For a general overview of this Digital-Age hell, read George Orwell’s 1984 and Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World (along with countless other literary and cinematic classics).

And for a parody of the place of spectator sport in this Digital-Age hell, read E.B. White’s “The Decline of Sport”.

Yes, spectator sport is as much like war as ever–possibly moreso in this Digital-Age hell.

Yet another development has taken place–definitely more serious than ever in this Digital-Age hell.

War has become a spectator sport.

Another reason to pull the plug on this Digital-Age hell–to shut down the entire Digital-Age system worldwide–somehow.


How come none of the politicians–all of whom shamelessly exploit the ubiquitous mass shootings and terrorist attacks worldwide–is ever a victim in any of the ubiquitous mass shootings and terrorist attacks worldwide?


Ever since this sick joke of a U.S. presidential campaign began, Hillary Clinton has been advertising herself as Hillary, instead of Clinton.  Even now that she has selected Tim Kaine to be her running mate, and he has accepted the Democratic vice-presidential nomination, she still advertises herself only, and herself only as Hillary, instead of Clinton.

Hillary Clinton should have advertised herself as Clinton, or Hillary Clinton, from the beginning.  And she should now be advertising herself and her running mate as Clinton-Kaine (like Trump-Pence).

There are at least two reasons Hillary Clinton–a politician of the lowest order–has done this.

Hillary Clinton wants us to forget her husband Bill Clinton–a U.S. president whose legacy is questionable, at best.  (She could even have advertised herself as Rodham Clinton).  She doesn’t want us to realize that her married name is Clinton.

And Hillary Clinton doesn’t even want us to acknowledge Tim Kaine as the running mate she selected–and as the Democratic vice-presidential nominee.  She doesn’t want us to realize there is anyone else but her–that anyone else even matters.

It has been Hillary, from the beginning–not Hillary Clinton, Clinton, or even Rodham Clinton.  And it remains Hillary–not Clinton-Kaine, or even Hillary Clinton-Tim Kaine.

Hillary Clinton is all about no one but Hillary Clinton.


Another primary election–this time for non-presidential candidates.

Yet the only vote I’m allowed to cast today is for or against an amendment to the State Constitution giving tax breaks to Floridians rich enough to afford alternative energy products.

Once again, I am not allowed to vote for or against Republican or Democratic candidates–even at the state and local levels.

As an independent voter, I’m a victim of discrimination.

I’m actually tempted to visit my local polling place and attempt to cast an illegal vote–a vote for or against a Republican or Democratic candidate–just so I can be hauled off to jail, in order to make a case for independent voters like me.

If you’re a U.S. citizen, odds are you’re a Republican or Democratic voter. And odds are you’re thinking, ‘I’m glad I’m not an independent voter–then I’d be a victim of the same discrimination as this poor voter.’

But that’s exactly why I need you to change your voting registration to independent status.  That’s exactly why all of us independent voters need you to change your voting registration to independent status.

There’s power in numbers–and though we independent voters outnumber Republican voters and outnumber Democratic voters, we don’t outnumber Republican and Democratic voters together.

The state of Florida is a closed primary state–like most other states in this nation. And just as the state government of Florida places the money of tourists at a far higher value than the lives of Floridians, it hears the voices of Republican and Democratic voters far above those of independent voters.

Our voices aren’t loud enough, because there aren’t enough of us.

If you join your voices with ours–by changing your voting registration to independent status–our voices will be loud enough.

The discrimination against independent voters is unlike any other discrimination in the United States.  It’s carried out against Americans of every racial and ethnic group, both sexes, and every other demographic group imaginable–because we independent voters belong to every demographic group imaginable.

Most of us are former Republican and Democratic voters who became disillusioned with our respective political parties for very good reasons.

And we silently suffer together whenever primary elections occur in our closed primary states.  Citizens of many countries other than the United States are not allowed to vote–and even certain groups of adult Americans, like convicts or ex-convicts, are not allowed to vote (a practice I consider un-American and inhumane–no U.S. citizen should have his or her right to vote taken away, under any circumstances).  But independent voters are not allowed to vote either–in the primaries–and this is simply discrimination based on political identity and/or affiliation.  Were it not for this discrimination practiced by both the Republican and Democratic Parties through Republican and Democratic state politicians, Donald Trump probably wouldn’t be the Republican presidential nominee this year, and Hillary Clinton probably wouldn’t be the Democratic presidential nominee this year.

And because so many Republican voters voted against Donald Trump in the primaries, and so many most Democratic voters voted against Hillary Clinton in the primaries–I certainly hope these same Republican and Democratic voters have finally become disillusioned enough with their respective political parties to change their voting registrations to independent status.

And once you join your former-Republican and former-Democratic voices with ours–our independent voices will finally be loud enough to shatter this discrimination, once and for all.

If you want to beat the Republican and Democratic Parties, join us.

If you want to beat them, join us.


Bettie PageCassandra Peterson 1Cassandra Peterson 2Cassandra Peterson 3Cassandra Peterson 4Cassandra Peterson 5Cassandra Peterson 6Cassandra Peterson 7Cassandra Peterson 8Cassandra Peterson 9Cassandra Peterson 10Cassandra Peterson 11Cassandra Peterson 12Cassandra Peterson 13Cassandra Peterson 14Cassandra Peterson 15Cassandra Peterson 16Cassandra Peterson 17Cassandra Peterson 18Cassandra Peterson 19Cassandra Peterson 20Cassandra Peterson 21Cassandra Peterson 22Cassandra Peterson 23Cassandra Peterson 24Cassandra Peterson 25Cassandra Peterson 26Cassandra Peterson 27Donna Reed 1Donna Reed 2Donna Reed 3Donna Reed 4Donna Reed 5Donna Reed 6Donna Reed 7Donna Reed 8Donna Reed 9Donna Reed 10Elizabeth Taylor 1Elizabeth Taylor 2identity unknownJean SimmonsPiper Laurie 1Piper Laurie 2Ronee BlakleyThora Birch 1Thora Birch 2Thora Birch 3


No matter

How much





Or simply dismiss

Your son

Your brother

Or your nephew

He is still

Your son

Your brother

Or your nephew.

Family still


Blood is still

Thicker than water.


“In nearly eight years in office, President Obama has sought to reshape the nation with a sweeping assertion of executive authority and a canon of regulations that have inserted the United States government more deeply into American life.

“Once a presidential candidate with deep misgivings about executive power, Mr. Obama will leave the White House as one of the most prolific authors of major regulations in presidential history.

“Blocked for most of his presidency by Congress, Mr. Obama has sought to act however he could.  In the process he created the kind of government neither he nor the Republicans wanted–one that depended on bureaucratic bulldozing rather than legislative transparency.  But once Mr. Obama got the taste for it, he pursued his executive power without apology, and in ways that will shape the presidency for decades to come.

“The Obama administration in its first seven years finalized 560 major regulations–those classified by the Congressional Budget Office as having particularly significant economic or social impacts.  That was nearly 50 percent more than the George W. Bush administration during the comparable period, according to data kept by the regulatory studies center at George Washington University.

“An army of lawyers working under Mr. Obama’s authority has sought to restructure the nation’s health care and financial industries, limit pollution, bolster workplace protections and extend equal rights to minorities.  Under Mr. Obama, the government has literally placed a higher value on human life.

“And it has imposed billions of dollars in new costs on businesses and consumers.

“Many of the new rules are little known, even as they affect the way Americans eat, love and die.  People can dine on genetically engineered salmon.  Women can buy emergency contraceptive pills without prescriptions.  Military veterans can design their own headstones.

“In its final year, the administration is enacting some of its most ambitious rules, including limits on airborne silica at job sites, an overhaul of food labels to clarify nutritional information, and a measure making millions of workers eligible for overtime pay.

“The administration’s regulatory legacy has become an issue in the campaign to replace Mr. Obama, as Donald J. Trump has sharply criticized regulatory overreach and promised to undo many of the new rules.  But executive power has expanded steadily under both Republican and Democratic presidents in recent decades, and both Mr. Trump and Hillary Clinton have promised to act in the service of their own goals.

“The new rules built on the legislative victories Mr. Obama won during his first two years in office.  Those laws–the Affordable Care Act, the Dodd-Frank Act and the $800 billion economic stimulus package–transformed the nation’s health care system, curbed the ambitions of the big banks and injected financial support into a creaky economy.  But as Republicans increased their control of Capitol Hill, Mr. Obama’s deep frustration with congressional opposition led to a new approach: He gradually embraced a president’s power to act unilaterally.

“History may now judge the regulations to be one of Mr. Obama’s most enduring legacies.  At the least, his exercise of administrative power expanded and cemented a domestic legacy that now rivals Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great Society in reach and scope.

“In May, Mr. Obama was asked by a farmer in Elkhart, Ind., to justify the ‘dramatic increase’ in government regulations that affected his business.  ‘I’m not interested in regulating just for the sake of regulating,’ Mr. Obama responded. ‘But there are some things like making sure we’ve got clean air and clean water, making sure that folks have health insurance, making sure that worker safety is a priority–that, I do think, is part of our overall obligation.’

“Infuriated Republicans describe many of the new rules as unwarranted, resulting in ‘less jobs, less businesses, less prosperity, lower take-home pay,’ in the words of the House speaker, Paul D. Ryan.  Business groups, also incensed, have challenged a number of new regulations in court, delaying them or preventing them from taking effect.  Some economic experts worry that the accumulation of regulation is contributing to the economy’s persistent sluggishness.

“‘The big issue that I grapple with is that the regulatory state keeps growing,’ said Robert Hahn, an economist and a regulatory expert at the Smith School at the University of Oxford.  ‘And as it keeps growing, when does it become too much?'”

The New York Times, August 14, 2016

First section of The Regulator in Chief, by Binyamin Appelbaum and Michael D. Shear–the first segment in the series, The Obama Era.

Under President Obama, the government has not necessarily “placed a higher value on human life.”  Most notably notoriously, the lives of conceived, yet unborn human beings are given no value at all in Obama’s America.

Furthermore, this assessment of President Obama’s abuse of power focuses almost exclusively on the economic consequences.  The social consequences of President Obama’s abuse of power are far more severe.

Still, this is the best assessment of President Obama’s abuse of power that I’ve encountered.

Throughout President Obama’s two terms, I have wondered if he has abused his power more than President George W. Bush did.  Now I know he has–this assessment confirms it.

Not long after President George W. Bush decided to send troops to Iraq (a decision Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton supported)–adding to casualties of U.S. troops and Afghan civilians, and creating casualties of U.S. troops and Iraqi civilians–I stated that President Bush should be impeached.

“Then Dick Cheney would be President,” replied the woman to whom I was speaking.

She was right–Dick Cheney would have been much worse.

Even George W. Bush’s father recently confirmed that his son had taken orders from Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld.

What about impeaching President Obama?  A little late for that, isn’t it? When President Obama gave legal status to five million illegal immigrants, that infuriated both Republicans and Democrats.  John Boehner even threatened to push a lawsuit against President Obama for such blatant abuse of power.  Wonder why he didn’t.  Wonder why senators and representatives of both parties failed to take action against President Obama immediately.  Instead, Republicans just threatened to deport all five million of those immigrants–as if they were to blame for a U.S. president’s abuse of power.  And Democrats quickly quieted down. Why?

Maybe five million instantly legalized immigrants would eventually cast five million votes for Democratic presidential and congressional candidates–and maybe the Republican Party could gain more support in the 2016 election by using President Obama’s impeachable offense as leverage against the Democratic presidential and congressional candidates.

We are nothing but pawns for both political parties.

Both the Republican and Democratic parties play us against each other, and now we’re going to have to return the favor–again.

If Donald Trump were elected President, Congress would have to find a reason to impeach him, and remove him from office immediately–so that Mike Pence could take his place.

But Donald Trump cannot possibly defeat Hillary Clinton in a general election.

So when Hillary Clinton is elected President of the United States, Congress will have to find a reason to impeach her, and remove her from office immediately–so that Tim Kaine can take her place.

Dick Cheney would have been even worse than George W. Bush, as President–so impeaching George W. Bush, and removing him from office would not have been an easy option.

But just as impeaching Donald Trump, and removing him from office would be an easy option, impeaching Hillary Clinton, and removing her from office will be an easy option.

Frankly, I would rather Mike Pence be President of the United States than Tim Kaine.

But Tim Kaine will be reasonably suitable to replace Hillary Clinton, and serve as President instead.

And just as Mike Pence would really have to behave himself if President Donald Trump were impeached, and removed from office–Tim Kaine will really have to behave himself when President Hillary Clinton is impeached, and removed from office.

Yet in order for this absolutely necessary action to take place, Congress must keep a Republican majority.  A Democratic majority congress would not impeach Hillary Clinton, and remove her from office, no matter what she did–the Democratic Party holds her accountable for nothing (as we saw so clearly in the Democratic primary process–in which she literally stole the nomination from Bernie Sanders).

And even if Donald Trump could defeat Hillary Clinton, a Republican majority congress would impeach him, and remove him from office, because Republicans are even more opposed to him than Democrats are.

So we cannot go wrong keeping a Republican majority in both houses of Congress.  And of course if this Republican majority gives President Tim Kaine too much hell, we’ll just vote-in more Democrats in the 2020 election.

This is damage control.

Complicated, isn’t it?

Both the Republican and Democratic Parties play us against each other–then we have to play them against each other.

This is why I voted for Ross Perot in 1992.  At the time, I liked Clinton and Bush. But I knew it made the most sense to vote for Ross Perot–the last independent presidential candidate who had a chance at all.  I realized, at the tender age of 26, that because the President of the United States was just one person whose power equaled that of all of Congress, it made sense that he (or she) have no political party affiliation.  Even an independent president would be somewhat biased toward one party or another–but a Republican or Democratic president would be totally biased toward one party or another.  And to this day, I wonder how so many millions of other American voters failed to realize that.

Maybe they’ll realize it now.  Maybe Republican voters will realize that membership had no rewards–Donald Trump won anyway.  Maybe Democratic voters will realize that membership had no rewards–Hillary Clinton won anyway.

Maybe Republican and Democratic voters will join us independent voters by untold millions in the next four years–and will help us smash this unimaginably corrupt political-party-controlled system, once and for all.

Power to the People–not to political parties that manipulate people.



The silent majority does not stand with Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton.

The silent majority knows that either would destroy this nation, as President.

The silent majority voted for Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primaries, everyone but Donald Trump in the Republican primaries–and no one at all in either, because independent voters were not allowed to vote in the primaries.

And the silent majority cannot be silent anymore.

Somehow, the silent majority must support a single candidate to defeat both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.

And this single candidate must step forward immediately.

And the silent majority must support this single candidate immediately.

The silent majority knows this nation cannot stand with Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump as President.

And the silent majority cannot be silent anymore.