Is Russia's-engineered and Jeffrey Epstein's crime syndicate-financed Republican Party attacking America a new way by attacking police, fire, healthcare, labor, and/or other unions to engineer the end of America to aid, comfort, and/or adhere to Russia? Destroy and defund U.S. law enforcement?

CHILD TRAFFICKER VLADIMIR PUTIN'S RUSSIAN-ENGINEERED AND JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S CRIME SYNDICATE-FINANCED REPUBLICAN PARTY HAS BEEN ATTACKING AMERICA A NEW WAY BY ATTACKING THE UNIONS OF POLICE, FIRE, HEALTHCARE, LABOR, AND/OR OTHER UNIONS

Republicans in the U.S. Congress have repeatedly called for the "destruction" as well as the "defunding" of U.S. law enforcement -- best achieved by passing laws to do the same -- and by destroying police and other unions that protect the working class from the failed billionaire experiment, and for anyone who tries to resist the same, the Republican Party has stacked SCOTUS with organized crime loyal to the destruction of rights for non-billionaire Americans, and most of them are claiming they are above the law, even though they aren't. They'll basically posture that they are allowed to stay in power and above the law, while being bribed by billionaires, until the U.S. law enforcement they are threatening to destroy put a stop to the same.[2]

As summarized by Kenneth Peres at Common Dreams, "We are enmeshed in several "existential crises" that Trump and the Republicans have exacerbated - climate change; threat of nuclear war; US democracy; and the Covid-19 pandemic. However, there is at least one other "existential crisis" that is most often overlooked - the very existence of unions as an effective representative of working-class interests is at risk. Trump and the Republicans have launched a broad offensive involving all three branches of government to undermine the legal and civil foundation of organized labor: the right to be represented by a union and to collectively bargain for wages, benefits, and working conditions.

Four more years of Trump could result in the utter demise of the labor movement and the immiseration of a large portion of workers while furthering the concentration of income, wealth and power among a corporate and billionaire elite. This is not to say that Biden and the Democratic Party are the second coming of FDR and the New Deal. However, Biden and the Democrats are not out to destroy unions and, at the very least, will blunt the corporate/Republican anti-union crusade. And, at best, Biden and the Democrats will enact pro-worker legislation to the degree that unions and progressive groups are mobilized and activated. While the Democrats represent the possibility of pro-worker legislation especially if pushed by mass mobilization, Trump and the Republicans are out to destroy unions no matter what we do.

In a series of three articles, I will examine the anti-worker offensive launched by the Republican Party and President Trump as well as the alternative offered by the Democratic Party and Biden. This first article will analyze the reasons why the Republican party has declared a war against unions. The second article will examine the two-pronged offensive launched by President Trump and the Republican Party against unions; namely, stacking the deck by appointing proven anti-union ideologues to key positions and rigging the rules by enacting anti-union/pro-corporate policies. The final article will describe Biden's stated policy positions in relation to labor and propose a number of recommendations for union supporters to mobilize not only to defeat the anti-union Trump-led Republican Party but also to ensure that a Biden administration follows through on his pro-worker promises.

While these articles focus on the attack on workers' rights and the promotion of corporate power, they are in no way meant to take away from the importance of the other crises and issues we face - the struggle for workers' rights is inextricably linked to the struggle for civil, human and economic rights; a clean and healthy environment; an equitable distribution of income, wealth and power; and the creation of an effective and functioning democracy.

The GOP Wants to Destroy Unions

The Republican Party has historically been a bitter opponent of labor unions. Since the New Deal, Republicans have consistently supported efforts to weaken unions by eliminating or eroding statutory protections for the right to organize and collectively bargain for better wages, benefits and working conditions. Most famously, Republicans initiated and overwhelmingly supported the Taft Hartley Act which weakened unions by prohibiting many of the tactics that made unions formidable during the 1930s and 1940s. President Reagan launched another attack against unions when he broke the air traffic controllers union (PATCO) during his first term and legitimized the use of non-union "permanent replacements" for striking union workers. As will be examined in the next article, President Trump and the current Republican Party have taken this anti-union crusade to new heights.

Big Business funds - and therefore controls - the Republican party. According to data from the Center for Responsive Politics, big business invested $20.1 billion in federal campaign contributions from 1990 through the first half of 2020. Republicans received 57% while Democrats received 43%. Business trade associations including the powerful US Chamber of Commerce gave 84% of their campaign contributions to Republicans and just 16% to Democrats. A 2019 report examining the donations of the CEOs of the top 1,500 publicly traded companies from 2000-2017 found a strong bias in favor of Republicans: 57.7% donated to Republicans, 18.6% to Democrats, with the rest leaning toward neither party. Even though big business does give billions of dollars to Democrats and thus has a lot of power within the Democratic Party, big business gives many billions more dollars to the Republican Party which it dominates. Meanwhile, unions invested just $1.6 billion in total campaign contributions from 1990 to 2020 - 91% of which went to Democrats.

Big Business Wants to Destroy Unions - therefore, the Republican Party Acts to Destroy Unions. Big business does not overwhelmingly fund the Republican party for altruistic reasons - there is a quid pro quo. And part of the deal is that the Republican party must follow the lead of big business in opposing unions

• Unions form the largest civil institution that serves the interests of working people. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, unions represented 16.4 million workers or 11.6% of the employed workforce in 2019. While this percentage is far lower than 1983 when unions represented 23.3% of the workforce, it is still a very large block of voting age Americans with shared interests and organizational connections. Union households represent an even larger share of the national electorate: according to CNN exit polls, union households represented 18% of the national electorate in 2016 - and much larger shares of voters in key swing states such as 28% of Michigan voters in 2016
• Unions advocate policies opposed by Big Business and oppose policies advocated by Big Business. Unions have initiated and/or provided critical support - while Big Business and Republicans generally opposed - the eight-hour day, the five-day workweek, overtime, minimum wages, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, occupational safety and health regulations, paid family leave, the expansion of governmental programs aiding lower income workers and much more. Unions also have strongly opposed many of the policies advocated by big business including tax cuts that disproportionately favor corporations and the wealthy; the elimination or erosion of worker, environmental and consumer protections; the elimination of limits on the amount of legal campaign contributions by corporations and wealthy individuals; the privatization of crucial government services and agencies such as social security, the post office, public education; and much more
• Unions force corporations to share some of their gains and power with workers. Union-represented workers on average have higher wages and better benefits than non-union workers. According to the BLS, among full-time wage and salary workers, union members had median weekly earnings of $1,095 in 2019, while those who were not represented by unions had median weekly earnings of $892. Thus, union workers make almost $10,600 more a year than non-union workers. Moreover, according to another BLS report, union represented workers have substantially greater access to health, pension, paid time off, and other benefits. Corporations do not appreciate the higher wages and benefits obtained by union represented workers because they cut into profits, even though union workers are more productive than non-union workers. But corporations really do not like unions because they reduce management power over the workplace. For example, union represented workers obtain the contractual obligation of due process and just cause for discipline and firing. Union workers have representation throughout a contractual process to determine whether an employer has just cause for discipline or firing. Non-represented workers are "at will" and do not have such protections: they can be fired for basically any reason except those few instances protected by law such as race, gender, disability and religion
• Unions reduce income inequality. A recent study by three Princeton University economists found that unions reduced income inequality in the United States, not just for union members but for the entire distribution of workers and wages. An earlier study by sociologists Bruce Western and Jake Rosenfeld had a similar finding, that "unions not only equalize union members' wages, they also equalize the nonunion wage distribution by threatening union organization and buttressing norms for fair pay. We found strong evidence that unionization rates in detailed industries for geographic regions are positively associated with wage equality among nonunion workers."

The Republican Party also opposes unions in order to weaken the Democratic Party. Obviously, the Republican Party competes with the Democrats for votes and thus positions of political power. Consequently, Republicans will do all they can to weaken the Democrats which makes unions a prime target

• Unions are a core constituency of the Democratic Party. As previously mentioned, unions directed 91% of their campaign contributions to Democrats from 1990 through the first half of 2020. In presidential elections, 60-66% of union households have historically supported Democratic presidential candidates - except for 2016 when just 53% voted for Clinton while 42% voted for Trump (as compared to non-union households which voted 46% for Clinton and 48% for Trump). Unions also supply thousands of volunteers to canvass neighborhoods and get out the vote. These on-the-ground efforts are probably more important than labor's direct cash contributions
• Unions are a more powerful force for progressive policies than the Democratic Party. A Nation article details research that shows the critical impact of unions on policy and the Democratic Party.
  

  * Political scientists Benjamin Radcliff and Martin Saiz found that the strength of unions in particular states is a more powerful determinant of liberal policy than the power of the Democratic Party in those states.
  * Political scientists Thomas Volscho and Nathan Kelly found that unions exert a more powerful influence on the share of income going to the 1 percent than does the share of Congress that is controlled by Democrats
  * Other research also suggests that unions increase voter turnout, and that this effect is strongest for workers of color. More recent work on the impact of Citizens United finds that its effect on policy liberalism was muted in states with more powerful unions

• By weakening unions through "Right to Work" laws, the Republican Party weakens the Democratic Party. The Republican Party has championed Right to Work laws as a means to weaken labor unions. Unions are required by law to collectively bargain for and represent all workers in their bargaining units whether they are members or not. However, right to work laws prohibit unions from collecting payments from all these workers to help pay for the cost of bargaining and contract administration. In other words, workers represented by unions can refuse to help pay for the costs the union incurs to represent them. Union supporters call such workers "free riders." The clear intent of such laws is to reduce union revenue, the number of members and, thus, to weaken unions. And that is exactly what happened. For example, from 2012 (the year before Right to Work was adopted in Michigan) to 2019, the 14 major public and private sector unions lost 130,000 members (16% of their membership) and $20 million in revenue. Wisconsin adopted a bill that significantly curtailed the collective bargaining rights of public sector workers in 2011 and adopted a right to work law in 2015. The combined impact of these laws has been significant: from 2010 to 2019, Wisconsin union membership declined by 137,000 or 39%.

But the impact was not just felt by unions. A major study examined the impact of Right to Work laws not only on unions but also on the Democratic party:

• Right-to-work laws reduce Democratic presidential vote shares by 3.5 percentage points.
• There are similar effects in US Senate, US House, and Gubernatorial races, as well as on state legislative control
• Turnout of union members is 2 to 3 percentage points lower in right-to-work counties after those laws pass
• The share of blue-collar workers reporting a get-out-the-vote contact declines by 11 percent following the passage of right-to-work laws
• Total campaign contributions from all unions falls by 2.5 to 3 points

The 3.5% reduction of union presidential votes probably cost Hillary Clinton the presidency: she lost Michigan by just 10,704 votes, a margin of just 0.23% and lost Wisconsin by just 22,748 votes or a margin of just 0.7%.

Republican party voters are primarily located in states with an anti-union history. The strength of the Republican party is centered in states that have adopted anti-union policies such as the "right to work" laws described above. It is no surprise that the Republican Party launched, and corporate donors funded a major effort to extend right to work laws to "fair share" states. Since 2010, six additional states controlled by Republicans passed Right to Work laws for a total of 27 states altogether. These 27 states accounted for 83% of the current crop of Republican senators; 82% of Trump's total 2016 electoral college votes; and almost 70% of the total number of Republican representatives.

The Democratic Party Is Much Better on Labor Issues Than the Republican Party

The Democratic Party is not a labor party. Unions form an important constituency of the Democratic Party in terms of funding, voting and providing the volunteers needed for canvassing, phone banking and getting out the vote. Ironically, the Republican Party recognizes the importance of unions to the Democratic Party more than the Democratic Party. And, Big Business provides billions of dollars in support to corporate Democrats - a significant source of Democratic funding though much less than the contributions to Republicans. The importance of corporate money and influence has pushed many Democrats toward policies that aid corporations and hurt workers. Two examples illustrate the power of corporations in the Democratic Party. First, Presidents Carter, Clinton and Obama failed to prioritize labor law reforms that would have assisted unions in their fight with corporations and would have strengthened the Democratic Party. These bills failed because they were not prioritized by the Presidents and the Senate filibuster rule that gave outsized importance to Senators from anti-union, especially southern states. Second, President Clinton pushed through NAFTA and the China trade deals that led to the combined loss of 4 million jobs - many of which were good union jobs. Clinton was able to push these policies through Congress with the support of most Republicans and despite the opposition of most Democrats. President Obama attempted to pass the Trans-Pacific Partnership, called NAFTA on steroids. However, he was thwarted by opposition from labor, environmental, consumer, civil rights and religious groups - and most Democratic members of Congress.

However, despite all of that, a higher percentage of congressional Democrats are now more pro-union than ever. This is the result of the extinction of anti-union/pro-segregation Southern Democrats who have now become Republicans and the expansion of voting rights to Black and Latinx citizens who are more pro-union. Conversely, Democrats strengthened their hold in pro-union states as pro-union Republicans disappeared. Consequently, Democratic support for labor law reform has steadily increased among Congressional Democrats over time. For example, Obama - despite the issues noted above - appointed very pro-union individuals to the NLRB who issued many pro-union rules. Not one congressional Democrat supported the Republican led drive to roll back many of the new NLRB rules in 2015 when the Republicans controlled both the House and Senate. This pro-union solidarity among Democrats prevented a Republican override of Obama's veto of the legislation. And when Republicans did roll back a number of Obama-era pro-labor rules when they controlled both houses of Congress, not one Democrat supported the effort. This entire trajectory was described in an interesting article by Nathan Newman who concluded, "There is [Democratic] unity in defense of labor interests in the modern Democratic Party that was nowhere to be seen during the New Deal era."

Democrats, despite Republican opposition, were responsible for passage of civil rights, age discrimination, disability rights, pregnancy discrimination, occupational safety and health, and the Family and Medical Leave acts. State laws in Democratic states are much more labor-friendly than those in Republican controlled states.

The point here is not that the Democratic Party is a labor party - it is not. And it is clear that our entire political system is dominated by corporate money. However, it is also clear that Democrats are much more pro-worker than the Republican Party. Indeed, as the next article will show - the Republican Party has launched an offensive to debilitate unions - an offensive led by President Trump, Republican majorities in the Senate and the federal judiciary and officials in Republican controlled states.

The Bottom Line

The Republican Party sees unions and their supporters as enemies to be politically and economically destroyed. The Democratic Party will not destroy unions and actually provides the possibility to assist unions in representing the interests of working people. Note to union supporters: act and vote accordingly."[3]

Accordingly, by extension the Republican Party sees police, fire, healthcare, labor, and/or other unions and their supporters as enemies to be politically and economically destroyed, which aligns perfectly with their more recent calls to destroy and defund U.S. law enforcement, a reasonable inference.

Some of these unions may be spared in the short-term, or even boosted in the short-term with candied promises for the long-term by pathological liars, but in the long-term, all unions are expected to become the target of those who need more and more power over everyone. That's the nature of their networked mental illness -- unable to stop themselves -- which is why they need to be stopped before they take everything away from everyone. 

HOW THE RUSSIAN-ENGINEERED AND JEFFREY EPSTEIN CRIME SYNDICATE-FINANCED REPUBLICAN PARTY IS ATTACKING AMERICA A NEW WAY -- BY ATTACKING THE UNIONS OF POLICE, FIRE, HEALTHCARE, LABOR, AND/OR OTHER UNIONS -- TO FURTHER ENGINEER ECONOMIC SLAVERY, SCARCITY, AND INCREASE NATIONAL SECURITY THREATS TO DESTROY AMERICA'S ECONOMY, SOCIAL FABRIC -- AND/OR TO AID, COMFORT, AND ADHERE TO AMERICA'S GREATEST ENEMIES -- RUSSIA, AND THE CRIME SYNDICATE OF JEFFREY EPSTEIN

The following is a graph of The Hartmann Report, August 4, 2023, which illustrates how income equality increased since Iran-Contra traitors, drug traffickers, and/or arms traffickers -- Ronald Reagan and G.H.W. Bush and/or their proxies and/or others -- waged attacks on their own people -- including but not limited to by attacking unions -- and resulted in a decrease in union memberships, and thus resulted in decreased legal representation, and thus resulted in decrease income or increased income inequality.[4]

Once the Republicans have destroyed all police, fire, healthcare, labor, and/or other unions, and do away with all of America's safety nets, and drive minimum wage so low that most people won't be able to survive, then they'll have full-spectrum dominance over their economic slaves, formerly known as Americans and America, and formerly known as the leaders of democracy, world defenders, and opportunity for all.

But as the graph also shows, there are many more police, fire, healthcare, trade, labor, and/or other unions the Republican Party can destroy, and/or is planning to destroy -- after being engineered into office by America's greatest enemies -- child trafficker Vladimir Putin's Russia, and the crime syndicate of Jeffrey Epstein, who donated and/or organized many of the financial contributions to Republican candidates -- and where these sorts of Republicans have since used that (and other) illegitimate power grab(s) to pass laws to pass dark money bribery laws, to give themselves immunity from prosecution, and to check the genitals of American children, before allowing them to go to the bathroom or exercise, while their parents are off at work, unable to protect them from sexual predators in schools, now enabled like the Gestapo to force American children to show their genitals to adults they don't really know, some of whom can't be trusted with children.[5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][15]

Yup, that's what happens when networked mental illness linked to pedophilia is allowed to run for and "take" public offices -- (economic) slavery for everyone except a small group of networked people -- and laws and policies that force genital checks on little kids, when their parents aren't around to protect their kids -- and laws and policies that separate little kids from their parents at the border, and put the kids in squalor cages, where they can be raped in an ongoing manner, or simply disappeared, never reunited with their parents again -- parents who were often fleeing monsters on their side of the border, hoping that good Christians would provide them charity and the chance for a better life -- only to fall on fake Christians, who embrace the total opposite values of Jesus, just waiting for a moment like this to exploit small children in squalor rape cages -- from one set of monsters on one side of the border, right into the clutches of another set of monsters on the other side of the border, because there are monsters almost everywhere.[13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21]

UNDERSTANDING CENTRALIZED (REPUBLICAN) AND DECENTRALIZED (PROGRESSIVE) ORGANIZATIONS, GOVERNMENTS, AND SUPERPOWERS, IN THE CONTEXT OF FASTER AND SLOWER CHANGING ENVIRONMENTS, AND THEIR RISES AND FALLS

There is little doubt that Republicans, conservatives, dictators, fascists, monarchs, oligarchs, socialists, communists, imperial cults, and billionaires like to centralize power in order to achieve superpower or God-like status, demanding daily public worship one way or another. All worship, whether you love them, or whether you hate them, is worship nonetheless. 

Accordingly, there can be no doubt that UpRights News worships republicans, conservatives, dictators, fascists, monarchs, oligarchs, socialists, communists, imperial cults, and billionaires on a daily basis, one way or another.

According to The Rise and Fall of Great Powers by Paul Kennedy -- who examined roughly 500 years of superpowers -- a superpower is often born out of geographic isolation, where they are relatively free from expensive wars by external sources, in such a manner that allows their economies to prosper, in such a manner as to allow their countries to develop strong militaries able to defend the assets within their respective countries, allowing their economies to continue to balloon in size, in such a manner that allows these countries to acquire and protect assets outside of their countries with ever-expanding military presence.[22]

This doesn't continue indefinitely because the expansion of the military effort to protect assets outside of the country is limited to the strength of the economy, and so more and more concessions are made inside of the country, to be able to be able to afford the expanding empire, until a critical threshold is met, where the economy of the superpower can no longer afford to expand the empire and where doing so eventually results in costly external war outside of the country, and civil war and unrest inside the country, ripping the superpower apart from inside and outside the country, which destroys the economy, and eventually falls the empire, superpower, hegemony, or military-industrial complex.[22]

Organizational development theory explains the shared role of centralized and decentralized power

The same is separately explained by organizational learning and development theory taught to executives in business schools, which specifies that startup groups, organizations, interorganizations, and/or countries have to begin with an organic, flat, informal, decentralized decision-making and roles, and/or democratic horizontal organizational structure, best suited to fast-changing and chaotic environments, and where to develop more effective organizations to survive and grow, they need to increasingly add vertical structure, centralized decision-making and roles, formal procedures, and hierarchy, but only if the changing environment slows down, stabilizes, or becomes less chaotic, as otherwise, centralizing organizational structures like a government are bound to fail, because centralized governments, like monarchies, dictatorships, oligarchies, kleptocracies, and plutocracies can't identify all of the changes that need to be responded to, and the result is the destruction of the centralized organizational structure back into a decentralized organizational structure, also known as social collapse, revolution, springs, and the fall of countries.

Therefore, a superpower, hegemony, empire, monarchy, dictatorship, or military-industrial complex has two central pillars, each of which supports the other pillar, a military pillar, and an economic pillar, or more simply, the resources required adapt to change to survive and grow.

The Balanced Scorecard Model may add two additional pillars to finance/economy and operations/military, specifically marketing (applied psychology, and propaganda) and innovation (of the three other pillars).

Republicans, conservatives, dictators, fascists, monarchs, oligarchs, socialists, communist, imperial cults, and/or billionaires like to centralize power over these two pillars under a small group of people, who then tell everyone else what to do as the central decision-makers, but where the decisions tend to be self-serving, and if not served, then rights are clawed back, and people are stalked, unlawfully stopped and searched, imprisoned, tortured, subjected to perjury in order to prosecute them, shopped to Republican judges and prosecutors and appellate judges to secure a conviction in gross violation of due process, and/or killed, for resisting their oppression and the oppression of others.

Republicans, conservatives, dictators, fascists, monarchs, oligarchs, socialists, communist, imperial cults, and/or billionaires tend to seek centralized organizational strategy no matter the rate of change, which is why history teaches they always lose or fail (because per organizational development theory, they can't adapt to change fast enough to identify and adapt to change to survive and grow), and they are often responsible for introducing and increasing the level of chaos countries have to manage, while seeking to centralize power, usually by deception, in order to manufacture the "critical mass" of followers to overthrow the country.

You'll note, they seldom physically-lead the army that overthrows, but cower in "war rooms", and let the carnage they manufacture unfold, then sweep in and take credit for all of the same, or deny they had anything to do with the same while those they incited face hard time in jail, when coups fail.

In contrast, democrats, liberals, libertarians, and other progressives like to decentralize power under a broad group of people, who vote on what everyone else should do as decentralized decision-makers, and they tend to serve the needs of the greatest number of people, expand rights for the greatest number of people, and try and reform those who prefer oppression. To balance, there are some really crappy Democratic leaders who are DINOs (Democrats in name only), who are as bad and/or worse than some Republicans, and who serve the same failed billionaire experiment, but these days modern Democrats have been as a whole doing a much better job of governing than Republicans, and I write this as a swing voter, and former registered Republican, whose family has socialized with both Jeb and G.W. Bush, and where I have worked on at least one national leadership campaign to install at least one conservative to power over the country. 

This group of more altruistic peoplem the Democrats -- whose values are more in alignment with the loving, altruistic, charitable, sharing, helpful, and caring teachings of Jesus Christ -- are the perceived "enemies" of the Republicans, conservatives, dictators, fascists, monarchs, oligarchs, socialists, communists, imperial cults, and/or billionaires, who often specify the same, circulate that narrative, and make "enemies" out of anyone trying to increase rights for themselves or other people, at the expense of the rights to oppress the people, which republicans, conservatives, dictators, fascists, monarchs, oligarchs, socialists, communists, imperial cults, and/or billionaires resist by clawing back laws for others, and by increasing their right to oppress, operate above the law, and/or be their own judge, as history has taught us with Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Putin, and/or Trump -- where they want everyone to follow the law when it suits them, and when it doesn't suit them, they simply don't follow the law, and expect everyone to accept the same is perfectly normal, and that's "it's so unfair", whenever they are held to account, and cry they are "victims of persecution", "witch hunts", "weaponized government", and the like, when held to their same or their own former standards.

In truth, organizational development theory has a role for both centralized and decentralized organizations, groups, or countries, but that role has to change over time, in order for the same to survive. The rate of change is what demands which role needs to be transitioned to, and where decentralized is required for the start-up, then increasing centralization, and then to adapt to change to survive and grow, decentralization must follow the centralization stage, to prevent organizational collapse. 

A failure to decentralize is what results in the fall of empires, countries, organizations, groups, and even families, when rapidly changing environments demand a decentralizing transition in order for them to adapt to the change fast enough to survive and grow.

So where are we now in this process?

It is clear that America, the UK Commonwealth, and EU have achieved superpower status in the recent past and/or in the modern era.

This means that we have already started with decentralization, then centralized, and now I think most people would argue that we have reached the height of the same, and have been in decline for some time, while competitive pressures, rates of change, and chaos have seemingly only been increasing over time. The same demands decentralization for America, the UK Commonwealth, and EU to be able to adapt to change in order to survive and grow. 

Unfortunately, due to networked mental illness by the failed billionaire experiment -- which networks sociopaths, narcissists, sadists, kleptomaniacs, Machiavellians, and obsessive compulsive hoarder personality types -- those with the most power, who have centralized the same, are unable to stop themselves from hoarding more and more assets and power, regardless if the same harms them or others, pretty much textbook hoarding disorder, which normally requires legal and medical intervention, again, because those afflicted, like crack addicts, simply can't stop themselves, and so they need to be stopped by the authorities, for their sake and for the sake of others.

The shared or networked mental illness of republicans, conservatives, dictators, fascists, monarchs, oligarchs, socialists, communists, imperial cults, and billionaires, will like a crack addict, do anything in order to centralize more decision-making, legal rights, assets, power, and influence, despite the need to decentralize all of the same, to get their daily, monthly, quarterly, and annual "fix".

Returning to the fall of empires, this means they want to stop paying their fair share of taxes, while they bribe lawmakers and government officials to direct taxpayer funds into their shared coffers, and they want to take away laws they have to comply to, increase Draconian laws for everyone else, and they want to crush unions, and they want to destroy safety nets for society, and they want to attack the already unlivable minimum wage, to be able to allow themselves more and more tax breaks, and to direct more and more taxpayer funds and bank loans to themselves, which leaves less and less money for everyone else, which weakens our economy, our dollar, our military, increases inflation, increases interest rates, and drives the majority of people into scarcity, literally causing them to become more hostile, aggressive, angry, depressed, murderous, and suicidal, until a critical mass of people are so impoverished, and have lacked the resources required to survive for long enough, that crime, civil unrest, and civil war are among their only chances for survival -- while the republicans, conservatives, dictators, fascists, monarchs, oligarchs, socialists, communists, imperial cults, and billionaires incite others to overthrow society -- to tear the country apart. 

Then enter Putin and Russia threatening to tear the country apart from the outside, and now you have the perfect conditions to destroy the American empire, and where unlike you would think, this would result in real change, history teaches us that those who manufacture these overthrows, then people the new monarchs with all of the resources and armies required to survive, and so nothing really changes, other than impoverished lower class and middle class destroying one another based on the active measures propaganda incited by those who engineered the overthrow.

But have no fear, legal intervention for this resulting networked mental illness is here.

The International Criminal Court has issued an arrest warrant for child trafficker Vladimir Putin. The Attorney General of the U.S. Virgin Islands is investigating the crimes of Jeffrey Epstein. The Special Counsel's Office is investigating Russia's and Jeffrey Epstein's Donald J. Trump, the GOP, and/or their ongoing organized crimes along with the Attorney General of New York and Michigan, and along with District Attorneys of New York and Fulton County, GA. These aren't all of the investigations intervening to protect the United States, just some of the more public ones, with yet more to follow say insiders.

Thank God for police unions, in the context Republicans also want U.S. law enforcement to be "destroyed" and "defunded", and are now urging others to "punch a cop", join a war, further a civil war against ourselves, our troops, our law enforcement, and/or to overthrow America -- all to keep Putin and Jeffrey Epstein's organized crime syndicate from being prosecuted -- which they perversely distort with affinity to Jesus, while rejecting almost all of the core teachings of Jesus. Police unions (legal representation) and law enforcement will help resist all of the same.

As with all of our reporting, all of the same is our learned and researched opinion only, and no one expressed or implied of any wrongdoing is guilty or liable until a court they have installed clears them of some to all of their lesser wrongdoings, or convicts them beyond their ability to pardon themselves.