Taking it to the Streets

[Jim Hackett II]

While I agree with most of the observations above in this thread to include a progressive income tax, however I think the central point that opened the thread is the loss of a voice of the People to Speak to Power. I.E. the corporations that are running the american political game and has for decades by control of the money for campaigns. The rich cannot be taxed they will not stand for it, taxation is for the other class of the society.

Wherever "the people" fall on any political spectrum is largely irrelevant because of the defacto control of the process. In the pre 1960 era the GOP was not the party of fascists and I agree that Dwight Eisenhower was the last honest GOP President.

About 1968 a couple of things were overlooked or unstated.

The murder of the candidate that would have ended the war and avoided the beginning of the Nixon Abuses of the process. It is clear that without murder Nixon would never have been elected. The only viable peace candidate died and the crime has never been properly investigated, in fact the crime has been obscured by LAPD and various CIA trained officers of LAPD and Special Unit Senator.

1968's election had more to do with murder and the splitting of the Democratic party by the Wallace effort than the sleeping RReagan, another fascist in GOP clothes. Rampart Station of LAPD was dirty long before Darrel Gates became Chief.

Any objective examination of the man's deeds as Governor of California makes clear that RReagan was MADE by the same interests that created the political career of Nixon - the Arms Manufacturers of California, Lockheed, North American Aviation etc., as well as the "Old Boys" of the CIA/OSS that in fact ran the US Government through the NSC after 1947. RReagan's efforts would be rewarded soon enough though.

All those angry spooks fired in President Carter's half-a**ed effort to rein in the CIA/DIA/NSA spook empire did not go off into civilian retirement at peace. They worked their subversion on the American People and Casey and Bush manufactured the October Surprise to put the radical right back in power. A prime example of the theft of the voice of the people to speak to power. The assets had serious reason to be afraid of the fallout from Watergate and attending exposures, like JAIL in other than a Fort Holabird camp Fed skate.

The invisible government could never tolerate another 4 years of Pike and Church as Representatives of the People opening the vaults of the CIA etc. to expose the theft of the Republic's processes from the consent of the governed. The exposure of things done in the American people's name NONE would ever approve both inside the US and outside the US most often to protect the Corporations with United Fruit and Freeport Sulfur being early examples.

It is told that DCIA Stansfield Turner required armed guards at his own office not from anticipated action by "subversives", but from the CIA assets still employed after he fired their "friends". Demonstrating that the President DOES NOT rule the spook empires but that the Spook Empires run the Office of President no matter the current occupant. In effect the criminals were put back in power by Casey and Bu$h on the watch of RReagan and provided immunity from prosecution by GHW Bu$h in 1992.

It is simple to examine the history that came of the 1980s and the Bu$h Empire operating under the protection of the talking head RReagan. Secret War and abuse of people in the US opposed to that Central American war. Domestic spying is not a new issue for the 2000s. No matter how hard the GOP wants to CYA.

That exact issue was the opening disclosure that led to Rep. Pike and Sen. Church to use the power of the two intelligence committees to expose the crimes of the criminal empire. A thing too easily forgotten in this age.

I doubt in 1980 the American voter knew that election scams to put the Governor in office were in fact re-empowering the criminals. They found out in Iran-Contra.

There was much more to 1968 than the coronation of Nixon by default. It is a simple thing to examine both political assassinations of that year as silencing another voice speaking to the people to unite all ethnic groups to halt the slide to extreme radical right neofascism. That concept is extremely threatening to the US Government.

Why else would the FBI finance and encourage crimes by the KKK while "infiltrating" it? Again the negation of a differing politcal thought and the voice of We The People was required and good people went to a cold grave for the sake of a war. Patsies provided and "cases closed".

To some extent the American People have gotten exactly what is deserved by being uninvolved and uninformed and uncaring about the Government processes. Maybe they will wake up when another Fat Lady and a Eugene Hasenfeus is shotdown in a way impossible to be covered up or ignored, or maybe a disclosure of the domestic spying episodes of late.

For all the re-empowerment of the spooks they missed the 9-11 plot, Pearl Harbor, The Battle of the Bulge and the assassiantion plot against President Kennedy. Or did they? I think not. So whom do they serve?

NOT WE THE PEOPLE.

A clear violation of the consent of the governed.

Jim

Edited January 30, 2006 by Jim Hackett II

[Mark Stapleton]

I think both Pat's post and Frank's post were well-taken.

It has long been an observation of political scientists that the majority of political activists within a party (at least since 1964) tend to be ideologically-driven and more liberal or conservative than the "swing" voters. I was recently reading an excellent book on the 1968 election ("An American Melodrama") and it makes a point that Ronald Reagan made a very serious attempt to wrest the nomination from Richard Nixon. Nixon had to make herculean efforts (with assistance from Strom Thurmond) to prevent the Reagan forces from eroding his support in the Southern states. But in the general election Nixon had to appeal to the great "center": the swing voters who are not ideologically driven. (Ironically, the "swing" or "undecided" voters are often the least informed politically.) The same thing was true with Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.

Interesting that John Simkin thinks that my idea that the Democrat Party is "left-wing" is ridiculous. From John's perspective as a socialist, that may indeed be true. But that comment demonstrates what little understanding John has of the American electorate. The partisans in the Democrat Party are far to the left of the American public (and I would agree with Pat that there are partisans in the Republican Party that are far to the right of the American public.)

I agree with Frank's point that President Bush is certainly not a fiscal conservative. I appreciated Frank's exposition of his political philosophy. Although I am sure I would not agree with Frank's position on several issues, it is clear that he has put much thought into his position. I am sure it is almost always true that, for a thoughtful person, one hardly finds a presidential candidate whose views are totally consistent with his or her own. Often the choice may come down to which candidate is closer to your views on most of the issues (or on the issues that are most important to you).

IMO, the issue of greatest importance to most Americans right now is protecting the security of the country from terrorist attacks. If the Democrats cede this issue to the Republicans, they will forfeit any chance of recapturing the White House.

Tim,

Although the media wants Americans to think that protection from terrorist attacks is the most important issue that they face, I think this is wrong. Far more important issues are the looming global oil crisis and China's apparently unstoppable rise to world economic pre-eminence.

Peak oil has now come and gone and shrinking oil supplies must impel western countries to rapidly find and utilise alternatives. The US consumes 20 million barrels of oil per day--4 times more than the second highest consumer, Japan. It's over-reliance on oil puts it in a strategically vulnerable position, considering the enormous foreign debt and the strain being exerted by China on the economies of all western nations (I read yesterday that France's truffle industry is China's latest conquest). The US Government's failure to encourage reduced oil consumption is a gross abrogation of its responsibilty, IMO. When the inevitable oil price rises occur (remember Iran has threatened to greatly reduce its oil production), the effect on the US economy, with its huge consumption level, will be catastrophic. Some believe the writing is already on the wall for the US economy. Don't be fooled into thinking it can't happen. If the US economy collapses all the missiles and tanks in the world won't help it.

The threat of terrorism is real, but wrapping it up as a patriotic crusade only prevents the US from focusing on more urgent issues. The media pumps up this issue in America, Britain, Australia and other nations because it sells papers and delivers television ratings points. There's no money in talking about the folly of over-reliance on non-renewable energy sources.

China is using its rapidly expanding wealth to undermine western economies. GDP growth was 9.9% last year. By refusing to revalue its currency, other nations are being engulfed by cheap Chinese imports to the extent that China's trade surplus exceeds $100 billion and is increasing at a frightening rate. Basically, that's wealth being tranferred to China every year from its hapless trading partners. It also cleverly allows other nations, primarily the US and Europeans, to pioneer new technology which it then copies, then utilises its massive resource of cheap labor to market these goods at prices which render competition unviable. China has been slow to embrace capitalism but is learning very quickly that it has a strategic advantage over the rest of the world, which it is employing ruthlessly.

These are more important issues than the threat of a terrorist attack. Just my opinion, of course.

[Tim Carroll]

The last honest Republican president was Dwight Eisenhower.

Eisenhower's farewell address warning against the unwarranted influence of the military industrial complex is one of the great modern presidential statements. But this statement came from what is called "retirement wisdom," which can speak to truth the way no active politician can afford to do.

Almost immediately, 1961 became the year for confrontation between the U.S. and Cuba. On January 3rd, the Cuban Charge de Affairs issued a directive that the number of U.S. diplomatic personnel stationed in Cuba should not exceed eleven. That same day, at a meeting involving the President and his highest foreign policy officials and advisors, it was decided that the U.S. should break off diplomatic relations with Cuba.

Many books have noted that the Cuban exile force in training to seize power from Castro mysteriously grew during the presidential transition period from a small, elite guerrilla force to the 1500 it was later to become. This implies that the CIA exploited a window of opportunity between the controls of the two presidents. However, newly released State Department documents reveal that the change was overtly authorized by the Eisenhower administration at the same January 3rd meeting. Notes on the meeting record that “it was agreed that the number of Cuban exiles being trained for the invasion should be increased, possibly up to 1,500.”

These changes, coming a little over two weeks before Eisenhower left office, represent a last-minute construction that would entrench the planning and force Kennedy’s hand during the beginning of his administration.

Foreign Relations of the U.S., “Cuba, 1961-1962,” Department of State, (Washington D.C.), Vol. X, (http://www./state.gov/www/about_state_history/frusX/01).

T.C.

[Terry Mauro]

I think both Pat's post and Frank's post were well-taken.

It has long been an observation of political scientists that the majority of political activists within a party (at least since 1964) tend to be ideologically-driven and more liberal or conservative than the "swing" voters. I was recently reading an excellent book on the 1968 election ("An American Melodrama") and it makes a point that Ronald Reagan made a very serious attempt to wrest the nomination from Richard Nixon. Nixon had to make herculean efforts (with assistance from Strom Thurmond) to prevent the Reagan forces from eroding his support in the Southern states. But in the general election Nixon had to appeal to the great "center": the swing voters who are not ideologically driven. (Ironically, the "swing" or "undecided" voters are often the least informed politically.) The same thing was true with Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.

Interesting that John Simkin thinks that my idea that the Democrat Party is "left-wing" is ridiculous. From John's perspective as a socialist, that may indeed be true. But that comment demonstrates what little understanding John has of the American electorate. The partisans in the Democrat Party are far to the left of the American public (and I would agree with Pat that there are partisans in the Republican Party that are far to the right of the American public.)

I agree with Frank's point that President Bush is certainly not a fiscal conservative. I appreciated Frank's exposition of his political philosophy. Although I am sure I would not agree with Frank's position on several issues, it is clear that he has put much thought into his position. I am sure it is almost always true that, for a thoughtful person, one hardly finds a presidential candidate whose views are totally consistent with his or her own. Often the choice may come down to which candidate is closer to your views on most of the issues (or on the issues that are most important to you).

IMO, the issue of greatest importance to most Americans right now is protecting the security of the country from terrorist attacks. If the Democrats cede this issue to the Republicans, they will forfeit any chance of recapturing the White House.

Tim,

Although the media wants Americans to think that protection from terrorist attacks is the most important issue that they face, I think this is wrong. Far more important issues are the looming global oil crisis and China's apparently unstoppable rise to world economic pre-eminence.

Peak oil has now come and gone and shrinking oil supplies must impel western countries to rapidly find and utilise alternatives. The US consumes 20 million barrels of oil per day--4 times more than the second highest consumer, Japan. It's over-reliance on oil puts it in a strategically vulnerable position, considering the enormous foreign debt and the strain being exerted by China on the economies of all western nations (I read yesterday that France's truffle industry is China's latest conquest). The US Government's failure to encourage reduced oil consumption is a gross abrogation of its responsibilty, IMO. When the inevitable oil price rises occur (remember Iran has threatened to greatly reduce its oil production), the effect on the US economy, with its huge consumption level, will be catastrophic. Some believe the writing is already on the wall for the US economy. Don't be fooled into thinking it can't happen. If the US economy collapses all the missiles and tanks in the world won't help it.

The threat of terrorism is real, but wrapping it up as a patriotic crusade only prevents the US from focusing on more urgent issues. The media pumps up this issue in America, Britain, Australia and other nations because it sells papers and delivers television ratings points. There's no money in talking about the folly of over-reliance on non-renewable energy sources.

China is using its rapidly expanding wealth to undermine western economies. GDP growth was 9.9% last year. By refusing to revalue its currency, other nations are being engulfed by cheap Chinese imports to the extent that China's trade surplus exceeds $100 billion and is increasing at a frightening rate. Basically, that's wealth being tranferred to China every year from its hapless trading partners. It also cleverly allows other nations, primarily the US and Europeans, to pioneer new technology which it then copies, then utilises its massive resource of cheap labor to market these goods at prices which render competition unviable. China has been slow to embrace capitalism but is learning very quickly that it has a strategic advantage over the rest of the world, which it is employing ruthlessly.

These are more important issues than the threat of a terrorist attack. Just my opinion, of course.

********************************************************************

"China is using its rapidly expanding wealth to undermine western economies. GDP growth was 9.9% last year. By refusing to revalue its currency, other nations are being engulfed by cheap Chinese imports to the extent that China's trade surplus exceeds $100 billion and is increasing at a frightening rate. Basically, that's wealth being tranferred to China every year from its hapless trading partners. It also cleverly allows other nations, primarily the US and Europeans, to pioneer new technology which it then copies, then utilises its massive resource of cheap labor to market these goods at prices which render competition unviable. China has been slow to embrace capitalism but is learning very quickly that it has a strategic advantage over the rest of the world, which it is employing ruthlessly.

These are more important issues than the threat of a terrorist attack. Just my opinion, of course."

And, you're right on the money with that one, Mark. No pun intended. China's having a field day with GATT. How did that old adage, attributed to the Chinese, go again? They had a saying, "Don't get mad, get even."

Well guess what, folks?

[Tim Gratz]

To Mark Stapleton:

I liked your post about the importance of energy police so much that I e-maied it to Geoge last night and he thus decided to make energy policy an important part of his SOTU speech.

[Mark Stapleton]

To Mark Stapleton:

I liked your post about the importance of energy police so much that I e-maied it to Geoge last night and he thus decided to make energy policy an important part of his SOTU speech.

Extremely witty, Tim--nice retort. I assume you mean energy policy, but anyway I happen to know that GWB doesn't take advice from ordinary, common, garden variety right wing fanatics such as your good self. No sir, he has his own special, homegrown RW fanatics giving him sage advice. These ones have a hotline to the man upstairs so if GWB stuffs up he has an infallible excuse, "It was the will of Gaaarrd".

[Guest Stephen Turner]

To Mark Stapleton:

I liked your post about the importance of energy police so much that I e-maied it to Geoge last night and he thus decided to make energy policy an important part of his SOTU speech.

Tim, I hope you spelt out all the long words phonetically En-er-gy, Pol-i-cy, Bal-ance of pay-ment-s def-i-cit.