Facts, Facts, Facts! They are pesky things

In my last posting to my blog "People Can’t Seem To Get Their Facts Right! (Comments)," I shared with my readers the reaction to my posting of two Letters to the Editor, the first of which set forth certain erroneous “facts,” and the second was my responding letter setting the record straight.

Not long after another letter appeared in The Record again setting forth facts, which I found to be erroneous. A transcript of the letter follows:

Obama hurting U.S. prestige

 What is apparent to me regarding the progress of the negotiations with the Islamic Republic of Iran, which are to be "fully" spelled out by June 30, is that the United States' status and perception as a superpower worldwide has been vastly diminished. Iran's quest for regional hegemony has been greatly enhanced.

 There is little doubt that American military and economic strength was unable to secure significant concessions from a low-grade military power and economically stressed nation.

 On this president's watch we have witnessed political chaos in Yemen, Libya, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and Tunisia. Need I point out how the president has bowed to the will of Vladimir Putin in his aggressive goals toward Ukraine?

 Jerrold Terdiman 

Woodcliff Lake, April 8

It did not take me long to respond, as set forth below:

The Letter to the Editor “Obama hurting U.S. prestige" (Record April 11) is way off the mark.

It ignores history. Did the US do better under past Administrations in dealing with an even lower grade power, North Korea, which continues to be a greater threat then Iran is, or  will ever be.

Also focusing on the President in office as the culprit when things go wrong is naïve.

As Shakespeare said: “What’s past is prologue”.

Iran is the power that it is as a direct result of our ill-advised invasion of Iraq. Before that invasion Iraq was a counterweight to Iran and fought a long and bitter war against that country. Now it is an ally.

Iran used to be a democratic state, until the Eisenhower Administration overthrew the government, and installed the hated Shah, which led to his overthrow by the present regime.

Reagan strengthened the Ayatollah in the infamous Iran/Contra scandal.

Russian aggression was encouraged when the G.W. Bush Administration did nothing in response to the invasion by Russia of Georgia in 2008.

And of even greater importance are the slanders and the lies that are now directed at Hillary Clinton, and particularly the Clinton family’s great achievements in dealing with a variety of problems both Domestic and International through the Clinton Foundation.

Thus the Right Wing publication The National Review published a smear of the foundation under the heading "The Clinton Foundation Is Not a Charity" and then among its many unsupported and false allegations there appears this:

Charity Navigator, which rates nonprofits, recently refused to rate the Clinton Foundation because its “atypical business model . . . doesn’t meet our criteria.”

Charity Navigator put the foundation on its “watch list,” which warns potential donors about investing in problematic charities.

Wow! That’s pretty damning, if that reputable organization had said that, but here is what they in fact did say:

Why isn't this organization rated?

 …this charity's atypical business model can not be accurately captured in our current rating methodology. Our removal of The Clinton Foundation from our site is neither a condemnation nor an endorsement of this charity.

 What does it mean that this organization isn’t rated?

 A lack of a rating does not indicate a positive or negative assessment by Charity Navigator.

Charity Navigator then goes on the explain:

Bill Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation is on Charity Navigator's Watchlist. Here's why:

 On February 18, 2015, The Washington Post reported that, "the foundation has won accolades from philanthropy experts and has drawn bipartisan support, with members of the George W. Bush administration often participating in its programs."

The article also states that:

...in posting its donor data, the foundation goes beyond legal requirements, and experts say its transparency level exceeds that of most philanthropies.

(The link attached to the quote from the National Review about Charity Navigator simply takes you to the National Review website, if you want to see the actual Charity Navigator comments I suggest this link.

What an incredible difference between what the National Review claimed and the truth.

Finally, the reader might ask where did the National Review get this story? it was taken verbatim from an article in the Murdoch-owned New York Post (I assume with permission) but none of it is true, as a quick check with the Navigator site reveals.

And what do we find out about the Clinton foundation. Let us look at Wikipedia.

It has some negative things to say in quoting from the Right Wing lawyers association The Federalist, but it then goes on to say:

The Clinton Health Access Initiative (CHAI) is a global health organization committed to strengthening integrated health systems in the developing world and expanding access to care and treatment for HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis. Organizations such as the Clinton Foundation continue to supply anti-malarial drugs to Africa and other affected areas; according to director Inder Singh, in 2011 more than 12 million individuals will be supplied with subsidized anti-malarial drugs. As of January 1, 2010, the Clinton HIV/AIDS Initiative, an initiative of the Clinton Foundation, became a separate nonprofit organization called the Clinton Health Access Initiative (CHAI).

 CHAI strives to make treatment for HIV/AIDS more affordable and to implement large-scale integrated care, treatment, and prevention programs. Since its inception, CHAI has helped bring AIDS care and treatment to over 750,000 people living with HIV/Aids around the world. Its activities have included AIDS care and treatment in Africa, including the brokering of drug distribution agreements. During President Clinton's 2006 trip to Africa, CHAI signed agreements with several new countries. Over the course of the past year, CHAI has expanded its partner countries and members of the Procurement Consortium to over 70 including 22 governments, who are now able to purchase AIDS medicines and diagnostic equipment at CHAI's reduced prices.

 CHAI launched the Pediatric and Rural Initiatives in 2005 to focus on bringing AIDS care and treatment to those most often marginalized— children and those living in rural areas. CHAI also negotiated agreements that reduce the prices of second-line drugs and rapid diagnostic tests. In May 2007, CHAI and UNITAID announced agreements that help middle-income and low-income countries save money on second-line drugs. The partnership also reduced the price of a once-daily first-line treatment to less than $1 per day.

 In addition to drug access programs, CHAI also focuses on country operations, with programs that help governments with pediatric care and treatment, improving rural health care and human resources for health and the prevention of mother to child transmission (PMTCT). In 2008, approximately 185,000 children benefited from increased access to infant diagnosis aided by the training of 8,500 health care workers who offered pediatric antiretroviral treatment (ART). 2008 also saw six PMTCT country programs launched which ensured that every HIV pregnant woman in the program catchment area was provided with prevention, care and treatment services including counseling, testing and feeding recommendations.

 In the Summer of 2008, CHAI's Executive Vice President, Inder Singh, announced the closing of cost-reduction agreements with several suppliers of malaria medication, which will be extended to CHAI partners as part of its care and treatment program.

Does that sound like an organization that should be criticized and condemned ? Its legitimacy questioned? Why is the media, looking for points of criticism?

Would anyone criticize and condemn it, if it were not associated with the Clintons?

But as is often said: “No good deed goes unpunished.”

One of the leading contributors to this foundation, which is one of many foundations the Clintons support, is the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

Comments, questions, or corrections are welcome, and will be responded to and distributed with attribution, unless the writer requests that he/she not be identified. However, please give your full name and the town and state in which you reside or have an office.

The War in Afghanistan

 As I write this it is before the President has announced his policy. This is deliberate because I did not want my views to be influenced by the President's decision.

What disturbs me is that it is a very complicated decision and yet most people, whether Left or Right hold strong opinions lacking nuance or even real understanding.

Thus Cheney, our former V-P who dithered for eight years about having a real strategy in Afghanistan, or about adequately sourcing it, accuses our President of dithering because, unlike our previous President, Bush, he has a deliberative consultative way of reaching decisions. Instead of going, as the former President did, “by his gut”; he takes two month to reach a considered conclusion. To the former V-P it seems everything is a no-brainer, whether it is torture or escalating the commitment of our overstretched troops, and his Republican allies in the Congress are no different.

The hawks even go so far as to argue that we could have and should have won in Vietnam. See the article in Newsweek of November 16 by Evan Thomas and John Barry but that is so unhinged from reality that it is hardly worth time and effort in refuting, for it assumes that it was important for us to win in Vietnam, which subsequent developments have disproved. Losing did not affect our security (the domino theory was wrong) and today we have friendly relations with that regime. In fact it seems that losing in Vietnam had more positive results than winning in Korea, for N. Korea is a hostile state while Vietnam is an important trading partner. As for “we could have won” assumes infinite patience on the part of the American Public and a level of military firepower that might well have inflamed the region in a conflagration, (we dropped more explosives on little Vietnam than on all the axis countries in WW II) which could have set off the 3rd World War.

On the other hand many in the liberal camp, such as Bob Herbert, writing in the New York Times of November 8, 2009, without evaluating the security aspects of the Afghanistan war, seem to feel, in his words that, “We’re worried about Kabul when Detroit has gone down for the count.” That is a wrong and simplistic, though a populist analysis. When we have problems at home it does not follow that we should ignore the problems away from home, and our security can never be dismissed so easily. Would Herbert take similar attitude toward the people of Porto Prince in Haiti. Would he reject, for example, Obama's inspirational words in his inaugural address, "To the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow; to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds." Would he also say, “We’re worried about Porto Prince when Detroit has gone down for the count.” 

Others are ready to equate Afghanistan with Vietnam and to call for a quick end to our involvement."

As I see it, neither conclusion is obvious and those who see ‘the right course so easily” have not considered all its ramifications.

I have heard that we need not commit more troops to Afghanistan because there is actually no real danger to our security from there and that if Al QAEDA does not find a sanctuary there, they will find it elsewhere, in one of the failed states on the African continent. But if that were so they would have already moved, because they have not had a safe haven in Afghanistan for years, are wandering without real bases, as they roam in the mountains between Pakistan and Afghanistan. So the argument that withdrawing from Afghanistan and letting the Taliban/Al QAEDA return does not appear to be valid. Of course, The Taliban and Al QAEDA are not one and the same, but until the Taliban chooses to break the link it might as well be, and there is no indication that they are prepared to do so.

There is also the danger that the Taliban, which now uses Pakistan as a safe haven to attack in Afghanistan, could if in power in Afghanistan use that area as a base to destabilize Pakistan, and that is a far greater danger, though Pakistan, at least for now, seems not very enthusiastic about our stepped up activities in its neighboring state, arguing instead that the more pressure that is brought to bear on the Taliban, the more they are pushed into Pakistan with destabilizing results. This leaves the issue in the grey area to say the least. We are in a situation where we are damned if do and damned if we don’t.

And yet it seems that if we could succeed in keeping the Taliban from overrunning that poor country at a cost that is not excessive in lives and/or treasure it would appear to be the wise thing to do.

But in Shakespeare’s words, “There’s the rub,” for at the moment the Taliban are in the ascendancy. On the other hand that is the direct result of the neglect and inattention given this vital theater while resources where devoted to the wrong place, in Iraq.

Should we not now at least for a limited period see if we can retrieve some limited success from that neglect?

Thus I discount as nonsense the hawks as represented by Cheney and Thomas, but that does not resolve the issue of withdrawal or for that matter a surge. Certainly, the dishonesty and corruption of the Karzai regime does not bode well.

Nor do I join those who feel that the President should be bound by his generals’ recommendations. Our founding fathers, wisely made the President Commander in Chief, not as Bush/Cheney claimed, to enhance the President’s power over the Congress, but to make sure that such important decisions are not made by generals, who have been wrong time and time again, (Lincoln had to keep changing commanders) they misled us in Vietnam, and have never been known for not wanting anything but more troops.

I conclude that it is too dangerous and too early to give up on Afghanistan, but that we must have, if not time lines, performance tests, so we do not get bogged down in an endless and fruitless war. The benefits of a successful pacification of the area are too great not to allow for one last and limited effort.

This view will not earn me kudos from Right or Left, but there are times when the middle is not a straddle, but the right place to be.  

Bush's Third Term

The Obama campaign keeps warning that John McCain is running for a third Bush term. I have concluded that as bad as that would be, a third Bush term would not be as bad as a McCain/Palin administration. Some of you might wonder how I could make such assertion, but when we look at the record we see that Bush in the waning days of his Presidency, and in an effort to save something of his legacy, has begun to moderate his confrontational foreign policy. After years of denouncing Clinton’s diplomatic approach to North Korea, which yielded increasing concessions by that dangerous regime, and after spending seven years of his Presidency with nothing but belligerency toward that nuclear power, even calling them one of the “axis of evil”, Bush has been resorting to diplomacy. His previous policy resulted in North Korea exploding a nuclear device in 2006. The new diplomatic stance has resulted in North Korea agreeing to resume disabling a plutonium plant and allowing some inspections to verify that it had halted its nuclear program as promised months earlier. John McCain who had earlier criticized the diplomatic effort, quickly expressed concern. (NY Times October 12, 2008)

Barack Obama has called for negotiations without preconditions with Iran as having more promise of getting results than simply making threats. The preconditions which Bush had demanded were that Iran stop reprocessing plutonium before we would talk to them, which of course would mean that Iran would have conceded the very thing which negotiations are supposed to accomplish. The Bush Administration has heeded Obama’s call for unconditional talks and sent a high-ranking diplomat to meet with the Iranians. (cnnpolitics.com July 16, 2008)

McCain has denounced such an approach and continues to insist on no talks until our conditions are met first. He thinks bombing Iran is a joke and sang, “Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran” to the tune of Barbara Ann. His running mate Sarah Palin and the person who would become Commander in Chief with her finger on the atomic button if anything should happen to McCain, said in her first interview since becoming the Republican nominee for vice president that the U.S. might have to go to war with Russia under certain circumstances. (The Chicago Tribune, September 12, 2008)

If the election were to be between a third Bush term and McCain I would vote for Bush. Thank God that is not the choice I, or anyone else, has to make. Yes, the economy and McCain total lack of comprehension as to what got us into this mess or how to get us out of it is what is on most people’s mind and national security is supposed to be McCain’s strong suit. But if anything, I find him and the woman he has chosen to be his running mate even scarier on defense policy than on the economy. But what have they offered us on the economy. They decided to change the subject. With the Standard and Poor having dropped 37.7% as of October 11 from the beginning of this year (even more since its last high) and having dropped 18.2% just the week of October 6th McCain took to a campaign of slander, with Palin accusing Obama of “hanging around with terrorists.” (October 4, 2008 Associated Press) Of course aside from the fact that Obama’s connection to William Ayers, a 1960s radical, is tenuous at best, they are trying to give the impression that Obama has a connection to what they call “Islamist terrorists” or specifically Al QAEDA, which of course fits into the underground slander, which claims Obama is a Muslim, when they know he is a Christian, and the use of Obama’s middle name, Hussein.

That didn’t seem to work and, lo and behold McCain switched tactics again. The Washington Post of October 11, 2008 reported:

“At the end of perhaps the most charged and negative week of the presidential campaign, Sen. John McCain sought to tone down his rhetoric toward Sen. Barack Obama even as his running mate, allies and his own advertising continued to attack the character of the Democratic nominee.

“On Friday, McCain urged a crowd of skeptical supporters at a town hall forum in this Minneapolis suburb to be respectful of his rival for the presidency despite their deep policy differences with Obama.

“The Republican nominee drew a cascade of boos from the crowd when he called Obama ‘a decent person’ and told an expectant father that he does not have to be scared if he is president of the United States.

"We want to fight and I want to fight, but we will be respectful," McCain said, again prompting loud boos when he declared that he admires Obama's accomplishments. "I want everyone to be respectful, and let's be sure we are. . . . That doesn't mean you have to reduce your ferocity. It's just got to be respectful."

“At one point in the event, McCain grabbed back the microphone from an elderly woman who had begun to say that she didn't like Obama because he is an Arab. “ No, ma'am. No, ma'am," McCain said. ‘He's a decent family man, a citizen who I just happen to have serious differences with on fundamental questions."

“His comments came a day after an angry crowd at a Wisconsin rally shouted epithets about the Democratic nominee, pumped their fists angrily in the air and catcalled repeatedly when Obama's name was mentioned. Several called him a "socialist," and many flipped their middle finger as a press bus drove by.

“McCain appeared determined to respond Friday, saying that he respects Obama and only quieting the boos by saying "if I didn't think I would be one heck of a better president, I wouldn't be running."

“But throughout the day, McCain's allies and advertising unleashed a flurry of attacks on his rival's ethics, touting Obama's ties to a Vietnam War-era radical and accusing him of being connected to a group accused of engaging in voter fraud.

“He launched a tough new television ad linking Obama to William Ayers, a founder of the Weather Underground, which bombed U.S. facilities in protest of the Vietnam War. The narrator in the ad says Obama "lied" about his relationship with Ayers and accuses the Democrat of "blind ambition, bad judgment." (For those who might want to hear McCain’s actual words defending Obama click here)

My first reaction upon seeing this video clip was to react positively and to say to myself, “Finally the old McCain is back, he may have the wrong policy prescriptions, but he is showing integrity” but then I realized that this is just another zig-zag in a McCain who will do anything to keep his chances of the Presidency alive. The smear was backfiring. The crowd, which he was addressing, was small and the media audience would be large. Maybe, just maybe, this might get him some independent voters. It is just another campaign tactic in the erratic and indecisive McCain campaign.

Jewish voters in Florida having been flooded with smears leaving many of them believing that Obama is a Muslim, which he is not, that he is an Arab, which he is not, that he is anti-Israel, which he is not. If McCain is sincere about his newfound integrity let him go to Florida and address elderly Jewish voters down there and tell them the truth. It may not get him elected, but at least he will have regained some measure of his integrity.

These Jewish voters as well as other voters may be interested in an article that appeared in the NJ Jewish Standard of October 10, 2008, which has the headline, “FOR SECOND TIME IN A MONTH, GOP THWARTS IRAN SANCTIONS” and goes on to say, “WASHINGTON – Republicans in the U.S. Senate have sunk anti-Iran sanctions for the second time in less than a month, drawing allegations that they are putting politics ahead of the need to confront Tehran’s nuclear program.

“Senate Democrats made one final bid last week to pass legislation that would tighten sanctions aimed at getting Iran to stand down from its suspected nuclear weapons program. Among other things, the stalled measure would facilitate efforts to divest from the Islamic Republic.

“Republicans blocked it the evening of Oct. 2, leading Democrats once again to suggest that the GOP was playing politics by obstructing legislation championed by Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.).

“We’ve tried to get this done in this body; there’s been objection by the Republicans. That’s unfortunate,” said Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.), the Senate majority leader. He made his comments after Sen. Wayne Allard (R-Colo.) exercised his prerogative to obstruct the legislation.

“Senate Republicans continue to block anti-Iran sanctions introduced by Democrats, including U.S. Sens. Barack Obama and Chris Dodd."

So much for Obama being soft on Iran or anti Israel.

What Have Republicans Wrought?

As we conclude the sixth year of the Republican reign (and by Republican reign I mean having complete control of all the levers of government, the executive, both houses of the Congress and a compliant Supreme Court) it may be well to look at what has happened on their watch. We have often argued about their policies and have found them wanting, but it may be that a much more telling measure may be what they have wrought.

Let us begin with a worldview. As Bush was sworn in on January 20, 2001 the country was at peace. Democracy was sweeping the globe; moderate democratic governments were in power in South America, and in much of the globe including Thailand. Iraq was contained with sanctions and no fly zones and in Iran it’s youth was clamoring for reform and had elected as its President, the moderate, Mohammad Khatami. Korea was a member of the Nuclear Non-
Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and had admitted inspectors into it’s closed society. It had negotiated the “Sunshine Policy” with South Korea, which led to a lessening of tension, and we were witnesses to relatives from the divided nation meeting each other, amid hugs and tears for the first time in decades. In Thailand a Democratically elected government ruled the country.

Now six years later, we have extreme left wing governments in power in Venezuela and Peru and are nervous as to the direction of the populist government of Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva in Brazil.

In Thailand the Democratically elected government has been overthrown by a military coup and a military dictatorship reigns, without a murmur of protest from our government.

In Palestine the radical Hamas has been elected.

Iraq lies in ruins as the death toll of our troops mounts and the total casualty figure is withheld from us. As for Iraqis, their death toll has reached hundreds of thousands and total casualty figures are never mentioned, either for American troops or for Iraqi civilians, as though people who have lost their limbs, but are alive are irrelevant. And what is the response by the head of the Republican Party, who is President? After saying “We must stay the course” innumerable times, he now tells us he never meant that, but wants us to stay the course. After Washington Post columnist, Bob Woodward, published his book “State of Denial” the President assures that he actually sees the television images just as we do, after having told us they are misleading and don’t show all the good things.

He accuses his critics of a mentality of “Cut and Run” apparently never having heard of “Strategic retreats,” so that our soldiers may live to fight another day. The Republicans have lost the war and more importantly the peace in Iraq, and attack their critics for not joining them in their “State of Denial.”

Afghanistan, which was the one and only success of this Administration is back slipping as a result of neglect, and looks like a resurgent Taliban may yet turn that unhappy country into another Iraq.

In Iran, Khatami has been replaced by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the youth who once clamored for reform, now clamor for atomic power and cheer the madman. Any hope that the youth will successfully push for reform has gone down the drain.

Korea has left the NPT, kicked out the inspectors and rather than forswearing an atomic bomb brags about having one. It probably does not, but if we “stay the course” in this theater, it undoubtedly will have one before long.

In the meantime Russia’s atomic weapons are left unguarded and it is a more likely source for such weapons falling into terrorist’s hands than any of the rogue states, but negotiations to safeguard this danger have been all but abandoned.

When it comes to terrorism all attempts by the terrorists to attack our homeland were thwarted before the Republicans gained ascendancy. In the years immediately preceding that ascendancy, the terrorists tried again and again to attack our homeland. They attacked the World Trade Center but it was unsuccessful. They planned to blow up 12 U.S. jetliners simultaneously. They planned to attack and blow up UN Headquarters. They planned to blow up FBI Headquarters; the Israeli Embassy in Washington; Boston airport; the Lincoln and Holland Tunnels in NY and the George Washington Bridge. They were thwarted each time. And then Republicans gained power and 9/11 happened and somehow they reaped benefit from it. It shows that they are good at one thing!!!! PROPAGANDA. How can one reap credit for failure?

On the home front Republicans inherited a surplus in the National budget. The federal budget surplus for fiscal year 2000 amounted to at least $230 billion and the cumulative National debt stood at 5.7 trillion. Even though during the previous twelve years of Republican rule preceding the Clinton Administration, the Federal debt had quadrupled, the White House and the Congressional Budget office projected that the National debt of 5.7 trillion would be retired in ten years. No one questioned these projections and this Republican Administration, with the blessings of the Chairman of the Fed. Alan Greenspan, expressed fear that without a tax cut the surplus would be too large. Well. We needn’t worry about that any more. The cumulative national debt is now 8.5 trillion. While huge sums are stolen, laws are written by lobbyist for their clients instead of by legislators for the American people, and pork is rampant with appropriations for bridges to nowhere. Citizens Against Government Waste calculates that pork barrel spending has exploded from 1,439 projects worth $10 billion in 1995 to 13,997 worth $27.3 billion in 2005. The “emergency” bill for Hurricane Katrina and the Iraq war included $1.8m to promote art in West Virginia. At the same time taxes are slashed for a small minority of Republican campaign contributors. How do they propose to remedy this mess? They tell us our entitlements cost too much money. The say we can’t afford Social Security or Medicare or Medicaid anymore or loans and grants for needy college students.

In the meantime wages are stagnating. In the years 2000 to 2005 total compensation for workers, which includes wages, health insurance and pension benefits, declined 2.5% as a percent of gross domestic product, according to the United States Bureau of Economic Analysis. This contrasts with the 1990s when Workers’ share of the economy grew by 2.3%. What makes this even worse is that it happened while productivity was increasing rapidly.

As for unemployment an area where Republicans are bragging about the low rate, it should be noted that in 2000 just before Republicans seized the Presidency and enacted their “stimulating” tax cuts the unemployment rate stood at 4%. By 2003 it was up to 6% and it is finally down to 4.5% which they claim shows how well things are working. It took them 6 years to get it close to where it was when they seized power. The pain this has inflicted on real people can be seen from the fact that when Wallmart offered it’s extremely low paying jobs without benefits, desperate job seekers lined up. On one occasion 25,000 potential employees vied for 325 available jobs. On another 15,000 people lined up to try to snag one of the 400 available jobs.

Most incredibly, even the people who supposedly are the beneficiaries of the Bush policies have not fared well. The Investor Class, whose taxes have been slashed again and again, has not fared well in this Republican era. Between the ascendancy of a Republican President to go with a Republican Congress investors have actually lost money. At the close of the market on January 19, 2001 the day before Bush took office the Dow stood at 10,587. On October 30 2006, after a very strong run up during October it stood at 12,098 or a gain of 1,511 or 14%. During this period inflation caused purchasing power to decline by 15% or a net loss to investors of 1%. But the Dow is a poor measure of the stock market because it only tracks 30 carefully chosen stocks and they are not weighted equally, so that no one can invest in its index. The S&P 500 which tracks 500 of the largest companies is a much more meaningful indicator. It stood at 1,342 at the beginning of Republican ascendancy. On October 30 it was at 1,378, a difference of 36 or 2%. Factoring in inflation, investors in an S&P index fund lost 13%. If we look at the Nasdaq we find the respective figures to be 2,770.38 and 2,359.86 a loss of 411 points or a loss of 14%. When inflation is factored in that is a whopping 29 % loss.

WHY WOULD ANYONE VOTE REPUBLICAN?????????

It seems to me that the Republican Party not only does not deserve to govern but it cannot justify it’s very existence. It deserves to follow the way of the Whigs. It needs to disappear. Then the Democratic Party can and would split into two responsible parties and we would be governed by the people, and not by experts in deception and propaganda.