Top Leaderboard, Site wide
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
June 25, 2017 Disclaimer: Please read.

Statements and opinions expressed in articles are those of the authors, not Truthdig. Truthdig takes no responsibility for such statements or opinions.

Gay Pride Parades Sound a Note of Resistance

What’s Next for the Bill Cosby Sex-Assault Case?

Truthdig Bazaar more items

Email this item Print this item

A Supreme Victory for Special Interests

Posted on Jan 21, 2010
Bossie at the Supreme Court
AP / Lauren Victoria Burke

Citizens United President David Bossie, right, meets with reporters outside the Supreme Court in Washington on Thursday after the top court ruled in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

By John Dean

The conservative majority of the U.S. Supreme Court has given a monumental victory to special interests—i.e., the big money corporations, the folks who already dominate Washington politics—with its ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Chief Justice John Roberts, along with Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Anthony Kennedy (who wrote the court’s opinion), have gone out of their way to further obliterate serious efforts to reform out-of-control campaign spending—spending that conspicuously distorts democracy in favor of those who can buy political influence. This ruling is of the same judical activism ilk that produced Bush v. Gore, not to mention the ensuing eight years of a disastrous Bush/Cheney presidency from which the nation has yet to recover. Understandably, President Obama is flummoxed

Square, Story page, 2nd paragraph, mobile
This decision is long, at 183 pages. It includes a powerful dissent by the four centrist justices (there are no liberals on this court). And the ruling is chock full of nuanced information that spells out what Congress can and cannot do to reform our dysfunctional and money-hungry election system. This is not a ruling that lends itself to instant analysis. Those who follow this subject far closer than I do will be figuring it out for days, if not months. However, I would recommend the following sites for a quick take on the ruling: Slate (good overview), SCOTUSBLOG (which has followed the case closely), and, in particular, The Brennan Center (which filed an amicus brief in the case and will be leading the way in sorting out the full meaning). To understand what the court majority did, scroll down to about Page 88 of your .pdf reader and read the dissent written by Justice John Paul Stevens, and joined by Justices Ruth Ginsburg, Steven Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor. It is an eye-opener. 

Aside from the fact that the majority ruling reeks of conservative politics, what I find most striking about conservative judicial activism typified by this ruling is the fact that the justices involved are totally out of touch with reality. None of the men involved in this historic decision have been elected to anything, ever. They have no idea how difficult it is for elected officials to deal in the contemporary money-flooded milieu of Washington. The work experience of those who have further opened the floodgates for money in politics is restricted to the executive branch, high-priced law firms, or the chambers of the lower federal appellate courts. Not since the late Justice Hugo Black, a former U.S. senator who retired in 1971, has the court had a member of Congress on its bench, someone who can explain the real world to the other justices. These conservative justices live in a bubble, and they have little true understanding of what they have done, other than, of course, to know that they have taken care of conservatives, the so-called Citizens United who filed this lawsuit. (Yes, David N. Bossie, the president of Citizens United, is the same fellow who worked overtime to impeach President Bill Clinton.)

After I fully digest this decision and speak with friends in Washington who have long been concerned that the Bush/Cheney legacy that now controls the high court might do as they have in fact done, I will share further thoughts about the damage this ruling will bring, and what can and will be done. For this ruling has the potential of being even more pernicious than Bush v. Gore, since it reaches not merely the presidency but every elective office in the United States. Conservatives may not know how to govern when they are in power, but they sure know how to make certain that centrists, progressives and liberals are not given a sustained opportunity to work their will.

John Dean served as Richard M. Nixon’s White House lawyer for 1,000 days and is the author of several books, including “Worse Than Watergate: The Secret Presidency of George W. Bush” and ” Conservatives Without Conscience.”


Square, Site wide, Desktop


Square, Site wide, Mobile
Banner, End of Story, Desktop
Banner, End of Story, Mobile

Watch a selection of Wibbitz videos based on Truthdig stories:

Get a book from one of our contributors in the Truthdig Bazaar.

Related Entries

Get truth delivered to
your inbox every day.

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

Join the conversation

Load Comments
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, February 26, 2010 at 9:33 am Link to this comment


Notorious radical left wing talk show host Mike Malloy, is now advocating national strike and public demonstration. It’s not over until we surrender.

Report this

By garth, February 24, 2010 at 9:41 am Link to this comment

It’s al over.  They won.  As William Black, the lawyer who was in charge of the S&L Crisis and the one who put 1000 of those thieves in jail, said, “If the Supreme Court gives Corporations personhood, it’ll be Katie bar the door.”
I first became aware of this struggle in the 1980s when Mass High Tech was trying to assert its influence on a largly Democratic state legislature.  Up till then, these layabouts preferred to think small and gained their influence and their elections locally.
For example, High tech needed technical writers, (the educational system was at that time undergoing what they called a Reduction In Force (RIF), too many teachers and not enough students.  High Tech, as they called themselves, started the Mass High Tech Council and they started a program, which was mainly opened to ex-teacher, and program would train ex-teachers to become technical writers.
The program succeeded.  More than a couple of hundred were placed in good paying jobs.  Meanwhile, the investment money from these firms kept rolling in.  The existential question for the local pol was, “How is a an ex-bum who finds himself elected to a state political office going to resist the pressure?”

Thirty years later, we find ourselves overwhelmed by the money from the these venture capitalist’s corporations and relying on a bunch of inherently lazy, shall I say stupid, legislators to pass a bill, or anything, that has our best interests at heart?  Can rely on them?  Nooooooooooo.
The movement to resist should start in the home.  Don’t believe what the media says—look around, don’t buy.  Put off whatever you were going to buy for the sake of status and save your cash.  Move your money from a big hog-of-a-bank to a Credit Union.  (Believe it or not the downfall of GM started when GM formed a bank, GMAC, and started gaining more profit from the banks proceeds than it gained from selling and servicing cars.)
All this Ordo Ab Chao is interesting, but I think the evidence is right in front of our eyes.  Sure, the names Rockefeller and Rothschild are nice names to throw around, but the problem has become much more urgent.  (My sense of retribution hopes that these dehumanizers will be dealt with later.  I personally feel that they are not US.  They are human in appearance only.  It’s as if a gene of the Cro-Magnon Man slipped through.)
There are 300 million in the US and 7 billion worldwide.  South America is making moves to exclude the US and its banking solutions from their discussions concerning the future of South America.  Why can’t we?
Hoka hey!

Report this

By elisalouisa, February 24, 2010 at 8:18 am Link to this comment

JDmysticDJ: Did look for Nemesis2010 and couldn’t find the post. Glad you did
fess up.

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, February 23, 2010 at 9:40 pm Link to this comment

If your confused about my previous thread, well…you should be. Nemesis2010 is on another thread.

Report this

By archivesDave, February 23, 2010 at 9:21 pm Link to this comment

JD, save some venom for the guys who are pulling Cheney’s strings. 
Always keep in mind that he’s only the ‘bag man’
for the ones behind the scene, further, much further
up the ‘ladder’.
So long as they can keep us emotionally wired, either negatively or positively, that’s one of their big ‘shticks’.

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, February 23, 2010 at 9:03 pm Link to this comment


I’ll pick Cheney as an example of someone I despise and fear. There are others I could pick, but Cheney’s a good example. Policies he has supported and overseen go all the back to the death squads in Central America. He’s a man who sees military action as the best means of achieving his goals. In other words, he has little concern for human life, and is more than willing to kill and destroy for political reasons. He can put on airs and pretend that he’s superior, but he is a low life, just like you.

Report this

By archivesDave, February 23, 2010 at 8:03 pm Link to this comment

What is really fascinating is to google hand signs, gestures, and shakes and see how many politicians, stars, etc use them for a multitude of purposes.

With a little more investigation you’ll observe the
intricacies and nuances of some particular Masonic
handshakes:  Specifically w/i the elite of the S.P.,
George Bush family (daughters included), and even
Ron Paul.

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, February 23, 2010 at 7:11 pm Link to this comment

I, _________, of my own free will and accord, in the presence of Almighty God, and this Worshipful Lodge, erected to Him and dedicated to the holy St. John, do hereby and hereon most solemnly and sincerely promise and swear, that I will hail, ever conceal, and never reveal any of the secrets, arts, parts, point or points, of the Master Mason’s Degree, to any person or persons whomsoever, except that it be a true and lawful brother of this Degree, or in a regularly constituted Lodge of Master Masons, nor unto him, or them, until by strict trial, due examination, or lawful information, I shall have found him, or them, as lawfully entitled to the same as I am myself. I furthermore promise and swear, that I will stand to and abide by all laws, rules, and regulations of the Master Masons Degree, and of the Lodge of which I may hereafter become a member, as far as the same shall come to my knowledge; and that I will ever maintain and support the Constitution, laws, and edicts of the Grand Lodge under which the same shall be holden. Further, that I will acknowledge and obey all due signs and summons sent to me from a Master Masons’ Lodge, or given me by a brother of that Degree, if within the length of my cable tow. Further, that I will always aid and assist all poor, distressed, worthy Master Masons, their widows and orphans, knowing them to be such, as far as their necessities may require, and my ability permit, without material injury to myself and family. Further, that I will keep a worthy brother Master Mason’s secrets inviolable, when communicated to and received by me as such, murder and treason excepted. Further, that I will not aid, nor be present at, the initiation, passing, or raising of a woman, an old man in his dotage, a young man in his nonage, an atheist, a madman, or fool, knowing them to be such. Further, that I will not sit in a Lodge of Clandestine-made Masons, nor converse on the subject of Masonry with a clandestine-made Mason, nor one who has been expelled or suspended from a Lodge, while under that sentence, knowing him or them to be such. Further, I will not cheat, wrong, nor defraud a Master Masons’ Lodge, nor a brother of this Degree, knowingly, nor supplant him in any of his laudable undertakings, but will give him due and timely notice, that he may ward off all danger. Further, that I will not knowingly strike a brother Master Mason, or otherwise do him personal violence in anger, except in the necessary defense of my family or property. Further, that I will not have illegal carnal intercourse with a Master Mason’s wife, his mother, sister, or daughter knowing them to be such, nor suffer the same to be done by others, if in my power to prevent. Further, that I will not give the Grand Masonic word, in any other manner or form than that in which I shall receive it, and then in a low breath. Further, that I will not give the Grand Hailing Sign of distress except in case of the most imminent danger, in a just and lawful Lodge, or for the benefit of instruction; and if ever I should see it given, or hear the words accompanying it, by a worthy brother in distress, I will fly to his relief, if there is a greater probability of saving his life than losing my own. All this I most solemnly, sincerely promise and swear, with a firm and steady resolution to perform the same, without any hesitation, myself, under no less penalty than that of having my body severed in two, my bowels taken from thence and burned to ashes, the ashes scattered before the four winds of heaven, that no more remembrance might be had of so vile and wicked a wretch as I would be, should I ever, knowingly, violate this my Master Mason’s obligation. So help me God, and keep me steadfast in the due performance of the same.

Boring isn’t it? Just like this stupid issue. I gave it a once over, but I was unable to find the satan worshiping, take over the world parts, let me know if you find them.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, February 23, 2010 at 6:19 pm Link to this comment

No archivesDave I have not but have run accross the titles before. I shall look into Hagger‘s work.

See whose been promulgating the idea that Freemasonry is bad and that so was the Illuminati (a short lived group of intellectuals who believed in secular gov’t) as evil consiracies? The extreme theocrats who want a theocratic corporate state. The “Illuminati” were outlawed in 1789, Bavaria. I think it is their enemies and winners who say what they are/were and of course paint them as sinister. I have seen nothing to show they exist in any organized form.

Freemasonry was more important to the Colonies that Christianity & going to church. Even the militias had a representative of the local lodge in it during the war of Independence. Being a Mason is as common and as dangerous as being in the Rotary Club.

Report this

By Cole..., February 23, 2010 at 5:18 pm Link to this comment

You didn’t mention Jose Washington, papa de nation.

You can walk around town. most towns and see the trappings on the concrete walls. Some folks just like to sign up and be a part of a secret bunch learn the handshake and the oath and in the word of the Mason ‘hope for Chaos’.

But after you find the book containing the published secret oath whatca got left?

Report this

By archivesDave, February 23, 2010 at 3:21 pm Link to this comment

JD and Cole,
at least you guys are getting inquisitive….now go look up Hagger’s wks.

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, February 23, 2010 at 3:07 pm Link to this comment


Here’s a list of some notable Free Masons:

Salvador Allende
Nat King Cole
Jesse Jackson
Buffalo Bill
Harpo Marx

This Free Mason thing gets curiouser and curiouser, doesn’t it?

Report this

By Cole..., February 23, 2010 at 1:08 pm Link to this comment

I’ll take a jab at it.
Taking a stab at it did not work out well for Brutus.
‘Tis a fuction of what is and how you define chao/chaos.
Or can one make a living from shit? Well look at the lowly dungbettle pushing along his rolled up collection and the answer is ‘damn right!’

Moving away from the musical Mayham which may have had been the greatest band of all time—actually I never heard of them and where are they now?—to the Masons (and where are they now?), Oh that’s right they are secret so now one knows. but that is the very definition of secret, ‘no one is to know where and what they are!’ That must be also the clue to the very nature of chao/chaos—if it brings on ‘order’ it ceases to exist, so the actual latinic saying should be Chao ab or ad Chao.

That seems to be the current state of affairs this nation has locked into, constant war constant chao. Look and see if your elected reps roll their dung ball home at night and cozy up to it and you will know that somewhere a Mason smiles.

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, February 23, 2010 at 12:25 pm Link to this comment


Your comment,

“You’ll find what you’re searching for when you
understand the footing of ‘ordo ab chao’.”

You have no idea how startling this comment was to me. I’ve been searching for so long, that seeing your comment caused me much excitement. At last, at long last, I’ll find what I’m searching for.

Of course, I immediately began researching the meaning of this mysterious “ordo ab chao.” I quickly discovered that “ordo ab chao” is Latin, and that the common translation is “Out of chaos comes order,” but the actual translation is “Out of order comes chaos” and that the correct Latin for “Out of chaos comes order” would be “Ordo ad chao.” I must admit that all these intended or unintended mistranslations are causing me some chaos.

“Ordo ab chao” is also the name of an album by a black metal band called Mayhem. I’m wondering, will my lifelong search finally come to an end by further study of the above mentioned “footing,” or should I focus on Mayhem. Apparently the drummer for Mayhem said the album, “sounded necro as fuck,” is this comment a kind of code, and will it lead me to find what I’m searching for?

The above mentioned “footing” part was not easily ascertained.  I did find some vague reference to the above mentioned “footing.” If I understand this “footing” correctly, it has something to do with equal “footing,” and is part of the Free Masonry, or Illuminati oath.

Apparently, this Free Masonry/Illuminati oath is very secretive, and has been the subject of much debate and skullduggery.

Further research lead me to an archaic document that was written early in the 1880’s. This document asserted that Free Masons caused the disappearance of a commoner who published a book containing this secretive oath. Were the Free Masons angry because the book pointed out that they needed to brush up on their Latin, or were there other nefarious details involved?

Good news! Further study has enlightened me. “ordo ab chao” is the Free Masonry motto and is intended to mean “Order from chaos,” which would be the correct Latin translation. This is a bit of an epiphany, and it alleviates some of my chaos, but it does cause me to seek the answer to other questions. Why would an organization adopt such a motto? Is it that they see the goal of bringing order out of chaos as being virtuous, and something they should ascribe to? Or is it proof that they were plotting to take over the world?

Sadly, I’m no closer to finding what I’ve been searching for now, than I was before. I’m starting to believe that I put far too much significance on your comment, and that your comment was only intended to point out the strategy employed by a cabal of some sort.

Without further proof, my current belief is that the powerful elite are very good at manipulating chaos to their advantage, but the belief that there is a concerted effort by a cabal to create chaos in order to consolidate their control, strikes me as being a little too conspiratorial, and not supported by any definitive evidence.

Oh well, I’m still searching. Any further help that you can be to me, in order to help me find what I’m searching for, would be greatly appreciated.

Report this

By archivesDave, February 23, 2010 at 5:23 am Link to this comment

I appreciate your astute comments.  Just curious to know if you have read some of Hagger’s wks such as ‘The Syndicate’ and ‘The Secret History of the West’

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, February 22, 2010 at 7:12 pm Link to this comment

“Order of Chaos” is it? No they only use it to position themselves like on a chess board only this is something more. Machiavelli said that in order to create a new organization (gov’t) one must remove the one in place now. Such is being done. Oh don’t confuse a large meta-system by looking at a small section and thinking it is chaos. It isn’t. (The elephant is quite big.)

Only a very few need know what is really going on. Just letting loose those who will plunder to the point of destruction so as to weaken this system, our Republic, while in the process of emptying its coffers to feed & build a global military larger than the last three empires put together should be noted. At the same time it must be recognized that these same people have locked us into a poorly functioning gov’t. Inverted Totalitarianism stymies the republic from working effectively while the fascist parts move very fast and are always well funded. Just look at the battle for health care but not for the military.

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, February 22, 2010 at 6:50 pm Link to this comment

If you don’t like this SCOTUS ruling, help change it.

Report this

By archivesDave, February 22, 2010 at 6:38 pm Link to this comment

N-G, JD, Garth, et al :
You guys continue to discuss “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin” and can’t seem to get beyond when the true ‘principalities and powers’
and puppeteers remain a couple of echelons above.

You’ll find what you’re searching for when you
understand the footing of ‘ordo ab chao’.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, February 22, 2010 at 11:12 am Link to this comment

I would ask you JDmysticDJ who among the those most known have followed Marx/Engles? Russia? China? N. Korea? Who and where? Please inform me on this. I would say they weren’t"followers” of Marx/Engles at all but used it the way Hitler used his own versions of populism to lull the people into compliance if not out right support. This while most of the people became serfs & the few elites and their military ruled over them. We see that now here with the kind of populism that supports oligarchs while the people struggle to live in the kind of society that gives them freedom not only to fail but to die. It tends to weed out all those who have empathy and are independent thinkers who asks the “wrong” questions.

Those who succeed are more in the mold of what the oligarchs want—-compliant self starters who want power too & protection. There was less difference between Russia under the Bolsheviks and Germany under the Nazis than the difference between Marx/Engles & Corporate Capitalism. It was just that the Bolshis under Lenin/Stalin wanted it all so they owned all manufacturing unlike in Germany where the corporations had autonomy as long as they agreed with the National Socialist party. [The “socialism” was for the dominate class and their corporate machines.”] The same in Italy where there is the elite class, a military security class and then everyone else under their collective thumbs. I can also add Spain and Thailand from that time too. [I have not studied Mongolia so I can’t say anything about them from that time-independently became Soviet-Communist in 1928.] There are variations of dictatorship but in all cases the people are said to be in charge, rather like here, but they in fact are not. Note: we don’t have such an obvious dictatorship but it is tightening every year till we lose it all. I could go into more detail of analyzing the various flavors of totalitarianism but I think it isn’t relevant to this discussion. (Two excellent books, of many on this subject are by Naomi Klein “Shock Doctrine” & Naomi Wolf “The End of America” are good to start.)

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, February 22, 2010 at 10:37 am Link to this comment


Having read your earlier comments (Primarily the Feb. 18 post) A few things stick out.

Your contention that former avowed followers of Marxist teachings had “no connection” with Marx is puzzling to say the least.

Your comparison between the Bible and the volume of Marx’s teachings is a valid one. I will make the observation that following the teachings of the Bible has not solved all the world’s problems, nor has following the teachings of Marx solved all the world’s problems. I personally find many of the teachings of these two fields of study to have certain virtues, but I feel quite confident that the specific teachings of these two fields of study, which I give credence, will not have credence with others. Adherents to various religious and political dogmas have caused dissension, conflict, atrocity, and war, while the ideal of democracy is all inclusive, and not exclusive.

Personally, I find recent developments in South America to be promising, as long as economic theories don’t supersede democratic principles. Sadly, for many reasons, democratic institutions have failed at times to promote economic justice, and Marxist inspired governments have failed, most often, to provide egalitarianism, which is the corner stone of democracy.

Marxist theorists strike me as being:  politically counter productive, reactionary, ineffectual, intellectual elitists.

You make the following comment in your Feb. 20th post.

“Marching in the streets does nothing. Strikes? That could increase the violence and bring the empire on faster. What to do?”

This comment seems to me to be a contradiction of history, and an assertion not supported by anything other than conjecture. I’ll state flatly that political protest (“Marching in the streets”) has been effective, and at the very least political protest brings grievances to the forefront of political debate. I’ll concede that strikes have resulted in repressive violence, but contrary to your fear, they have not brought on empire faster, they have had the effect of restraining, reducing, or destroying the tyranny of “empire.”

Political action will do something, “What to do”? does nothing.

Report this

By garth, February 20, 2010 at 3:04 pm Link to this comment

I agree.  I have to keep reminding myself that the elections are questionable at best.  Since they put such effort into derailing the vote twice in the past ten years, I wonder when they will become as blatant as that again. I guess I’ll know when some wax character like Evan Bayh wins with 98 percent of the vote.
An economist named Friedman (sp?) was mentioned on a news show recently and his observation was that one sign that the country is breaking down is that the social fabric in fraying.  People are nasty to one another. 
I think that is happening.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, February 20, 2010 at 1:49 pm Link to this comment

Once we become an empire both from within as well as without it will function more smoothly and quickly unlike now. We might still have elections but even you or I would know that they are fully a sham unlike today where they still appear “free & open.”

When the Old Republic is swept away we will know that too. It is coming if we can’t put the stops to it. Long in the planning by those who failed in 1934 made sure to stack all or most of things in their favor. The Supreme Court ruling was one such turn of the screw.

Report this

By garth, February 20, 2010 at 1:37 pm Link to this comment

By Night-Gaunt, February 20 at 4:18 pm #

One change I have Garth and that would be the analogy between the fall of the Roman Republic & fall of the American Republic. Empire? You haven’t seen empire yet! When it is fully realized there will be no debate. Right now we are in flux between a republic & empire—a bad fit, a kluge that cannot continue. One or the other or both will fall. Can we make a difference? Marching in the streets does nothing. Strikes? That could increase the violence and bring the empire on faster. What to do?

John Perkins pointed out in his interviews on the “Confessions of an Economic Hit Man” that the American Empire is like no other.  We took control of other countries first by putting them in debt and ultimately, if debt didn’t work as planned, by military means.  Our 700 plus bases throughout the world exist to protect American interests.  Joe Biden is still using that phrase.

I agree with you, though, that the military thrust will come—you can’t eat a walnut without breaking the shell.  And I say that with US military’s development of the predator drone in mind. I don’t think anyone has come up with an effective defense against it, yet.  It’s like the effect that the repeater rifle had in the US Cavalry’s genocide of the American Indian.

For instance, when the Russians went into Ossetia in 2008, they warned the US that they were taking ICBMs with them in case any of those drones were used on Russian soldiers.  A reminder to Bush that about 130,000 U.S. troops were sitting in bases in Iraq.

Biden’s praise of the new SDI in Romania is another threat against Russia. 

Now, the Chinese, for example, demonstrated a few years ago that they could easily shoot down one of these satellites.  If these US spy satellites were shot down, I think the sites of these predator control centers would have to be moved closer to the potential targets, bringing the command & control sites themselves in range and open to counter attack.  And the right-wing kooks in the DoD can’t have that can they?

What to do? 

What happened to Shumer’s hearings?  What happened to, or any of the other proposed bills in the House?  They would at least, I think,  ebb the drift into a corporatocracy?  But this threat needs to be stopped in its tracks.  Basic changes need to be made.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, February 20, 2010 at 12:18 pm Link to this comment

One change I have Garth and that would be the analogy between the fall of the Roman Republic & fall of the American Republic. Empire? You haven’t seen empire yet! When it is fully realized there will be no debate. Right now we are in flux between a republic & empire—a bad fit, a kluge that cannot continue. One or the other or both will fall. Can we make a difference? Marching in the streets does nothing. Strikes? That could increase the violence and bring the empire on faster. What to do?

Report this

By garth, February 20, 2010 at 10:55 am Link to this comment

Bill Moyers on his show last night in his epilogue last night said something to the effect that this country will surely fail if this Supreme Court ruling continues to its logical conclusion.  The end will come under the radar mostly by corruption of our judicial system.  First, the legislature and the courts and then the whole idea will come crashing down on our heads.  Comparisons are now being drawn between the fall of the Roman Empire and fall of the United States Democracy.

In the end, the main business of United States will be political campaigns, never ending, sort of like our war policy.  It’ll be “Campaigns R US.” 
Instead of bolstering our educational system to gear up for the new high tech economy making things, the younger generations will be taught marketing brand names, plotting dirty tricks, and for those who do not score high in the newly designed IQ tests, well, they can carry placards, pass out leaflets, do the dirty work.  Or they can go to war.
There’ll be plenty for everyone of their liking to do.

Report this

By archivesDave, February 19, 2010 at 5:26 pm Link to this comment

Thanks Y’all,
have read Tahibbi before and he is one sharp cookie.
Will pursue…
Would like you to do a little forensics on the subject
of ‘Ordo Ab Chao’ re the Globalist agenda and tell me
what you come up with..
A VERY fascinating philosophy and I’m certain that is
the course they have charted for all of us unless we
come up with a way to derail them.

Report this

By elisalouisa, February 19, 2010 at 4:38 pm Link to this comment

archivesDave: Google search   Matt Taibbi ; Wall Street’s Bailout Hustle’ - February 17 2010
also of interest is Matt Taibbi ‘The Big Takeover’  3/19/2009

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, February 19, 2010 at 2:29 pm Link to this comment

A cheaper way—-the internet! Matt is worth reading.

Report this

By Cole..., February 19, 2010 at 2:03 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

My first reply seems to nt be published
so you can get the item on—
or on—.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

Report this

By Cole..., February 19, 2010 at 1:23 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Come on, you got 5 bucks! Use it well buy a copy
Or if you want try .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

I subscribe to it——-not because I care a bit about the Hollywood stuff, but because they are on the better side of Left/rt line. And they have Taibbi (and others) He has written—I believe three pieces before this one—and all have exposed the rotten underbelly of our present day politics.

Worth looking at even if you have to stand in the store and read it—or take your digital and make pics of the pages.

Most off all do read it.

Report this

By archivesDave, February 19, 2010 at 12:54 pm Link to this comment

Is there a link somewhere for that Tahibi article?

Report this

By Cole..., February 19, 2010 at 9:42 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Not fond of giving advise—cannot charge for it and no one listens—but.
Take my advise and gather up some bucks, rob the piggy bank, take your kids or that of your younger sis or bro and grab the loot and hie thee down to the nearby market and spend the $4.99 on the latest edition *March 4th edition* of Rolling Stones!

Read Matt Taibbi’s piece! Only a few pages long but it took me a few days—too overwhelming for a quick, one time read.

Report this

By garth, February 19, 2010 at 7:56 am Link to this comment

A military coup took over Niger.  They said they want to restore democracy.  Sound familiar?
Niger is the country wherre that Wilson wass sent to investigate if Hussein bought yellow cake, a precursor to nuclear development.  I wouldn’t be surprised if the US CIA was not involved in that coup, and that soon you’ll US envoys in the news over there cementing relations, tightening the oligarchs grip on the world.

Alan Simpson said on PBS last night that he’s going win the day for Mr. Obama’s newly ordered debt commission with humor.

A sample of his standup:

Hear the one about the priest, the minister and the rabbi who suddenly found themselves overwhelmed with hordes of elderly because they’re going lose their dwellings because their Social Security has been cut?  Ta dum.

Or the guy on the operating table who has been brought back to consciousness so he can sign an agreement to pay the new privatized Medicare rates so the doctor can finish the operation and sew him back up.  Ta dum.

I’ll be here till December.  Try the veal.

A guy named Schmitt from the American Prospect said on C-SPAN that they are trying to organize a unified effort to counter this new right-wing Republican strategy. 
Davezx3, I certainly hope you are right, that we at least have a chance to short-circuit this march to a militaristic, austere country and bring the people to their senses without having to go through a rude awakening a la Europe after WWII.

Report this

By archivesDave, February 18, 2010 at 5:11 pm Link to this comment

Bro, u hit the nail squarely on the head here and I’m behind u 100 percent!
This Fall’s elections, as I have previously underlined, are this country’s last and best hope.
The Globalists have their tentacles all over us now
but we still have a chance if we can find the way to
establish some type of coalition instead of continuing to lob bombs at each other while this Titanic continues to take on water which the Globalists are counting on…Their underlying philosophy remains: ORDO AB CHAO…
This brings to mind one of the big hits of the sixties: “United We Stand, Divided We Fall”, and it holds far more credence today than it did then.
We are now required to find a way to hang together or we will ultimately hang separately.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, February 18, 2010 at 1:48 pm Link to this comment

The Regressives (they have other names) not only want such evolution to “stop”* but to regress to a time they like such as the Guilded Age or even the theocracies of New England of the 1600’s—at least socially.

*Wm. F. Buckley said so famously in 1950. He also liked the idea of American red/white/blue kind of totalitarianism was a good idea too—-against the Soviets kind of course. A counter weight of sorts. Some want that today tool.

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, February 18, 2010 at 12:26 pm Link to this comment

Sometime ago on this thread, (or maybe it was another thread,) arguing for the principles of Democracy and the virtues of political action, I used the old quotation about people getting the Democracy they deserve.

Our Founding Fathers gave us the best government they could, and flawed as it was, it was quite progressive in its day. They also commented that we would have to fight to keep it; some were somewhat skeptical about our ability to keep it.

I don’t want to understate how flawed it was, as Zinn said, it was “Government of the Bourgeoisie, by the Bourgeoisie, and for the Bourgeoisie,” and the fledgling Democracy failed to address massive injustice, but over the years, through struggle, sacrifice, and political action, we the people were able to correct some of that injustice.

Our Democracy began as a revolutionary process and then became an evolutionary process. Reading the comments here it appears that some think our Democracy is now extinct.
I would agree that our Democracy has been corrupted, and I believe this corruption has been an evolutionary process as well. I don’t want to understate this corruption either. This corruption has consequences, not just for this nation, but for the entire world.  I don’t want to understate these consequences either.  These consequences have been glaringly obvious, to some, and have escalated rapidly over the last half century; the magnitude of these consequences is evident to those who only have a cursory understanding of recent history. Historians, journalists, academics, and others have reported these consequences in detail but, oddly, these consequences seem to have been obfuscated by their own magnitude.  Many seem not to care about these consequences, and accept them as being a part of the natural order of things. Clearly this obfuscation has not eliminated these consequences, but only suppressed meaningful discussion of them. I’ll argue that that this suppression has caused a global anxiety, that only serves to aggravate world neurosis and pathology.

Clearly, it would be difficult to argue that our nation is responsible for all the world’s problems, but this nation is responsible for the problems it causes and contributes to. When super power nations become corrupt, they become a threat to all the people of the world.

Supposing my grandiose laymen’s analysis is true, the question then becomes, what is to be done?

I don’t believe our Democracy is extinct, but I acknowledge that currently, it would fall into the category of an endangered species. It’s currently a kind of hybrid, part Democracy and part fascism (Corporatism, as defined by Mussolini.) Our Founding Fathers were prescient when they provided us with constitutionally guaranteed avenues for political action to oppose tyranny. I advocate, and will continue to advocate, that we exercise our Constitutional Rights, and resort to political protest and non-violent action, in order to preserve our Democracy. The task is daunting, but I see no other option.  I’ve seen comments where people assert that we are helpless, and that there is nothing we can do until a new political theorist comes to the fore who will guide us to a new and improved political system. I see this as not being an option, I believe there is no political system preferable to Democracy, and therefore our Democracy must be preserved, through struggle, sacrifice, and political action.

Criticisms are “sexy”, solutions are not. (The reality is, criticisms, on their own, are impotent, while political actions are not.)

Report this

By garth, February 18, 2010 at 10:31 am Link to this comment

There are other ideas more appropriate to this world of 7 billion people than Capitalism. 
Money does not make the world go ‘round, it’s a means of exchange.  When the rich start acting like hoarders, that’s when the touble begins.
Monetarism, schmonetarism.

The inalienable rights are Life Liberty and the Purfuit of Happineff (I can’t help myself.)
I would guess that a a sub-right, listed under the third one, according to the Wealthy Class, would be: the right to Gloat.

The Wealth Agenda screams to those who currently are working or who’ve been self-employed, that the welfare underclass is still a problem.  The Tea Baggers are the symbol, but beneath that clammor is a group of people who are too busy, or too ill-informed to see that Dick Armey, the Congressional back-bencher, is out to gut their economic existence.

I ignore whatever comes out of the WH lately.  If they want to send B.H. Obama, the Junior Executive out for a pep talk, then let them. 

Where are all these Senate and House hearings that they threatened in reaction to the Supreme Court ruling?

William Black pointed out that more than 1000 people went to jail for the S&L fraud in the 80s.  So far, there have been no investigations and no indictments in the biggest Wall Street robbery in history.

So go on, Obama, you chump.  Cheer us on.
Kill more Afghans, deprive Americans of legal redress, colonialize Iraq.  Denounce Rev. Wright. 

Mr. Obama, for most people, except for the Blacks who are explicably caught up in this Black Vs. White lie, you’ve asked for a little more time and a little more time, and you sat in the WH and simply felt good about yourself, while this country is going down the drain.

I guess you don’t give a rat’s ass.  But let me put to Obama the question that is being asked by a lot of Americans who have children: “What about your children?  Do you care about them?  Do they guaranteed passage?

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, February 18, 2010 at 9:32 am Link to this comment

“The answer is that which the founders of the USA determined.  Individual sovereignty, decentralized power.  At least that way, no perverted ideologies will have a chance of taking away my freedom. “-DaveZx3

That was only applicable to the Confederation from 1776-1789 then we had a quiet revolution and became a Federal Republic. I think we should be more like the Swiss in many things. Closer to our original founding. [Though even then anyone not a property owner, white and male were second or third class citizens or slaves in that awful past.] The eloquent writing didn’t live up to the reality but many of us keep trying to make it so.

I have spoken before on this TD forum, on other threads, about balance. Where to have individualism, Capitalism and Socialism. We should have the most autonomy concerning our own body, we must work together to keep us all going and a safety net for when we fail. So even the poorest will have a modicum of a place to live, food, clothes and a decent clean area to move back into the work force to rise above. We will always need a certain level of Capitalism for it is where the vitalist aspects of our society has a chance to rise. Nature is balance and so must our society.

Capitalism free of any restraint is like a disease or fire and eventually kills everything in sight. NO Capitalism deadens society with little innovation or change. Corporations are our servants not our masters and until the world is returned to its previous state the corporation (and their owners) will gain more power till the differences betweeen the state and business is obliterated as will our freedoms. Right now they tell us the corporations are free to do anything to us because in their strict self serving reading of the Bill of Rights it only applies to gov’t! We use to control corporations: every 5 years they would come up for evaluation. If they did not pass the criterion of helping society and its members it was dissolved. If it had then 5 more years it will exist. We need to do that to every corporation right now. If we don’t the next phase for them is nationhood. Then they will be monsters we can’t contain. The power of them as nation-states will be horrible. On their property you are on their soil and subject to their laws!

This most recent step by the Supreme Court will lead us closer to that terrible future. Our only hope is that the uncorrupted members of Congress can limit what the Supreme Court has done. Before the next round of voting eliminates that meager element of good gov’t left.

Report this

By DaveZx3, February 18, 2010 at 7:55 am Link to this comment

By Night-Gaunt, February 17 at 5:42 pm #

“Who said Mao or any of the others had one whit of connexion with Marx? Not me because they didn’t, they used his name and face but not his ideas.”

I agree 100% with that statement, NG.  It is a common theme.  An individual or group proclaim an ideology but then act totally contrary to that ideology.

Then, others judge the ideology based on what they observe the so-called proponents of it actually doing.  These others rarely actually take the time to understand the ideology, because it is much easier to make judgements based on a few, often perverted, observations.

Since self-interests always seem to commandeer any ideology which looks like it might have some power, how can any ideology ever be evaluated on its own merits?  Probably never.

The answer is that which the founders of the USA determined.  Individual sovereignty, decentralized power.  At least that way, no perverted ideologies will have a chance of taking away my freedom. 

Large governments and large corporations and large organizations of any kind are the problem, not the solution.  The only reason for largeness is to have the power to indoctrinate the people into something they would not probably choose for themselves, were all the facts known to them. 

It is the large size of organizations or movements of any kind which provide cover for the self-interests to move in and take over, ignoring the original ideologies and taking on completely selfish agendas.  That, my friends, is why the world is so screwed up.  It is not for a lack of good ideas, but for the destruction of those ideas by the self-interests.

Right now, the most dangerous self-interests are the global elite, meeting in their annual secret high level meetings.  Corporate, government and intellectual powers, all deciding on an agenda for us without our input. 

I am ready to declare this activity treasonous for a US government elected or appointed leader to meet with other foreign powers in secret to decide high level agendas. 

If there was one thing I could do to put the power back into the hands of individuals and small groups, it would be to eliminate this high level conspiring in secret.  It would be to impeach these traitors as a lesson to all who might think such a thing was a legitimate thing to do.  I believe it to be unconstitutional, and thus a good case could be made for treason and impeachment.  It would be a very good first step to putting things back in order, and putting meaning back into our votes. 

Not to demean the concern over the present thread, but I believe there are much bigger fish which need to be fried first.  Is anyone in agreement with this thought?

Report this

By elisalouisa, February 18, 2010 at 6:53 am Link to this comment

Night-Gaunt:Your quote of ‘Comment on James Mill’ is in my view a more apt
description of one who creates as in a hobby rather than everyday work. Thus in
creation through culinary skill commonly known as cooking or the cultivation of a
beautiful garden, woodwork, etc. one can experience true pleasure. The fact that
there is no one to oversee you when you do your work adds much. This could be
the reason why people in other countries who have little or nothing except through personally selling their art work look happier than many in the U.S. who have so much.

Report this

By archivesDave, February 18, 2010 at 2:29 am Link to this comment

N.G., to continue, Thom Hartmann was discussing how there are certain companies (and co-ops) such as one in Spain that are attempting to apply some of these
theories and doing it with a considerable degree of success.

Report this

By archivesDave, February 18, 2010 at 2:07 am Link to this comment

Thanx N.G….
And like the Bible, Marx’s works were consummated over a period of time.
It’s interesting how so many intellectuals are quoted as if they were an integrated monolith instead of a diversified complex character asserting confusing contradictory statements over several decades.
An elephant description would exude a parallel situation to one group of blind natives who examined him at birth juxtaposed to another group trying to describe him at old age.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, February 17, 2010 at 8:44 pm Link to this comment

In the labour process

According to Karl Marx, alienation is a systemic result of capitalism. Marx‘s Theory of Alienation is founded upon his observation that in emerging industrial production under capitalism, workers inevitably lose control over their lives and destinies by being deprived of control over their actions. Workers never become autonomous, self-realized human beings, but are directed, diverted, into the ways in which the bourgeois want workers to behave. Alienation in capitalist societies occurs because in work each contributes to the common wealth, but can only express this fundamentally social aspect of individuality through a production system that is not publicly (socially), but privately owned, and for which each individual functions, not as a social being, but as an instrument:

  ‘Let us suppose that we had carried out production as human beings. Each of us would have in two ways affirmed himself and the other person. 1) In my production I would have objectified my individuality, its specific character, and therefore enjoyed not only an individual manifestation of my life during the activity, but also when looking at the object I would have the individual pleasure of knowing my personality to be objective, visible to the senses and hence a power beyond all doubt. 2) In your enjoyment or use of my product I would have the direct enjoyment both of being conscious of having satisfied a human need by my work, that is, of having objectified man’s essential nature, and of having thus created an object corresponding to the need of another man’s essential nature. ... Our products would be so many mirrors in which we saw reflected our essential nature.’” (Comment on James Mill )WikiPedia’s_theory_of_alienation , there is much more here. As you can see that such actualization of the individual wasn’t what Lenin, Stalin, Mao & Pol Pot were interested in or ultimately obtained. In fact the opposite, the alienation by the new bourgeois of the leaders of those Communist states. Only I would say that it was just superficial in name only of “communist” or “socialist” and in fact were more in line with those very right wingers who also wanted such power and control over the masses but with the state being the only arbiter of business. It was all about centralized power. The workers didn’t own the means of production the gov’t through its own czars and potentates in the Sino-Soviet sphere till recently. About the only real difference is that Capitalism was never allowed to grow then fall, China is finally doing it and turning into a fascist state without a ripple. Except for the masses left hanging that is. Plenty of alienation there.

Check out Marx/Engles own writings archivesDave. Like the Bible he is much quoted (& blamed) but rarely read.

“The role for which he is most remembered today was as a night-time messenger on horseback just before the battles of Lexington and Concord. His famous “Midnight Ride” occurred on the night of April 18/April 19, 1775, when he and William Dawes were instructed by Dr. Joseph Warren to ride from Boston to Lexington to warn John Hancock and Samuel Adams of the movements of the British Army, which was beginning a march from Boston to Lexington, ostensibly to arrest Hancock and Adams and seize the weapons stores in Concord.” WikiPedia

Just remember that it was Revere who didn’t complete the ride, it was the unsung William Dawes who completed it, Revere was captured by the British and failed in his Midnight Ride.

Report this

By archivesDave, February 17, 2010 at 5:34 pm Link to this comment

I agree E.L….
I’d rather go out as a skyrocket instead of a ‘ladyfinger’...

Report this

By elisalouisa, February 17, 2010 at 4:31 pm Link to this comment

But then again, what could be more dramatic than having your head served on a

Report this

By elisalouisa, February 17, 2010 at 4:20 pm Link to this comment

I have always loved the drama that is part of the Paul Revere epic.Not to much
drama now days.Since such views are not in the main stream we must walk that
walk alone.

Report this

By archivesDave, February 17, 2010 at 4:03 pm Link to this comment

Truer words were never spoken!...Which one would you
prefer to be, John the Baptist or Paul Revere ?

Report this

By elisalouisa, February 17, 2010 at 3:44 pm Link to this comment

JDmysticD3: Forgive me, but I think that some of us feel that expressing this
need is therapeutic, while others believe that doing something is necessary in
order to make us less needy
The need is to find others of kindred spirit. One must indeed be careful on this
Internet as to the choice of words. That being said there is a clear and present
danger that must be faced as to what may be down the road. Just read ‘It’s
Greek to Goldman Sachs’ quoting President Obama as saying just last week in
defense of Goldman CEO Lloyd Blanfein and Jamie Dimon, his old Chicago
buddy who heads JPMorgan Chase, “I know both those guys; they are very savvy
businessmen”  Wall Street goes on as usual, only worse, now they have
unlimited tax money to throw away on risky investments.  The handwriting is on
the wall and those who don’t see it are the ones allowing this country to be
swept away into a world order where democracy is a thing of the past.

Report this

By garth, February 17, 2010 at 2:16 pm Link to this comment

In my opinion the last four or five posts, I’m too lazy to go back and count them, were, I can’t find the appropriate word, so I’ll just say thank you.

Yes, public hangings, was just a meant to be hyperbole, like get the pitchforks.  It might turn out to be lucky for them that the world has become more humane.  But I agreee that labor day after day is a harsh teacher. 

And I am all for curtailing the 911 conspiracy language and just asking for an honest investigation.  No Bush people, no Rep Hamiltons, none of that shit.  Just a real investigation.

Kevin Phillips point out in one of his books that the Confederacy did not die at the end of the Civil War, it metasticized to the West.  Mr. Obama has appointed Alan Simmson, the ultra-conservative ex-Rep Sen from Wyoming and Erskine Bowles to head the Coomision to make recommendations on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.
I know beforehand what Simpson will push, so why doesn’t someone get in front of this Commission and for a New American Confederate Union and trumpet the cause for cutting Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid and just give us the Free Market. 
We need more poor people, sick people and more poor sick people.
I think Alan Simpsoin could be put on a Stretcher from the Middle Ages and we could get him to about 8 feet.  Enough for a billboard with the caption, “Would you like to grow with Simpson’s America?
I am really earnest about going to Washington and marching and meeting other people and getting active about changing this government.  If there are millions, so much the better.

Report this

By archivesDave, February 17, 2010 at 1:57 pm Link to this comment

Reference source(s) please…

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, February 17, 2010 at 1:42 pm Link to this comment

Who said Mao or any of the others had one whit of connexion with Marx? Not me because they didn’t, they used his name and face but not his ideas.

Report this

By Cole..., February 17, 2010 at 1:34 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I’d settle for a forensic investigation of what led to and happened on 911

Report this

By Cole..., February 17, 2010 at 1:22 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I heartily agree, it is worse than you said.

Was the question you asked: “...Are you advocating stark cuts in Social Programs while urging the increase in our already bloated war budget?..”
directed at me? Or was it tossed to the general readership? If it was at me, the short answer is somewhere between—Huh? and no.

My position is that all forms of ‘goverment’ are full of faults and free flowing libertarianism is not any better, it just makes everyone his/her own government. Monachies, dictatorships, empires are basicaly the same—a guy at the top rewarding his pals for helping him retain the top spot which they have for life. This Democracy or Republic, whatever it is, was to be the FF’s answer, but as we are now seeing it is just the same old thing, with a slight variation: the top spots shift about but the “kings pals” are in control and make sure the ‘top spot’ guys of the moment are owned by them and keep rewarding them.

War of course is the glue that keeps the
govt de joure from flying apart and it works as long as there are sufficient numbers to sacrifice or willing to be sacrificed to keep the “King or King’s pals” in power—just call it the great glory of ‘just wars’.

Build a war and they will come!

Report this

By archivesDave, February 17, 2010 at 1:20 pm Link to this comment

Garth et al:
If u guys truly want to engage in a forensic investigation of what really happened in the Russian Revolution, do a google search on Dr Nicholas Hagger and his exhausive research.
This will also answer many of your other queries about
who the ‘principalities and powers’ were, and who the
puppeteers are today.

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, February 17, 2010 at 1:12 pm Link to this comment


Perhaps the seeds of a movement are found within all of us, and will take sprout and grow to harvest, with the proper cultivation, lots of sunshine, and an agreeable climate.

I wasn’t in Russia in 1917, so it’s hard to appraise the rationale of those who participated in public hangings, but I am opposed to the death penalty, and I am most definitely not in favor of a modern Bolshevism. To illustrate, I’ll point to the kangaroo courts which were overseen by Che’ Guevara. I was extremely critical of those actions until I learned that those executed were responsible for a massacre at a village where Che’ and his ragtag revolutionaries had been given refuge. I went from being extremely critical, to being critical and adamantly opposed to those executions. One of the right’s favorite demons, Mao, whose followers were often the victims of public executions, ordered that his enemies be “re-educated” rather than executed. Again, I am not advocating Marxism, or denying that atrocities have been perpetrated by Marxists and their followers, I’m only suggesting more humane policies. Unless I have misjudged you, I realize that you were only using the example of hangings, in order to be illustrative.

Public prosecutions of those guilty of varying degrees of governmental or corporate crime, in legitimate courts, on the other hand, would have the effect of scaring some straight, and if not, there would still be the option of public prosecutions.

I have often fantasized about enforced minimum wage penalties for those responsible of the grossest kinds of exploitation. Wasn’t it the former emperor of China, who was assigned to do janitorial/maintenance work at the Forbidden City.?

Alas, we are currently under the yoke, so to speak, and unless things change, what we’re talking about is a mere pipe dream, but let us not forget that there are very real problems, of the utmost importance, which are in desperate need of being resolved.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, February 17, 2010 at 12:47 pm Link to this comment

Ironically the Bolshis copied much from the Tsar they hated. From the secret police to internal exile to their leaders, Tsars all, from Lenin to Putin (with minor exception). They learned the wrong lessons and used them with impunity to get what they wanted and to maintain it. So did our oligarchs who after failing in 1934 have gone about taking over in a slow all encompassing way so that all bets they have win.

Report this

By garth, February 17, 2010 at 12:34 pm Link to this comment

“I must remind you Garth that the Bolsheviks overthrew the Democratic-Socialist Krensky not the hated Czar.  [Something the Bolshis don’t want to admit themselves.]”

Night-Gaunt, then let us learn from their mistakes.  I’m sure the Romanovs would like a clarification.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, February 17, 2010 at 12:11 pm Link to this comment

It has always been the wealthy verses everyone else and they are still at it. I find it interesting that at least 14 corporations didn’t like the ruling and wanted to go to gov’t paid for elections. Which I support, and would start to take the legal bribery out of it.

But as long as there are those who believe that speech and the ability to pay for it are linked we shall not get very far. However you will find that the majority of the rich are Conservative (concerning the Bill of Rights) and like the Gilded Age and wish to bring it back into perpetuity and greatly expanded in scope.

I must remind you Garth that the Bolsheviks overthrew the Democratic-Socialist Krensky not the hated Czar.  [Something the Bolshis don’t want to admit themselves.]

Report this

By garth, February 17, 2010 at 11:02 am Link to this comment


I think it’s worse than what I said.

Everyone on Wall Street has pointed out that they’ll take the unbridled risks as long as they are assured that the American taxpayer will foot the bill.

This game has put us in the precarious situation where the MSM, and the power elite have put forth the idea that we would’ve been damned if didn’t.

The austerity to come will prove my point.  They are twiddling their thumbs till the Bush tax cut expire, yet they can’t wait to get to invoke cuts in Social Security and Medicare.  Those wealthy at the top are still enjoying Bush’s tax cuts. Why haven’t those tax cuts been repealed?
“Garth, your lemonade stand story is incomplete, there is an upside risk and that is the work of making the drink, setting up the stand, sitting and waiting for a drop-in to buy may not work out.”
If you are rich and given to be a layabout, waiting is the least of your cares.  They, after all are living for a cause, and, as they, as they believe, will live forever.
We, on the other hand, live from day to day, or week to week.  Most people have no far-reaching agenda.  They might see as far as the next generation, their children, but that’s it.

These “people” have been doing this for generations, no, for hundreds of years.

I say it’s high time to put a stop to it.

The Russian’s had a very definitive answer in 1917.

We are now listening to Jeffrey Sachs, a faux economists, whose advice led Russia into a complete economic disaster of shortages after the the fall of the Soviet Union.

Are you advocating stark cuts in Social Programs while urging the increase in our already bloated war budget?

The wars will kill us.

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, February 17, 2010 at 10:05 am Link to this comment


I understand your “need.” I think we all have the same need here.

Forgive me, but I think that some of us feel that expressing this need is therapeutic, while others believe that doing something is necessary in order to make us less needy.

Report this

By garth, February 17, 2010 at 9:50 am Link to this comment

JDMysticeDJ might be right:
“To move away from metaphors, and dialectic examples, I’ll be specific. The right and the pseudo left are responsible for our current difficulties, and only the true left is offering solutions that will lead us away from Mussolini’s definition.”
Robert Kuttner and Simon Johnson have said clearly that what is needed is a movement.  Where are the seeds of that movement?

I go one step further. Bring back public hangings like the vistit to the house of Tsar Nicolas’s mansion in 1917.

The CEOs can be tried individually.

John Cunningham, the would-have-been CEO of Wang Labs used to show up for work after 10:00 am. 
Ray Noorda, the CEO of a networking company in Utah, met with Manzi the right-wing, Buckley favorite child, CEO of Lotus to dicuss a proposed merger.  The deal was nixed, reportedly, when Manzi and Noorda went to dinner.  The report was the Manzi ordered a cheeseburger and a glass of milk.  After all, there is a certain rapport, isn’t there?

If you take a good hard look at most of these CEOs, you might find that some are worth saving, and some might be scared straight, and others might have to be sent to be baggers at a Walmart.

Thanks to the Russian’s treatment of the President of Czechoslovakia, Dubcjek (sp?) in the 80s, we’ve learned another level of punishment.  Namely, for the rest of ones life, on one can never earn above the minimum wage.

Report this

By Cole..., February 17, 2010 at 9:48 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Beg to differ.
It is a left/right i.e.Demo/Repug thing.

Problem is that the equation on the ground level is LEFT/right i.e. DEMO/repug while it is not in operation at the high levels of Pres & Congress & Judiciary—-where the equation becomes l/RIGHT i.e. d/REPUBLICAN. Know what I mean? Pu it another way you put your bucks, your bet, your ‘hopes’ on the fighter in the BLUE trunks who looks bigger and stronger than the weak underdeveloped fighter in the RED trunks—but little do you know, the mob has paid the blue guy to fall down in round one.

Take the pres ‘bama for example, on the campaign trail he seems to know we are on the wrong path, round one he follows the follows the other guys path and salivates over the fine Red trunks.

Garth, your lemonade stand story is incomplete, there is an upside risk and that is the work of making the drink, setting up the stand, sitting and waiting for a drop-in to buy may not work out.

“Head I win Tale you lose” is cute but is nothing more than a tall tail.

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, February 17, 2010 at 9:16 am Link to this comment


I hate the Supreme Court Decision as much as anyone, and I would be honored to join any campaign against it, but isn’t it just a “symptom”? Shouldn’t we ask ourselves, what is the disease that caused this symptom and how do we cure this disease, or is this just an example of playing the “blame game.”?  I’ve noticed that those who put forth the “game blame” concept are those who are trying to escape, or avoid, any blame, or perhaps, have an aversion to identifying blame. I’ve also noticed that some have an aversion to prosecuting crimes in high office, because they feel it would be an unproductive pursuit of the “blame game.” Let’s move on, they say, and not define, investigate, or prosecute abuses, (Thereby facilitating the continuance of abuses.)

I’ll be prescient and answer the question, regarding the subject at hand, isn’t the blame shared? My answer will be a definitive, no! The blame starts at the extreme right of the spectrum, moves to the wrongfully perceived left of the spectrum, and stops before completely encompassing the spectrum. There are those who are blameless, and they should not be falsely accused of sharing in the blame.

To move away from metaphors, and dialectic examples, I’ll be specific. The right and the pseudo left are responsible for our current difficulties, and only the true left is offering solutions that will lead us away from Mussolini’s definition.

Report this

By garth, February 17, 2010 at 8:48 am Link to this comment

I agree with elisalouisa.  It’s not a Republican or Democratic thing, nor right versus left.

The controllers of our financial world play a game that is all too familiar to anyone who grew up with an older brother.  Their game is: Head I win.  Tales you lose.

All this hype about the intelligence of the Wall Street quants and the business minds is simply a smoke screen.

It’s as pliain as the nose on your face:  Anyone who opened a lemonade stand knows that a loving father would buy all the resources and inventory, there is no risk only an upside.

The big banks and the families who control them know this, and as Alan Greenspan has attested that if you give them the green light, all will be well. 

He just didn’t explain the game the game:  Heads I win.  Tales you lose.

Report this

By elisalouisa, February 16, 2010 at 7:30 pm Link to this comment

JDmysticDJ: As archivesDave said, stop thinking Left and Right. If you don’t get
this through your head there is no use in even trying to make you understand. The
power/elite are in control and they used both sides to move in the direction they
wish. Control is what they seek, more control of the people on the earth and also
its natural resources. Our finances are very global now and it shall be even more
so in the future.
Just because I do not see too much hope for the future does not mean I would not live
my day to day life as best I can. For one thing the odds are slim that I may be
wrong but nevertheless there is that chance so I shall fight in my own way until
the end. We can all believe what we wish. I put it out there for all to read, you do
not agree with me, that’s OK. In fact, I expected it and do not wish to convince
you. My only desire, more than a desire, it was a need to put it out there.

Report this

By Cole..., February 16, 2010 at 2:50 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

To me “no hope for our democracy” is an apt discription for the plight it is in. But that does not mean zero, nil, zip—-it’s idiomatic, not a mathamtical quantitative sum, it is the representation of the state of the mind of many who see chances of recovery dwindling.

It is a normal and expected consequence of the frustration of having overwhelmng power to “elect”, that is of electing ‘hope and change’ and watching as that power is erroded away and ‘hope’ is changed to ‘more of the same’.

The first year of ‘bama is the ninth year of bush and there does not sppear to be a real change coming.
What’s a few words on a page few if any will read?
Maybe ‘bama will pass by this thread and know that some are pissed, so why not?

Report this

By archivesDave, February 16, 2010 at 2:29 pm Link to this comment

JDmysticDJ,elisalouisa, and Garth,
First off, I for one have a VERY positive outlook for
this debacle we find ourselves in and will explain it
when I have a little more time.
Elisa, as far as living on another planet, if you have studied Hagger and Griffin to some degree, I am in pretty much agreement with their theses and quite surprised that you disagree with me.  Perhaps you should go back and review them again.
To all, I believe it’s imperative that we cease from
the blame game re the Right and the Left as I previously stated. It serves no significant purpose
whatsoever and until we get beyond this, we will remain implanted on this merry go round dealing only with symptoms and coming up with no meaningful solutions.
The flashpoint I trust we can all agree upon is this treasonous SCOTUS decision and the establishment of
a coalition and consensus building to use it as a
litmus test for all candidates this Fall.

Report this

By garth, February 16, 2010 at 2:00 pm Link to this comment

“If you people really think that there is no hope for our Democracy, why don’t you just go out and get loaded?  What’s your motivation for posting here? Is it that you’re trying to demonstrate your superior political acumen? If your weak kneed, defeatist, nihilism is an example of superior acumen, then I agree with you, we’re all doomed.”
Nothing else seems to work.  Write and call to congressmen, we are eaters to them consumers.

The real end is here.  We elected a sprout, a junior executive. The congress, except for a few, has been bought by a consortium of genetic layabouts who’ve managed to turn this country form a Constitutional government to an oligarchs dream come true.

Where to we go from there?

Report this

By JDmysticDJ, February 16, 2010 at 10:54 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)


I’m trying to understand many of the people who post on these threads. Maybe you can help me. Is it that you were so successfully indoctrinated by the right to believe the left is evil, that when you are finally confronted with the corruption of the right, you automatically concluded that there is no hope for better government?

Why do you constantly point out right wing Democrats as being examples of left wing corruption? I completely agree that a large percentage of the Democrats on Capital Hill have been corrupted, but that corruption is manifested by their move to the right. When Democrats represent right wing interests, are they to be considered from the left? These political perspectives are defined by positions on political issues, not by membership in political parties. Were Reagan Democrats from the left? How about the Boll Weevil Democrats, were they from the left?

If you people really think that there is no hope for our Democracy, why don’t you just go out and get loaded?  What’s your motivation for posting here? Is it that you’re trying to demonstrate your superior political acumen? If your weak kneed, defeatist, nihilism is an example of superior acumen, then I agree with you, we’re all doomed.

Report this

By garth, February 16, 2010 at 8:14 am Link to this comment

Russ Baker, the author of Family Secrets, the book about the Bush family, gave a line about this strange situation recently in an interview.  He said that the elite in America and England, the Saudi Royalty and others who are economically powerful play on a different field.  We are not even at the game.
I think it’s futile and misleading to expect that on the surface this takeover will look anything like the ones in the past.  They have more tools, more war materiel, more believers. 
Even the ones who are spouting “the Constitution, the constitution,” might be useful idiots. They’ve already shit-canned the Constitution.
Don Peck, Deputy Manging Editor of the Atlantic, said today that the only way out of this is to RAISE TAXES(a no no for most wilfull believers) or cut Social Security and Medicare.  The beat goes on.  And that’s all you’ll hear.
They’ve taken over

Report this

By elisalouisa, February 16, 2010 at 7:35 am Link to this comment

At your suggestion sometime back archives Dave I did look up Nicholas Hagger
and chose to read his book ‘The Syndicate’. In fact that book helped me reach
some of the conclusions that I have posted. Dr. Hagger has convinced me that
world government is just around the corner. It can proceed in two directions. I
choose to believe that the darker side shall prevail because the darker sider
always prevails, at least at the onset until there is complete destruction.
I agree HDmysticD3 that Wall Street and the power/elite are solidly to the far right but
that really not the point at this time. Democratic politicians have “yielded”, a
word you love, not just to the right but to whoever has the $$$ to pay for
campaigns and other good stuff. The far right is ruthless and eliminates
politicians like Sen. Paul Wellstone and others who do not “yield.” This sets the
tone for the makeup of our Congress as to elected officials who at this time are
signed, sealed and delivered to the power/elite who control Wall Street. That is
why our jobs are gone, they no longer care about the people because they
cannot afford to. How can one combat the FBI, CIA, Wall Street and our elected
officials who allowed this to happen? Not to mention that the “kitty” is empty
because our tax dollars go to Wall Street who pay their CEO big bucks to figure
out how to get more tax money. Really archivesDave and JDmysticDJ you must
be living on another planet.

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, February 16, 2010 at 1:22 am Link to this comment


This rehashing of history is so tedious. I will suggest that the first yielding to the right came when the western Democracies failed to come to the aid of the Spanish Republic, and that this yielding continued up to, and until the Nazi invasion of Poland.

I’m a great admirer of FDR, but I think it was Zinn, or Chomsky, that provided me with the information that FDR once referred to Mussolini as “A Fine Italian Gentleman.” That may have been an example of diplomatic nicety, but I would suggest that it was also an example of yielding to the right.

You make an excellent point when you point out that the German people embraced Nazism, but I’ll suggest that that embrace was also a yielding to the right. Not the kind of yielding exemplified by your comment, but a yielding to the right just the same.

You say,

”Things have gone so far and the power/elite are so entrenched and close to victory that ‘nothing’ everyday people say or do will change things.”

Your post is an entirely different example of yielding to the right. Your post is a total surrender, and a resignation to the right’s dominance. Even the German left, which was overwhelmed by violence and coercion, did not surrender so easily.

You say,

“Most people do not embrace our continual wars nor our leaders resulting in a move away from nationalism.”

Are you suggesting that this belief in American exceptionalism so prevalent in American thought is not nationalism? The last time I checked, 50% of the people “…embrace our continual wars,” and the vast majority of those who “…embrace our continual wars” are from the right. I wouldn’t go so far as to say our soldiers “…embrace our continual wars,” but we have our own versions of Gestapo, and elite storm troopers, and I have not yet seen, with the exception of few anomalies, any actual resistance to “…our continual wars” coming from our military forces.

Finally, Wall Street and the power elite are solidly to the far right, and their power has increased immensely because of right wing economic policies. The fact that some Democratic politicians yielded to right wing economic policies does not diminish the fact that these policies were right wing economic policies.
All that aside, it’s clear that an exact equivalency between 1933 Germany and a neo-fascism that many believe is evident today, is not accurate, but the principles are the same, and I’ll suggest that yielding to the right, in whatever forms that yielding may take, produces the same result, and that result is right wing tyranny, which has best been described as fascism.

“Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism, as it is the merger of corporate and government power.” Benito Mussolini

Report this

By archivesDave, February 16, 2010 at 12:54 am Link to this comment

You make a very astute case however there truly are perilous parallels to be drawn between then and now.
The economic times are very similar and every entity
and individual was and is looking for a ‘savior’.
Hitler was simply a spokesman for the industrial might that put him into power. A great many of the corporations behind him are alive and prosperous today and a case can be made for who in deed did win the War.  Fascism was the savior then and fascism is the perceived savior today to wit the SCOTUS Citizen’s United decision.
The average citizen worker may not be supportive of
this global order but I can assure you that a great
many movers and shakers are already preparing for it
and consider it a done deal.  This is their ‘savior’
just as Hitler’s fascism was the European industrial savior.  And on the subject of fascism, one should note how the definition has been changed from the original definition of government dictatorship by the merging of state and corporate interests into some nebulous twenty five additional definitions.

For your reading enjoyment and enlightenment, could
I recommend a prominent British historian by the
name of Dr Nicholas Hagger who has written several
extremely insightful books, the last one being ‘The

Report this

By elisalouisa, February 15, 2010 at 5:21 pm Link to this comment

elisa”Things have gone so far and the power/elite are so entrenched and close
to victory that ‘nothing’ everyday people say or do will change things.”
Such comments,according to JDmysticDJ, amount to a yielding to the right, and
something that has occurred previously. What occurred in Europe beginning
with 1933 would be, I believe, a good example of the results of this yielding.
It could be said that what happened in 1933 in Europe was not as much a
yielding as an embrace. The majority of the people in Europe, caught up in
crowd mentality, responded to the call of nationalism and were enthusiastic,
especially in Germany. They had almost given up when Hitler with his catchy
phrase “ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuehrer” (one people, one state, one leader)
revitalized them.
Our situation today is not comparable. Most people do not embrace our
continual wars nor our leaders resulting in a move away from nationalism. The
spoils of our wars do not come back to the people whose lives are sacrificed,
they go to the oil companies and corporations who produce war equipment and
are owned by the power elite who control the news media and have their grip
on our leaders who have sold out America. If one can recall of a situation where
factories were encouraged to relocate to other countries and where people
from other countries were allowed to casually cross boarders for work thus
endangering the jobs of Americans please point this out. It does not take much
to come to the conclusion that the American worker is not first and foremost in
mind as to the actions of our government. Wall Street and the power/elile rule.

Report this
BeanerECMO's avatar

By BeanerECMO, February 15, 2010 at 1:11 pm Link to this comment

JDmysticDJ: If one had read a later post; i referred to using a B vice an M, my bad. Too many electrons were use to pursue a rectified issue, as our friend archivesDave provided the nearly same reference used by you.

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, February 15, 2010 at 1:04 pm Link to this comment


I’m a guy who has been holding my nose to avoid the effects of formaldehyde for decades. I have also been shouting about the dangers of fascism from my window for decades.

Pointing out there is no dichotomy between the current crop of Democrats and Republicans is, forgive me, somewhat mundane. Pointing out that that this lack of dichotomy is heavily weighted to the right may also be mundane, but it’s true also.

I believe we need to tack to the left, back towards the course plotted by FDR and those everyday people who pushed him to plot a course for the port side and not to starboard, and not to believe,

”Things have gone so far and the power/elite are so entrenched and close to victory that ‘nothing’ everyday people say or do will change things.”

Such comments, I believe, amount to a yielding to the right, and something that has occurred previously. What occurred in Europe beginning with 1933 would be, I believe, a good example of the results of this yielding.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, February 14, 2010 at 3:27 pm Link to this comment

Since 1980 it has been down hill for most of us and the top earners have been getting the benefits of that particular redistribution of wealth you won’t hear on Fark News.

Yes the top owners of wealth and power in this country have made a concerted effort to demean, destroy and gut the moves forward we have made since FDR and are Regressives in that they want to turn time back to the days where Capital wasn’t only king but so were the owners and the rest of us had nothing.

Report this

By garth, February 14, 2010 at 12:54 pm Link to this comment

It seems to me that many in the Congress are living in an Oligarchy.  If you watch what Congress does and what they pass you’ll notice that it’s entirely for the good of the families who’ve benefitted since the founding of the Federal Reserve.  FDR was an anomaly.

The rest of us are now living in Corporate state, which seems to slipping into a police state.

I hope that Archive Daves faith is catching.

Report this

By archivesDave, February 13, 2010 at 11:41 pm Link to this comment

elisalouisa:You’ve been studying Griffin’s ‘Creature From Jekyll Island’, I can tell:
Sadly, deep in my heart, I suspect you are absolutely correct and I also think many folks dialoging here know this but are simply entertaining themselves by jousting back and forth.  Not my form of fun nor yours I suspect.
But wait, we have one more arrow in our quiver before
these Globalist Effete (and Elite) have their final
say and victory.
I still hold out faith that we can wake up enough of the Left and the Right to see that, as a coalition, we can get something of a consensus to install congressfolk and senators this Fall to salvage this Titanic or at least man enough lifeboats to rescue those willing to fight for what sovereignty is left instead of succumbing to the pap and provision of the New Corporate Media & Order.

Report this

By Cole..., February 13, 2010 at 9:16 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

As I recall Jason Robards opened the window and screamed “I’m mad as Hell and I am not going to take it anymore”—-then the street was full of people rushing off to work that morning.

you can lead them to a scream but you cannot make them hear it.

Report this

By elisalouisa, February 13, 2010 at 9:04 pm Link to this comment

To late Archives Dave to be mad as hell and decide you are not going to take it
anymore.  Things have gone so far and the power/elite are so entrenched and
close to victory that nothing everyday people say or do will change things.

Report this

By archivesDave, February 13, 2010 at 4:40 pm Link to this comment

JDmysticDJ et al:
Come on guys, wake up and smell the formaldehyde…
(that both Dems and Republicans are soaking us with)!
Get off the blame game and observe that what SCOTUS
(and their puppeteers) have done is to remove one of
the most important foundation stones in our nation’s
(and states’) sovereignty, and firmly cement it into
the New Global Elite’s footing.
This is Nazi Germany Ca 1933 so pick up your pitch
forks and torches and run to your window and shout
out “I’m mad as Hell and I’m not going to take this

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, February 13, 2010 at 4:12 pm Link to this comment

BeanerEMCO (et al.)

This from the American Institute for Economic Research (A.I.E.R.)

“Since 1990, labor unions have contributed over $667 million in election campaigns in the United States, of which $614 million or 92 percent went to support Democratic candidates. In 2008, unions spent $74.5 million in campaign contributions, with $68.3 million going to the Democratic Party. Already, unions have contributed $6.5 million to the 2010 elections, and $6 million has gone to Democrats, according to the Center for Responsive Politics in Washington, D.C.”

Am I wrong, or does this statement from the A.I.E.R.; based on information coming from the “Center for Responsive Politics,” contradict the 680 Billion Dollars earlier reported by you on this thread?

I went to “,” but I was unable to find any reference to the 680 Billion you reported. I did find the following from that site.

“Organized labor collects some 5 billion annually in dues and fees from workers,”

If we use that number as an average annual amount to calculate the total from 1990 to 2010, we get a total of 100 billion. Not factoring in the costs of Union expenses, we seem to be 580 Billion short of the amount you reported. The 680 Billion Dollars you reported did not include a time frame, so I think I’ve been generous with this calculation.

This is your posted assertion.

“Big Business Donations: ~$1.6 B; ~41%/59% - Dem/Rep
Union Donations : ~$680B; ~92%/8%; Dem/Rep”

When asked to provide a link to your source, you mentioned the Heritage Foundation as your source, but you did not provide that link. Could I trouble you to provide that link now?

The validity of assertions is necessary, when trying to arrive at the truth. False assertions may be convenient, for some during debate, but they create a false premise that directs the debate away from the truth.

You seem to be very confident in your authority regarding this debate. I lack the confidence in your authority that you appear to have. In fact, your intellectual integrity seems to be in question here. Forgive me, I admit to some bias, but this example doesn’t strike me as being atypical of assertions that come from many on the right.

Report this

By wildflower, January 31, 2010 at 5:56 pm Link to this comment

Why would Obama – or any American - back down for stating the obvious?

“The Obama administration is not backing down from the president’s criticism of the Supreme Court during the State of the Union address this past week.

Asked on Sunday whether Obama was right to rebuke the justices to their face (with millions watching) over the Court’s decision to allow corporations to spend freely on election campaigns, White House senior adviser David Axelrod called the
episode “totally appropriate.”

Report this

By garth, January 31, 2010 at 10:01 am Link to this comment

Deroy Murdoch said in yesterday’s (Sat 1/30) Boston Herald op-ed page that the companies: “Accenture, Covidien, Ingersoll-Rand, and Tyco International are among 11 major corporations that have taken steps” to move to Switzerland and Ireland as their favorite new corporate sites.
He blames taxation. 
I can see it all now.  Their war cry will be, “Representation without Taxation.” 
They hold fast to the Lenore Helmsley dictum, “Only little people pay taxes.”
All companies take advantage of the benefits of this country’s transportation system and have enormous write-offs, yet they want to pay nothing in taxes.  They more from the taxpayer while paying very little themselves.
Like the southern states that pay a smaller amount in Federal taxes than what they receive in Federal aid and programs, the ones whose congressional reps are always yelling for no taxes, these companies are blood suckers. 
As for the states, why don’t the Democrats pass a bill that gives back to these poor mouth squanderers only what they contribute.  They’ll squeal like pigs, as the red-neck hick said in Deliverance. 
(Kerry Byrne the Food and Beer writer for the Herald said Republicans favor, “... individual charity and volunteerism…”)

Back to the Supreme Court.  This is the same one that railed against any reference to European law in a decision a few years ago.  Now, they said yes to foreign companies not only affecting legislation, but also writing the law itself and then assuring its passage.
If this generation of voters in the U.S. weren’t born last night, then they were surely born on a Wednesday for “Wednesday’s child is full of woe.”

Archives Dave

Thanks for the reference G. Edward Griffin

Report this

By wildflower, January 31, 2010 at 9:05 am Link to this comment

Must say I agree with Frank Rich about Alito’s little snit:

“HANDS down, the State of the Union’s big moment was Barack Obama’s direct hit on the delicate sensibilities of the Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito. The president was right to blast the 5-to-4 decision giving corporate interests an even greater stranglehold over a government they already regard as a partially owned onshore subsidiary. How satisfying it was to watch him provoke Alito into a “You lie!” snit. Here was a fight we could believe in.”

Report this

By archivesDave, January 30, 2010 at 10:51 pm Link to this comment

The ‘method to their madness’ will be disclosed when
a new global intl system is announced and accepted by
the IMF, WTO, G-20, UN, and BRIC countries which will
probably occur sometime in the next three yrs if it
parallels the 100 yr time warp of the conception and
founding of the Fed Reserve.
Also keep in mind how the State’s massive Revolutionary War debts were absolved into the new Union: A harbinger of the ‘solution’ to our own debt problem….just ratchet it up another notch!
Will ‘We the people’ tolerate it?  Me thinks so as
long as they can have their TV Soaps, and Media BS.*

*Before the Nov 15th, 2009, G-20 meeting, two of their platform objectives were ‘Control of the Media’ and a ‘new global currency’. Both were covertly removed post that meeting.

Report this

By garth, January 30, 2010 at 3:43 pm Link to this comment

In 2000, the Supreme Court selected Bush for President.  The decision said that NOT to stop the counting would do irreparable damage to Bush.  Now, ten years later they put another nail the coffin with their ruling that assigns personhood to corporations.

In a sideline, Geithner in his testimony before congress said that some the brightest men on Wall Street made bets (credit default swaps) that were far too risky.  One of the congressmen replied that the NY Times said in a story that the investment banks rolled up these questionable mortgages, got them assigned AAA rating and sold them to pension funds etc.  It just so happens that bonds need to rated AAA in order for the Pension funds to buy them. 
The investment banks then turned around and started short selling these same bonds that they still held.

Lisa Madigan, the Attorney General of Illinois, explained that the banks bundled these mortages together, and they were timed to fail in 60 to 90 days based on the repayment option that the borrow selected.  Some mortgages that were about to fail still might’ve had some equity and the homeowner could take out another loan.  When this happened the banks would swap that mortgage out for one that was more likely to fail. 

These are the smartest people on Wall Street?

I believe we are being held hostage by a Supreme Court, an out of control and weak congress, a lost President (who seems more like a junior executive) and the ravenous corporations.  It just does not look good.
The bull crap in that link, however, does not help.  It conflate right-wing talking points, emperialistic jingoism, and just a lot of numerical nonsense.

I would like to know what they think is going to happen when the majority of the 300 million Americans wake up to find that the world they expected has been taken away from them and has been handed over to a few thousand families and their media henchmen?  Maybe they believe that you can fool the majority of the 300 million any time you like as long as you have the cash to make up these lies and spread them.

Report this

By archivesDave, January 30, 2010 at 1:15 pm Link to this comment

garth & ITW:

Keep in mind who is ultimately running our govt:
It certainly appears to me that we are 90% into this new global system and would like to know your views
on G Edward Griffin’s scenario.

Report this

By garth, January 30, 2010 at 8:17 am Link to this comment

Thanks, ITW.  I was attracted by the headline. 

When he mentioned the gold issue, I was reminded of the Ron Paul’s Libertarian supporters. 
His numbers on Social Security were a rehash of the George W. Bush’s assault on that program to privatize it.  The 17 Trillion, as Al Franken pointed out many times, is a projection to infinity of the total expenditure.  A 50 or 100 year projection yield quite different numbers.  If nothing changes, they expect a shortfall owing to the size of the number of baby boomers, but it is not going broke.  On the contrary, it is one the best funded of all Government programs.

His delving into foreign policy was a one crackpot link too far.  I question his assertions on Chavez and Venezuela.

His credentials, Tufts and a Harvard MBA, put him in league with Scott Brown, the recently elected Marloro Man who is going to drive a truck and where a Barn jacket for his constituents, and George Bush.  I think this guy sat behind Gearge in class at Harvard and made the mistake of cheating off him.

What struck me overall was the nature of the whole mishigas.  It’s like the right wing’s strategy of stirring up the mud in a rain barrel and saying look how muddy this water is.
I didn’t know what to expect when I posted that link, so I appreciate your rapid, clear definitive rebuttal.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, January 30, 2010 at 6:43 am Link to this comment

garth, January 29 at 10:40 pm #

Get a load of this:

I got as far as paragraph 4 when I realized is pure bullshit. The Federal Government does NOT have a debt of #120 Trillion dollars as he claims.  His other monetary claims are equal bullshit.

Yet another propagandist making up crap—probably is a gold dealer, now that gold is hanging around $1100/troy ounce.

Report this

By wildflower, January 29, 2010 at 1:46 pm Link to this comment

Re DaveZx3: “corporations are merely people organized to be . . . profitable”

And to make profits, how low will “corporate persons” like Wal-Mart go, in their exploitation of “natural persons” like us? Records show pretty darn low:

Wal-Mart violated the law more than 2 million times over a six-year period by denying workers time for breaks and forcing them to work “off the clock” for no pay, a Minnesota judge has ruled. Dakota County District Judge Robert King ordered the company to pay $6.5 million in back pay. In addition, Wal-Mart faced fines as high as $2 billion for the wage-and-hour violations. The case ultimately ended in settlement, with Wal-Mart paying out $54 million in lost wages. [Workday Minnesota, 7/2/08; Associated Press, 12/9/08]

Clothing sewn in China is usually done by young women, 17 to 25 year old (at 25 they are fired as ‘too old’) forced to work seven days a week, often past midnight for 12 to 28 cents an hour, with no benefits. Or that the women are housed in crowded, dirty dormitories, 15 to a room, and fed a thin rice gruel. The workers are kept under 24-hour-a-day surveillance and can be fired for even discussing factory conditions. The factories in China operate under a veil of secrecy, behind locked metal gates, with no factory names posted and no visitors allowed. China’s authorities do not allow independent human rights, religious or women’s groups to exist, and all attempts to form independent unions have been crushed.

In 2000, Wal-Mart paid $50 million to settle a lawsuit that involved 69,000 workers in Colorado who had allegedly been forced to work off the clock. In 2002, a federal grand jury in Oregon found Wal-Mart employees were forced to work off the clock and awarded back pay to 83 workers. In December 2005, Wal-Mart was ordered to pay $172 million to 116,000 current and former California workers for violating a 2001 state law that requires employers to give 30-minute, unpaid lunch breaks to employees who work at least six hours. In the United States, Wal-Mart has 53 class action lawsuits over wage and hour violations. [New York Times, 11/19/04; Associated Press, 2/17/04; Associated Press, 9/19/05; Associated Press, 12/22/05.]

Report this

By Cole..., January 29, 2010 at 12:01 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Your item——” whoever looks like they are going to win, everybody wants to jump on the bandwagon.”, pardon my intrusion but I think it is incomplete.
There is no reason given for the want to be on the “win” side. They want to be on the win side in order to influence the winner to their advantage.

Most of us seem to think that the person we vote for will if he/she wins will represent our desires. How many times have we found that to be disappointing?

The unfortunate fact is that the the win guy is either prebought or the ‘jump on the bandwagon bunch’ figure they can have access by way of their donations to the cause and if they have access then they can dump enough bucks on the desk to buy the representation they want, i.e. postbought.

There can be no doubt that big money goes into ‘their’ candidate and big money hedges by puttting a smaller amount to the opponent.

Report this

By wildflower, January 29, 2010 at 11:35 am Link to this comment

Re DaveZx3: “Besides, corporations are merely people organized to be productive and profitable.  . . a microcosm of the people at large.”

But history has shown us and is still showing us what kind of people gather together to make a profit and it’s clear that many of them are not as you say a “microcosm of the people at large. If they were, the more humane and responsible “at large” segment of society would not need and/or have to push
so long and so hard for such things as child labor laws:

“ . . . the popular opinion that gainful employment of children of the “lower orders” actually benefited poor families and the community at large.

Entire families were hired, the men for heavy labor and the women and children for lighter work. Work days typically ran from dawn to sunset, with longer hours in winter, resulting in a 68-72 hour workweek. Many families also lived in company owned houses in company owned villages and were often
paid with overpriced goods from the company store. Thus they lived a life entirely dominated by their employers.

. . . Throughout America, local child labor laws were often ignored. On a national level, progress to protect children stalled as the U.S. Supreme Court ruled several times that child labor laws under question were unconstitutional. A subsequent attempt to pass an amendment to the U.S. Constitution failed.

In 1904, the National Child Labor Committee was organized by socially concerned citizens and politicians, and was chartered by Congress in 1907. From 1908 to 1912, photographer Hine documented numerous gross violations of laws protecting young children. At many of the locations he visited, youngsters were quickly rushed out of his sight. He was also told youngsters in the mill or factory had just stopped by for a visit . . .

Attempts at child labor reform continued . . . As a result, many states passed stricter laws banning the employment of underage children. In 1938, Congress passed the Fair Labor Standards Act, better known as the Federal Wage and Hour Law.  The Act was declared constitutional in 1941 by the U.S. Supreme Court.”

Report this

By archivesDave, January 29, 2010 at 9:59 am Link to this comment

So I deduct from your last comments that lazzes faire
capitalism/libertarian is your fundamental philosophy
Rather difficult to have unfettered competition when
the courts et al are weighted to the Big Boys.  I guess you aren’t really following (OR believe), folks
like G Edward Griffin eh?

Report this

By garth, January 29, 2010 at 9:30 am Link to this comment


You say the following:
“Besides, corporations are merely people organized to be productive and profitable.”

“And the people in corporations are just a microcosm of the people at large.” 

“There is nothing evil about corporations, corporate law or the people who work for corporations.”

I don’t mean to nit-pick or digress, but doesn’t this fly in the face of the “One Man one vote” axiom.

Corporations and unions then have more than just one vote to influence elections.  It’s not an even playing field.

Why not publicly financed campaigns and a shorter campaign cycle?  After the election, put the campaigning away and do the people’s work.

Report this

By DaveZx3, January 29, 2010 at 8:59 am Link to this comment


I realized when I poseted the figures that they were pre-SCOTUS free speech decision.  The figures were posted to debunk the notion that all business/corporate interest money goes to Repubs or to the right. 

There is some truth to the idea you put forth that the money flows to the power, ie: whoever looks like they are going to win, everybody wants to jump on the bandwagon.

But beyond that, it must be realized that business interests are multi-faceted, and all business does not benefit from a Republican/conservative agenda.

Besides, corporations are merely people organized to be productive and profitable.  Without production and profit, there is no basis for taxation, and no way for a nation to exercise its agenda, whatever it may be.

And the people in corporations are just a microcosm of the people at large.  Democrats and Republicans both need paychecks, and they both organize for better protection of their business interests.  I would not doubt that 90% or more of Americans not working for government, work under a corporate organization, democrats and republicans.

There is nothing evil about corporations, corporate law or the people who work for corporations.  And when their organization has free speech, the codllective message will be exactly the same as the sum of the individual messages already registered.  No new votes are case, no new money goes to anybody (the corporate money was already being delivers through other means) and no ones gets an added advantage.  All have the right to be represented and participate in the system, and every opinion, whether it be a collective opinion or individual opinions are valid and valuable to an informed electorate.

There is nothing scary to me about the SCOTUS decision, because I am for the right for people to organize, raise money and put forth a collective opinion, like unions, communities, special interests like Planned Parenthood, NRA, NOW, NAACP, all have a right to have a collective opinion through their incorporated entities.  This is not a scary concept to me.  It is the basic foundation of American freedom, and makes the country strong.  All opinios openly expressed, collective and individual. 

The people should simply not support the organizations they do not agree with, whether purchasing their products or donating to their charity.  If a business sector is dominating, it is an opportunity for people to get organized to compete against them and reduce their dominance.  The more competition the better.  And laws need to be enforced across the board, not slectively.

Report this

By garth, January 29, 2010 at 7:58 am Link to this comment

Dave and Beaner,

These sums were for the 2008 elections, a year when the previous Supreme Court ruling was in place, and a year in which the Democrats were sure to win.  Money, it seems, goes to where the power is. No one ever said that campaign finance was just right the way it is. 
This ruling by the Supreme Court will undoubtedly undermine any meaningful democratic governance.

Report this
ron_woodward's avatar

By ron_woodward, January 29, 2010 at 6:49 am Link to this comment

The SCOTUS decision merely confirms the status on the ground. The SOTU was already poor and the POTUS speech changed nothing. He promised not to fiddle with defense spending. After eight years of battle in Afghanistan, the US military must bribe the warlords to allow its supply convoys to reach the isolated outposts. Although the enormous bribes exceed 10% of the Afghan GNP, the outposts remain at the mercy of the warlords. A change in policy could lead to any number of massacres.
This is but one example from a corrupt and bloated government that is of little benefit to the people. Indeed, it serves as an obstacle to progress. The USA could take an example from China of capitalist government working for the people.

Report this

Page 1 of 3 pages  1 2 3 >

Right Top, Site wide - Care2
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Right Internal Skyscraper, Site wide

Like Truthdig on Facebook