On the rare and precious occasions when the real questions of War and Peace and of our ravaged Economy are asked of our government in such forums as the U.S. Senate, they seem to disappear into the mist that pervades the dome above a Democrat Senate-majority and the corridors of the Democrat Administration. And that appears to be just fine with the Dem boosters at the state and precinct levels.
On July 24, Independent Senator Bernie Sanders addressed a Senate committee, in-part, as follows in the paragraphs below. I -- an ex-lifelong Democrat and never a Republican -- ask your patience in repeating brief portions of the Senator's address so to lay the foundation of the questions I would ask of you, or more specifically of Democrats.
Here is Independent Senator Sanders:
"Economically, the United States today has, by far, the most unequal distribution of wealth and income of any major country on earth and that inequality is worse today in America than at any time since the late 1920s.
"Today, the wealthiest 400 individuals own more wealth than the bottom half of America -- 150 million people.
"Today, one family, the Walton family of Walmart fame, with $89 billion, own more wealth than the bottom 40 percent of America. One family owns more wealth than the bottom 40 percent.
"Today, the top one percent own 40 percent of all wealth, while the bottom sixty percent owns less than 2 percent. Incredibly, the bottom 40 percent of all Americans own just 3/10 of one percent of the wealth of the country."
Think about what the Independent senator has said. Then think about these quite reasonable questions to ask of Democrat senators, our Democrat President, and Democrat partisan-citizen enablers:
(1) What Democrat senator will stand to address this skewed distribution of income, wealth, and property attributable to mal/misfeasance of decent government regulation and appropriate oversight -- with the conviction equal to the Independent Senator from Vermont? And why would he not?
(2) Where is, or can we reasonably expect the same level of conviction voiced by the Democrat President who refuses federal campaign funds for the ten-times higher "privately" donated campaign chest? (That's about $100 Million vs his own stated expectation of $1 Billion in private "donations.")
(3) What would a reasonable person think to be the quid pro quo of a very large privately furnished campaign contribution?
(4) Why is the issue of government vs private presidential campaign funding NOT now more prominently listed -- if at all -- on the current agendae of Democrat "meet-ups" at the state and precinct levels?
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).