Attorney General, courtesy

Recent tweets and speeches he’s given have the President throwing Jeff Sessions under the bus – the reasons given for his unhappiness are fairly nebulous. It is reported that he is looking for ways to get a new Attorney General, but this may alienate the wrong people – people Trump not only needs to be a successful president, but continue to be president at all if things get ugly enough for him.

Let’s be clear here – Trump wants Sessions gone because, due to Sessions’ recusal, Sessions cannot fire Robert Mueller, the special counsel investigating the Trump campaign and its ties to Russia. If Trump was truly unhappy with the recusal itself, or with Sessions’ unwillingness to investigate Hillary Clinton, he would have voiced this months ago.

There are a number of different ways he could do this. He could outright fire Sessions, Sessions could resign under pressure, or he could move Sessions to a new department. The first two would anger the conservative base and likely cross a red line for the GOP, who almost unanimously respect Sessions as a principled conservative. The third option, while it would anger the GOP less than the others, would still create problems for Trump.

This is coming up now because Trump wants to end the Russia investigation, and he can’t. Sessions recused himself from the investigation, as he said he would in his testimony to the Senate. The next person in charge of the special counsel is the Deputy AG, Rod Rosenstein, who appointed Mueller in the first place and would refuse to fire him. Therefore Trump has his hands tied – his only option for firing Mueller would be appointing a new Attorney General.

But this is also a ridiculous idea. Since the Attorney General is a position that would need Senate approval, the Senate would demand absolute independence of any new nominee from the Russia investigation as a condition of confirmation. GOP Senators have already drawn a line in the sand with this. This is especially true since Trump is now distancing his administration from the GOP, maybe even “declaring war” on the Republican Congress, who are increasingly seeing no reason to do Trump’s bidding. It is also reminiscent of Nixon’s “Saturday Night Massacre” where he fired acting Attorneys General down the line until somebody agreed to fire the special counsel. It was later used to justify his impeachment on grounds of obstruction of justice. The world would also see it as an admission of guilt – why burn through all the political capital you don’t have to end an investigation if you are innocent?

The Senate, while they might not move to impeach Trump due to GOP control, might instead use this action to justify hiring their own special prosecutor if Trump finds a way to fire Mueller – possibly hiring Mueller right back.

So what’s the deal? Why go through all this?

A large part of Trump’s appeal was that he was the master negotiator – he “alone” can do what no other politician can do. And a large part of the criticism of Trump was that he has no government experience. Wouldn’t a master negotiator see the bind he has already created for himself, the fact that he has already burned what little political capital he has, and leave well enough alone? Or is there some fundamental misunderstanding here – one that explains all of Trump’s actions so far in his short presidency?

I believe Trump thinks of himself as the boss of the American government. I believe that, lacking even a rudimentary understanding of civics, this is how Trump makes sense of our very complicated federal government. He thinks he is the boss – that the Attorney General is his own personal attorney, that the Justice Department is his personal police force, that the Joint Chiefs are his personal generals, and probably even that the president is the “boss” of Congress. This is why, when any of these individuals act with any sense of independence, he is angered. This is also why Trump thought Obama was weak and ineffective – he didn’t understand that the president doesn’t just tell others in the government what to do.

The man literally doesn’t understand that the president has to work to build political capital by working with others on an equal footing, finding compromises and joint solutions. He thinks the reason we have problems in America aren’t because solutions are complicated, but because other presidents weren’t bossy enough. He thinks, by acting with independence, others in government are “disobeying” him.

This is also why Trump will get weaker and less effective as time goes on. Those people will get thrown under the bus, fired, replaced by people actually willing to take the job, and he will have the same problem all over again. Or in the case of Congress, he will alienate them while simultaneously empowering them to stand up to him as only Congress can.

This time, with Jeff Sessions, Trump will step on a landmine if he tries to replace him with an AG willing to fire Mueller. It will set off a chain reaction that will end with, at the absolute least, a lame duck administration. The founders of our Constitution designed our government this way for a reason – to stop a president exactly like Trump from getting away with crimes and abuses of power. And it’s these same abuses of power that Trump sees as the actual role of the President, confusing checks on the power of the Executive Branch as weakness among his staff and cabinet. Fortunately for us, the Constitution provides guidance on handling such abuses, and Trump will be in for a rude awakening if he doesn’t come to terms to this fact quickly.

If Trump is guilty and pardons himself, it opens a door none of us want opened

Robert Mueller, courtesy

New reports are showing that the President has asked aides about his pardon powers – for his family, his allies, even himself, if the special counsel’s investigation into his campaign’s ties to Russia incriminates him.

A lot of Trump supporters have been saying they don’t care. If they haven’t outright denied any of the Russia business is true (#FakeNews!), then generally the refrain goes something like “Russia didn’t tell me who to vote for,” or “I don’t care about any of that, I want better jobs and a better economy.”

I can’t blame people for thinking this way. Of all the scandals and controversy we have seen in the news lately, much of it doesn’t affect our daily lives. If Trump colluded with Russia, it doesn’t directly affect my pay, my job security, my healthcare, or my children’s education. As far as these people are concerned, that’s all on TV, happening far away, for those people in suits in DC to argue about.

But a large part of Trump’s appeal was that he wasn’t influenced by anyone. He stood on his own, against the establishment, paying his way through his own campaign. He owed nothing to the millionaire and billionaire business interests of the party (in fact many of them actively worked against him), to the Washington establishment, to the Republican Party itself – it seemed he owed nothing to anyone besides his supporters. It was believed that he would work for nobody besides the little guy – the factory worker, the coal miner, the laborer.

This was their guy – the guy the working class supported to finally turn the neoliberal establishment on its head, as punishment for screwing them over for decades.

Why was this so appealing? Because of sovereignty. The idea was that Trump represented the power of the working class, pooling their voting power to finally fight back against the establishment which has enacted policy after policy that hurt them. The working class was regaining sovereignty over the federal government.

This is also why Russia meddling in our election is so dangerous, and why it does affect our daily lives. And why, if it does happen to come out that Trump was complicit in this collusion, he cannot be allowed to pardon himself. Putin has threatened our sovereignty, and if he is allowed to get away with it, it will open the door for every other major power on the planet to threaten our sovereignty as well.

A Trump supporter who thinks this doesn’t affect them should think about the possibility of Germany, or the European Union, or China supporting Trump’s opponent in 2020 – using state resources to hack Trump’s campaign or worse. This would weaken your support of your candidate, as you would be up against some of the most powerful political forces on Earth, who are out for their own interest – not yours.

It is already bad enough that Russia is seeing no fallout from the Republican majority for their actions. It would be infinitely worse if the president was guilty and pardoned himself, getting off scot free. This would not only open the door for every other power on Earth to meddle in our elections, but it would also give the President the power to break any law he or she wanted. You may feel that the special counsel’s Russia investigation is a witch hunt, but Trump won’t be in power forever. Do you want a Democrat to be able to break any law they want while in office? What if one day a socialist holds the office of the presidency?

What if a future president (that you may not like) defies the Supreme Court and pardons themself? If this seems far fetched and extreme, look at this headline in the Wall Street Journal this week.

Courtesy Wall Street Journal,

Imagine what our headlines would look like if the President had no checks and balances on their power.

If you voted for Trump, or voted at all, some part of you must believe in your sovereignty. Don’t be complicit in losing it.