One Party, The American Party

 James George

Political Science

30 March 2025

One Party

The American Party

Here is an idea from George Washington. If there must be a political party, make it one. Washington opposed political parties as he believed candidates for public office should stand on their individual merit. When I wrote How to Select an American President, I acknowledged his point.

Consider this as a proposed starting position for improving our very big problem—that being—having elected a tyrannical President by a slim margin from the Republican Party. The problem began when the Republican Party failed to properly vet its candidate. 

You might add that the Democrats didn’t do an effective job of vetting theirs either. That is because we have no standards for American Political parties. Which is why I wrote Standards for American Political Parties. 

In Standards for American Political Parties, I didn’t say there should be only one party. I acknowledged two, though I advocated common standards used by both to vet all elected officials bearing their brand.

A party’s brand begins with its platform and, subsequently, representatives' manifestos tailored to their offices. 

In How to Select an American President, I demonstrate the importance of American history and its relevance in understanding the evolution of political parties. The trouble is, we never agreed to the criteria for office expressed as relevant skill, knowledge, experience, and character. I spelled it out with the idea of building an “app” to help voters evaluate candidates. The principal service of political parties is to do the profanatory vetting and certify the truthfulness of candidates' declarations. In this way, parties are like personnel departments helping with the hiring process.

Americans need that type of help because the process is complicated, and the results are extremely important. In the end, individual voters make independent choices, though the role of the party is to ensure qualified candidates with high integrity and honesty.

We don’t have that now. Please read my books and act on my recommendations. Debate with me if you wish.

James A. George

How to Select an American President

Standards for American Political Parties

Limit Political Contributions

Restrict Oligarchs and Corporations

As an independent journalist attending a meeting at the American Enterprise Institute featuring Senator Mitch McConnell as a speaker, I had the opportunity to question him. At the same time, the CNN cameras recorded the session.

I asked, the Senator, since corporations are people, why not treat them as individuals such as there being one person. Then, you could restrict their contributions to one dollar per person. All things would be equal. What is wrong with that?

The Senator paused and pondered and replied, “I see what you mean, but that would require new legislation.” I thanked him and said  I hope Congress works on that. He said, “I don’t know about the dollar limit.”

Image Credit: AEI

How to Catch Rogue Trump

“In his second inaugural speech, George Washington observed that violating his oath would invite ‘the upbraiding of all who are now witnesses of the present solemn ceremony.’”

Why is Trump not prosecuted now for violating the law and his oath?

We witness his violations nearly daily; President Trump mocks the law, ridicules justices, and defies court orders. These are evidence and violations of his oath to uphold the law and the Constitution. 

“The Constitution confers no immunity from prosecution and civil suits upon presidents and former presidents, Congress might bestow such privileges and immunities.” Saikrishna B. Prakash, University of Virginia Law

While the Supreme Court allows that he is immune from actions taken as a part of his work as President, does this permit him to defy the law?

Reasonable people — we the citizens, are an active part of the answer. We don’t have to tolerate it and must pressure Republicans in Congress to do their jobs! They are the guardrails, especially when Trump defies justice and judicial orders.

AGs from many states have suits against him. We need action from Republicans in Congress. What is their liability for failing to protect us from authoritarian tyranny?

No Banzai for Democrats

 James George

Political Science

18 March 2025

No Banzai for Democrats

Via James Carville 

I am mad, like most Democrats. We hate losing, but we did. We resist Trump and the Republican Congress, and we want our leaders to fight hard. The trouble is, we don’t have enough boots on the ground and must win elections first.

Senator Schumer said that he and Hakeem Jeffries have a plan as a way forward. They want to move strategically and with tactical steps that should be apparent in several months.

One aspect of the plan is what I have recommended: Give the the rope and let them hang themselves. I think the Republicans are doing a good job of that. We Democrats should not play dead. We need to support organised political resistance and fresh leaders who have the energy, brains, and guts for the battle that is becoming a war to save the nation from tyranny. 

The United Nations of Mexico and Canada

 Let’s See

Ignited by the Trump-led attacks on both nations that include economic and political blasphemy, the nations of Mexico and Canada have had enough. The Presidents of those nations agree to an alliance to isolate the American states into a socio-economic enclave that it is. 

Missing are oligarchs who favour optimising economies by balancing economic, social, and environmental responsibilities. Why oligarchs? Well, somebody must invest in the endeavour and a well-regulated sustainable economy needs collaboration with capitalists. 

Mexico and Canada need to demonstrate fair application of the rule of law and a commitment to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Those are starting positions. 

Investors in the new alliance include those from European nations and Great Britain. Next, is where it gets tantalizing. The joint presidential alliance knocked on California’s door and Gavin said, “enter.” Negotiations ensued and the Governor said Let me put it to a vote to see if California would like to join the new alliance.

The polls showed Californians would go for it and so would Oregonians and Washingtonians. The entire west coast was ready to split.

Oh, the complications of dropping out of the former democratic nation are sticky. However, the rule of law has fallen, speeding the way forward.

What about Texas? Montezuma’s revenge! Forty percent of the Texans say they want to join the new alliance. Ay yi yi! Freedom and a new way forward is contagious.

(Snap out of it. I was just dreaming.)

Image: The Marine Express

Trump Issued Executive Orders that violate the Constitution and Rule of Law

Sworn to uphold the Constitution and the Rule of Law, Trump's latest executive orders violate his oath. He has launched an attack that undermines both the Courts and the Legislature. His actions are those of a tyrannical and sinister individual who is not worthy of being considered as an incumbent president. Instead, he must be treated as the criminal that most know him to be. He must be impeached, indicted, and prosecuted.

Never before has America experienced such tyranny. He is facing many lawsuits across the land, and he will lose them. If his appeals reach the Supreme Court, even with their bias, the cases are solid against him, and he will be forced to resign and face prosecution.

 

The question is, who among his cabinet will go with him as co-conspirators and collaborators, including the Vice President.

Image Credit: The Catholic Reporter

Status of Social Security

Republicans are attacking the Social Security System because they believe it is a “Ponzi scheme.”

 

“A Ponzi scheme is an investment fraud that pays existing investors with funds collected from new investors. Ponzi scheme organizers often promise to invest your money and generate high returns with little or no risk.”

 

First, Social Security is funded by employees who pay into the system throughout their work. Their payments accrue and earn interest. When retirement age is reached or a person becomes disabled, they receive apportioned benefits from their account as long as they live.

 

Managed properly, the system should remain sound, reliable and dependable.

 

A problem can occur if or when the number of retirees exceeds the number of new entrants. For instance, the number of baby boomers exceeds the aggregate number of new entrants. Still, the retirees who paid into the system should not be at risk because the system is based on administering their money.

 

What could go wrong? If Congress dipped into the system’s assets, that would destabilize the system. If too many people “qualify” for benefits without their having paid sufficiently into the system, a deficit could occur.

 

It is essential to understand the financial integrity of the Social Security System.

 

Republicans have never embraced the concept of government managed social security. Since Roosevelt, they argue that the system is socialism and prefer that people suffer their fate even if it means impoverishment. Therein is our national debate – the moneyed class against the middle class and poor.

 

In the news is that Republicans (Trump and Musk DOGE) want to reduce the Social Security Administration workforce. First, I know personally from having bid on IT system work at Social Security, the systems are woefully old and inefficient. Needed is a new IT infrastructure which requires investment.

 

Republicans argue that a privatized solution is better. However, there are no proposals, concept papers, or plans to demonstrate a better way.

 

Trashing the current system by destabilizing it puts retired persons and those near retirement at great risk.

 

What is the status?

“The Social Security system is facing a projected shortfall, with the trust fund reserves expected to be depleted in 2035, but the program will still exist, with ongoing taxes covering about 83% of scheduled benefits. Congress will need to take action to ensure full benefits are paid.” AI-generated content.

Open Letter to Speaker Mike Johnson

Open Letter to Speaker Mike Johnson

Subject: President Trump Lying on the Floor of Congress

Mr. Speaker, under your leadership in Congress, I expect you to hold the proceedings to the highest standard, beginning with truthfulness. 

Congress is no place for lying, especially incessant lying by the president or his vice president. I expect that you will uphold the rule of law without hesitation.

Unfortunately, you have permitted the President to lie incessantly and repeatedly even when his lies have been refuted with the facts. 

Until the President acknowledges his lies with admissions and apologies for each, I want you to censor the President from further addresses on the floor of Congress.

Furthermore, I expect you as Speaker to hold the same standard for members of Congress. While some issues are debatable, the facts must be presented to support what the parties believe is the truth.

Let the people decide truthfulness based on facts and the source of facts on merit.

Your incumbency and your legacy depend on you being the bearer of and enforcer of the truth.

When I tried to send this email to you, your website does not permit correspondence outside your district even though you are the Speaker of the House for all Americans. That is wrong.

Sincerely,

James George
District 1, Ohio