An intriguing and unique perspective is to view the United States rather than as a superpower directing the world's political and economic direction but as a colony, first among other colonies, serving the world's wealthiest.  This conclusion, when viewed objectively, seems compelling and undeniable. This investigation aims to evaluate that thesis from a dispassionate viewpoint.

A colony is over which a foreign nation or state extends or maintains control. If one assumes that the extremely wealthy serve the role of a foreign country or state that controls the governance and decision-making of the United States, then the premise is accurate. 

One of the basics for managing colonies is to control their governance and suck wealth from them, with little consideration for the welfare of the population. Consider the British Empire and its treatment of Ireland and India as a primary example. Ponder the Ottoman Empire, the Roman Empire, the German Empire, and the Japanese Empire, which were all similar in exploiting colonies and territories. The playbook is standard, and each population under control makes an inordinate sacrifice to make their masters rich.
​
In this scenario, albeit novel, the rich have formed a central core of governance, extracting wealth from their subjects and enjoying inordinate power.  

The statistics are well-established, and the facts are undeniable:

• The wealthiest 1% of Americans possess 42% of household wealth.
• The top 0.1% of Americans' (net worth more than $20 million) share of national wealth has tripled to 22%.
• The spiraling wealth disparity disproportionately harms racial minorities as the median net worth of a white household ($141,900) is thirteen times that of the median Black household ($11,000).

Do the ultra-wealthy exert control over the US government? While direct evidence may be lacking, the influence of big money in federal elections, made possible by the Citizen's United ruling, has opened the door to 'dark money. ' It's becoming increasingly difficult to ignore that the one who pays the piper calls the tune.

'Dark money' refers to spending meant to influence political outcomes where one cannot discern the source of the money. Politically active nonprofits such as 501(c)(4) are under no legal obligation to disclose their donors, even if they spend to influence elections. Billionaires and large corporations pour money into these groups but don't suffer the repercussions of adverse public reviews.

Opaque nonprofits give unlimited amounts of money to super PACs. While super PACs must disclose their donors, these groups are effectively dark money outlets, and no one can trace their funding back to the original donor.

Dark money groups spent about $1 billion to influence elections in 2010 and 2020 when the Citizens United v. FEC Supreme Court ruling opened the door to this secretive and nefarious tool for managing the United States government through controlling its elected officials.

As the influence of big money increases, its control of the government helps it take more and leave less. Money seems a conscious entity at times, ever hungry for more, hence the increase in wealth at the expense of the impoverished.
​
Federal legislation controlling political campaign contributions and eliminating dark money contributions would help immensely improve governance in the United States. The current decision gives money a voice, which is indecent and immoral. Reform of this is necessary to rid the governance of unholy influences.

Federal legislation to control gifts to Supreme Court justices would also help. Recent disclosures of huge donations of luxury travel, vacations, and forgiven loans display the avarice and indecency of the wealthy and the corruption of the Supreme Court justices. Once again, the paymaster calls the tune, and the justices vote their way to the detriment of most citizens.

The United States government, in turn, provides direction and enforcement to sovereign governments, including an immense navy that protects shipping worldwide. The remaining branches of the United States military, with a standing presence in over one hundred different countries, provide on-the-ground presence, enforcement, and the ability to deploy troops and quell uprisings.
​
United States taxpayers pay for and staff an immense military organization. This organization keeps governments in power that favors the wealthy and keeps supply chains and markets stable and available for goods and services.

The combined defense spending of the subsequent ten countries is less than the United States value, and defense spending accounts for half of the federal discretionary spending.

Is anyone paying attention? 
​
There are unconsidered costs associated with the bloated defense budget and United States military presence worldwide, which are lost opportunity costs. Speculate, for instance, if the United States halved its defense budget, freeing up almost half a trillion dollars each year for investment in programs that create wealth rather than simply consuming it.  

Proxy wars keep the military sharp, evaluate new military systems, and expend old and outdated ammunition and military systems, so taxpayers must fund their replacement.  Active proxy wars in Yemen and Ukraine allow for such, and who benefits?  The wealthy finance and own military contractors, which are the benefactors of these proxy wars, and the poor starve and die as a result.

Who pays for this?  United States taxpayers directly, but there are innumerable consequences. First, the consequences of sending people to war are substantial. People die, are maimed, and so are permanently physically disabled, and the mental health consequences are severe. These uncounted consequences are the biggest crime of the wealthy.

An example is the supply of United States-manufactured F-16 fighters and Abrams battle tanks to Ukraine. Allied governments are replacing these with upgrades, so supplying them to Ukraine costs little, as they would be scrapped otherwise. Their replacements, notably the F-35 fighter, cost much more, and the companies that manufacture them are owned, in large part, by very wealthy people. The F16 is an aging and outmoded platform, and battle tanks are sitting ducks on a battlefield.

Another consequence of the disparity of wealth is political unrest. The United States is a sick country in many ways, going through an existential political crisis. The wealthy don't mind that, as people screaming at each other about electric vehicles, windmills, and racism keep the people from the easy conclusion that they have much more in common than not, and the wealthy exploit their labor and take and hoard an inordinate share of wealth. The people who create the wealth are poor, while the wealthy fly their luxury jets to Davos and plan their next steps.

The uber-wealthy will not give up their ill-gotten gains without a struggle. The first step toward reform would be an international agreement on baseline tax rates so the wealthy can't use tax havens to their advantage or compete with nations against one another.  The money couldn't hide then and would be available as tax revenue.

The Reagan regime sponsored two significant tax cuts: the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 and the Tax Reform Act of 1986, summarized by trickle-down and supply-side economics. The Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 cut the highest personal income tax rate from 70% to 50%. The Tax Reform Act of 1986 cut the highest personal ​income tax rate from 50% to 38.5%, which decreased to 28% in trailing years.

Reform of the federal tax code to roll back reductions in tax rates would make an immediate and generational change, allowing money for the betterment of the population. This additional revenue could eliminate childhood poverty, establish free post-secondary education for qualified students, and make strategic investments in public works producing wealth, such as high-speed rail, ports and harbors, airports, and improving energy infrastructure.

Movement on these matters should not be tribal political. Reform and the resultant bettering of life for most Americans are not a matter of politics; it's a moral decision, and the proper course is not disputed.  Hoarding wealth is immoral; condemning and correcting it should be easy.

Another innovative measure that could help would be labeling Infotainment programs on politically branded media outlets such as Fox, MSNBC, and CNN. A mandatory disclaimer indicating the programs currently represented as news are editorial commentaries for entertainment would erode the credibility of such, and rightly so, and perhaps encourage viewers to seek unbiased coverage, would help the population lower their hatred of the 'other side,' with whom they share the exact core needs, ambitions, and desires.
​
We are all one people. Our differences are finite and almost inconsiderable, while our commonalities are profound. Our enemy is the rich and their nefarious methods of gaining wealth and hoarding it.  

The media often presents simplistic but inflammatory stories in its pursuit of attention-grabbing headlines. In a time of political polarization, nothing is more intriguing than presidential polling reports. Unfortunately, these polls are often nothing more than clickbait, drawing lots of attention from folks on both sides of the political divide and causing unnecessary anguish and worry.
​
With two aged and unappealing candidates lurching toward election day, Americans would prefer a dynamic and inspiring leader who could sharply contrast the candidates and move the country toward an optimistic vision. Instead, the election consists of two candidates locked in a feeble rematch, like a movie franchise at the end of its life. The closeness of the race is directly attributable to this unenviable matchup.

​There are many reasons to disregard polling numbers:

• Poll aggregation, a popular tool, often includes many polls, some of which may be questionable. Averaging such diverse data can lead to a complex and potentially misleading picture of public opinion. This underscores the need for a more nuanced understanding of public sentiment, beyond the surface-level numbers.
• The political landscape, a labyrinth of factors, is a fascinating and unpredictable terrain. Figures like Robert Kennedy Jr., who can generate significant interest despite polling numbers that fluctuate from negligible to north of 10%, introduce a thrilling element of unpredictability that can challenge the predictive value of polling data, highlighting the limitations of relying solely on such data.
• With its substantial financial resources, the Biden campaign strategically invested in media buys in crucial markets. This strategic move is not just a move; it's a notable change expected to significantly impact the polling data. This underscores the importance of considering the influence of campaign spending on a candidate's perceived popularity in political analysis and prompts the audience to feel more aware and critical of the factors influencing public opinion.
• Donald Trump's increasing eccentricity is now attracting a great deal of media attention, and this will accelerate as he hits the trail, riffing on his stump speech and littering his trail with unforced errors.
• The upcoming debates will spotlight the cognitive differences between the two candidates of almost identical ancient vintage, to Trump's detriment.
• The swing states, including Nevada, Arizona, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin, will play a pivotal role in determining the election outcome. Trump must almost run the table to gain the electoral college majority he needs. As a result, national polling numbers, which do not reflect the unique dynamics of these states, are irrelevant, further emphasizing the need to focus on state-level data.

The noise of simple Presidential polling reports obscures more important election concerns for each party. Control of the United States Senate and House of Representatives is critical to the next administration, regardless of who wins the presidency. The Senate, of course, is responsible for approving nominations to the federal judiciary, including the Supreme Court. The next President will nominate at least two Supreme Court justices and hundreds of federal judges.
​
Two more conservative justices would continue a generational movement toward Christian Nationalist ideals, while two more liberal justices would mean a swing back toward progressive ideals. The election, particularly the Senate majority, is the prize in this election and the most crucial issue in the 2024 election.

Similarly, the House of Representatives majority is critical to moving forward with any agenda in the next presidential term. Currently, the polling data shows both houses likely to be Republican-controlled. Given Trump's notoriously short coattails, this could easily swing Democratic, resulting in an impotent Trump presidency unable to effect any change requiring legislative approval and also besieged by impeachments. Alternately, should the Republicans control one or both legislative groups, they would similarly throttle the impact of a second Biden administration.
​
Many have pointed to nonresponse bias as one of the potential reasons for significant polling errors, supposedly because Democrats were more likely to respond to pollsters than Republicans.  Some pollsters theorized that the Republicans who answered may have differed in crucial ways from those who didn't. The 2020 election's record-setting turnout amid the COVID-19 pandemic posed another tricky situation as states expanded mail-in voting.

Beyond gathering a representative sample, election polling presents another challenge: gauging what the electorate will look like in each election cycle. This weighting means adjusting the sample to reflect anticipated voting turnout.

The problem with weighting is that it is more of an art than a science. After being burned badly in 2016, adjusting, and still being slightly inaccurate in 2020, polling experts will attempt to weight survey analyses more in Trump's favor, mitigating the risk of an embarrassingly erroneous poll.  
​
Different sampling and weighting techniques featured trade-offs and offered no silver bullets. As we look ahead to a November rematch between Trump and President Joe Biden, pollsters are under pressure to address the problems they faced in 2020 as they aim to hit a moving target amid great public scrutiny.

Another factor in dismissing presidential polling data is the clickbait factor. Close races increase interest, and in the era of data analytics, a close poll draws interest, resulting in more money. There's a financial interest in presenting these results, often abbreviated. With margin of error rates in the 3% range, a close poll is meaningless as it usually means the race is a tie.
​
The long and short is one should ignore clickbait poll reports and look for deeper and more nuanced data. 

​Hypersonic weapons, a technology recently gaining significant attention, may not just be a product of hype. They offer missiles that can travel at speeds several times that of sound, with the ability to maneuver unpredictably, making them difficult to intercept. This unpredictability is their key strength, enabling them to bypass anti-missile systems and reach their targets with unprecedented speed, causing immense kinetic and explosive damage.

Weapons that exceed five times the speed of sound are hypersonic weapons. 

However, the reality of hypersonic weapons is not without its challenges. The high speeds at which they travel result in significant friction with the air, leading to heat, melting, and ablation of the missile material, as well as potential instrumentation malfunctions. These formidable technical hurdles might lead one to dismiss the publicized information from Russia and China as mere fluff and question the feasibility of hypersonic weapons as a viable weapon system.

However, a look at the United States Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) budget indicates that the defense department does not agree and is spending substantial resources to investigate materials that might buffer the effects of friction and make these nightmare weapons feasible.

DARPA’s record of accomplishment is impressive.  Technologies credited to DARPA research include the Internet, the Global Positioning System (GPS) network, the computer graphical user interface, or GUI (pronounced ‘gooey’), and the mouse, Tor, which stands for ‘the onion routing,’ for the dark web, Siri. Apple’s digital virtual assistant and stealth military planes, such as the B-2 Spirit bomber and F-117 Nighthawk fighter, through a collaboration with the Lockheed Corporation.

Hypersonic weapon research is a priority at DARPA, based on a review of their most recent budget documents:

• Under Materials Processing Technology, the Materials for Extreme Environments program includes funding for research into high-temperature materials for hypersonic platforms, high-temperature windows, and aperture materials, to conduct testing of novel infrared and radio frequency apertures suitable for hypersonic platforms under high-temperature conditions, to validate performance models, and superconducting and magnetic materials for novel propulsion systems through 2029. The budget allowed for this work is more than $1 billion.
• Under Advanced Technology Development (ATD), DARPA allocated funds for developing and demonstrating a propulsion technology to support a lightweight vehicle designed for hit-to-kill engagement of hypersonic threats at very long range.

Is this funding an insurance policy just in case the Chinese or Russians have developed hypersonic technology?  Or is it an endorsement that this is a potential weapons system the United States must have, both on offense and defense?

The expenditures are likely a bit of both. The United States military has an immense amount of money to spend on all manner of programs, and this could be a way of defending against public criticism. A political opponent could point out that the United States has no plan or preparation for hypersonic weapons, and pointing to this research could deflect these comments.
​
In addition, the technologies from this research could help other Defense Department weapons programs, such as the long-promised SR-72 Dark Star aircraft and drone aircraft capable of flying at extremely high speeds.  High-temperature-resistant materials could help extend the capabilities of new platforms, and the preliminary research performed by DARPA could jump-start these capabilities.

Unfortunately, the laudable American cause of racial equality has taken multiple steps back merely because skilled conservative propagandists dictated the terms of the argument. Dictating the terms of the argument leads to a strategic advantage in winning arguments. Often, the noble loses to the hateful merely because of poor tactics. The argument is lost before it starts.
​
Progressive forces have engaged conservatives on their ground rather than using an asymmetric attack strategy. However, they are consistently failing, primarily due to ineffective and inconsistent messaging and a lack of focus on progressive legislation and challenges through the legal system. 

The situation is like the anti-abortion movement and the resultant truncation of abortion rights. Conservative forces are dismantling voting rights and voting access, eliminating legal abortion access, expanding private school vouchers, gerrymandering to reduce minority participation drastically, preparing to restrict contraception, and other corrosive actions.

When one thinks about leaps forward in progressive actions, they are led by oppressed people rather than smug ‘thought leaders’ or wealthy folks similarly with no skin in the game.

Unfortunately, racial and other categories fracture civil rights activism – Black, Asian, Latin, Jewish, and other groups such as the LGTBQ communities and disabled people of all kinds. Each is active for its respective group, often ethnic. The ethnic groups seem focused on moving themselves into a more desirable category – in other words, to become white or the equivalent of such, and then abandoning support for the remaining people.

The power of the ‘majority minority’ concept is unity in method, collaboration, and coordination in methods and focus. And it is not happening.
​
Some dismiss the idea of great leaders and defer to the notion that social and economic factors create leaders. Taking that argument to its logical conclusion, one would think that social and economic factors are not driving the desire for movement forward in civil rights. That is not the case.

Where is the leadership? The NAACP president is Derrick Johnson. Have you ever heard of him? Recent leaders have included Bruce S. Gordon, Benjamin Todd Jealous, Dennis Courtland Hayes, and Cornell William Brooks, similarly leaders with no national presence. Long gone are the days when the NAACP, formerly the center of the civil rights movement, played a significant role in the narrative.
​
Are there any nationally known civil rights leaders? No, there are not. The leadership vacuum is stunning.

The problem is a lack of unity, unfocused efforts, and incredibly poor messaging by ‘leaders’ who are often self-appointed and engaged in hobby jobs. Melinda French Gates, who married and then divorced her way into incredible wealth, preaching about equality is laughable at its core. Yet, the public does not seem to perceive the hypocrisy in her and similar presentations. A discerning crowd would laugh these posers off-stage.

Over the past decade, academics have produced thoughtful and vital works that deepen our understanding of racism, ethnocentrism, and social changes. These books and publications have advanced the discussion and have been quite helpful in advancing the cause of human rights.

But academic ‘thought leaders’ and talking heads seem more like entrepreneurs aiming to pile on the interest in race and racism in the United States. Often, they work at institutions that promote racist policies like preferred admissions to legacy students and the nefarious admission by donation. The irony of arguing against racism from a platform paid by organizations with anti-progressive policies seems lost on them. When one’s paymaster is a pillar of and profiteer from institutionalized racism, arguments by their employees against racism are little more than a fig leaf to cover the ugly truth that the educational institution’s policies support racism. These presentations enable the funding institution to conceal its support of anti-progressive actions.

As for the academics, liberals who support various civil rights groups as a self-branding exercise, and the smug wealthy who have never stretched a paycheck, they can be depended on to vote, but as far as meaningful action, they will provide little assistance. These groups appear to offer more in the way of difficulty than help at times. While their intentions are laudable, most people cannot relate to them, and their presentations support the idea that these people do not or cannot understand progressive movements.

As a masking exercise in the George Floyd era, corporations and organizations, including colleges and universities, created diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs. Similarly, these were fig leaves to hide structural barriers to equality. Corporations are now quietly walking DEI departments back as quickly as they created them. Similarly to academics preaching about civil rights, one sees lip service but no results. Corporations are the foundation of hyper-capitalism, and they will never be the answer to human rights concerns.

There is a way to attack reactionary forces, dictate the terms of a successful engagement, and move forward with a country of opportunity for all.  The root cause of inequality in the United States is the asymmetric income and net worth distribution due to hyper-capitalism, the current tax code, and the wealthy's excessive impact on political and legal processes.

A critical missing part in the arguments for civil rights is that everyone has at most one degree of separation from someone with a dog in the fight. Consider the general population affected by inequality – aged people, Dreamers, immigrants, women, racial and ethnic minorities, the LGTBQ community, disabled people, and poor people.

The most compelling strategy for movement forward in civil rights is amalgamating the affected into one much larger, inclusive group, merging the disparate groups into a much larger organization with focused leadership, messaging, and actions to move forward in civil rights—legislation, legal challenges, and support for political leaders who support the cause.

This alternative would be to unite people unsatisfied with the current concentration of wealth at the expense of many people, combined with other special interest groups, such as feminists, along with the current array of ethnic and racial groups. The United States is incredibly wealthy, and plenty of resources exist to create wealth, including meaningful and rewarding jobs and care for the sick, disabled, and elderly. The United States is also a country that is struggling to fulfill its vision of all people being equal, especially in this age of hyper-capitalism.
​
The wealth issue could unite a coalition of disparate groups currently divided, including many now in the populist Trump coalition, poor whites. Most activists in civil rights argue the problem is systemic racism and outright bigotry and bias, and those are pervasive. However, there is also the truth that absent the tax code revisions ushered in by the Reagan administration, the accumulation and hoarding of wealth would never have occurred and the welfare of all people, particularly oppressed minorities, would have been assured. The federal treasury would have supported investment in economic initiatives, lower tax rates for Americans with modest incomes, social welfare programs, a guaranteed basic income, government-funded college and trade school education, robust funding for late-life healthcare, and other initiatives such as child poverty reduction.

To conduct such evolutionary change in the civil rights movement, articulate and credible leadership capable of articulating a vision and directing messaging and initiatives would be foundational. Are there such people around? Looking at the Democratic Party ranks, Elizabeth Warren, Corey Booker, Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris, Barack Obama, Raphael Warnock, and Alexandra Ocasio Cortez come to mind. Unfortunately, despite a fair amount of seniority, none have moved the needle on meaningful reform. While an astute politician, Hakeem Jeffries, currently the minority leader of the House of Representatives, lacks the inspirational speaking skills to be the public-facing leader desired and necessary.

Dynamic leadership would come from the margins of the political structure instead of the current political party structure. The role of dark money in political processes has reinforced incumbency and throttled change, as reflected in the current static governance.

Concept and labeling in these matters are critical. Consider the moniker chosen by anti-abortion activists – ‘pro-life,’ a masterful accomplishment. Who isn’t pro-life? And if you are not pro-life, aren’t you pro-death? 
​
Consider a name for this movement, such as the ‘Equality Project.’  This could flank reactionary and conservative Christian forces with a compelling name, central ethic, and consistent messaging to take the high ground in the argument. People who want equality and the trappings such as equal pay, access to public education, reform to the tax code, access to birth control, abortion, health care, freedom from hate, bigotry, and harassment, and legislation against the imposition of partisan religious values.