Maybe there were WMD in Iraq

[sealybobo]

You REALLY need to get some facts. The infrastructure of Iraq is in better shape now then under Saddam Hussein you stupid shit. And it would be a hell of a lot better if Iraqis were not busy tearing it apart after we fix it. Do keep spouting your ignorant pap.

Baghdad Residents Receiving Just One Hour Of Electricity Per Day»

The collapse of Baghdad's garbage collection services has led to a dangerous increase in the amount of hazardous materials being burned on the capital’s streets.

Baghdad without water - 6 Million People, 117 Degrees And No Water

 

[sealybobo]

You REALLY need to get some facts. The infrastructure of Iraq is in better shape now then under Saddam Hussein you stupid shit. And it would be a hell of a lot better if Iraqis were not busy tearing it apart after we fix it. Do keep spouting your ignorant pap.

Retiredgysgt only eats propoganda, Retiredgysgt only eats propoganda, Retiredgysgt only eats propoganda, Retiredgysgt only eats propoganda, Retiredgysgt only eats propoganda

 

[DiamondDave]

AFP: Iraqi uranium transferred to Canada

MWC News - A Site Without Borders - - US announces Iraq uranium transfer

The question is why did the Bush administration keep mum about this? Could there have been some political reason that made it more expedient not to reveal this?

This was actually brought to light a LONG time ago... the Commie News Network and others just happily buried it

 

[DiamondDave]

Why do you think rich people were being overtaxed before Reagan got into office?

And did HW Bush cut their taxes even more? Were they still being "over" taxed?

And then GW Bush cut their taxes even MORE.

I say they aren't paying enough taxes. Look at the economy dummy. Look at the debt. Look at social security.

You aren't rich stupid. What's wrong with you. You are being overtaxed, but not them. Get that through your thick skull.

And YOU talk about someone swallowing propaganda hook, line and sinker???



PUH-LEASE

 

[M14 Shooter]

AFP: Iraqi uranium transferred to Canada

MWC News - A Site Without Borders - - US announces Iraq uranium transfer

The question is why did the Bush administration keep mum about this? Could there have been some political reason that made it more expedient not to reveal this?

Of course there were WMDs in Iraq. If you recall, WJBC bombed them for 5 days in December 1998 because they still had them, and they had the facilities to make more.

The question the anti-Bush people have yet to answer is:
We knew they had them in 1998. What happened to them?

 

[sealybobo]

And YOU talk about someone swallowing propaganda hook, line and sinker???



PUH-LEASE

A new aristocracy is taking over not just the United States of America but also the world. Proof of how far along it has come was in an article by Glenn R. Simpson in the January 28, 2005 edition of The Wall Street Journal.

"European countries have been steadily slashing corporate tax rates," wrote Simpson, adding, "...between 2000 and 2003, one nation after another has moved toward lower corporate rates with fewer loopholes."

On January 31, 2005, the Journal followed up with another story ("Tax Showdown Promised by EU Chief") pointing out that "...the new president of the European Commission launched a blunt attack on French and German efforts to end tax competition among European Union countries."

Ironically, EU leader José Manuel Barroso is also quoted in the Journal as saying: "Corporatist vested interests are the most important problem, be they from the left or the right."

This is more than just a tax cut story. It's about a fundamental shift in power and wealth from average people and the governments they had formed to represent them, to the capture of those governments and economic enslavement of their people by corporate aristocracies.

In it, Europe is simply following the lead set out by the United States, starting with the Reagan/Bush administration, when, in 1983, corporate taxes revenues were slashed to a low not seen since 1929.

This isn't the first time this has happened. Marc Bloch is one of the great 20th Century scholars of the feudal history of Europe. In his book "Feudal Society" he points out that feudalism is a fracturing of one authoritarian hierarchical structure into another: the state disintegrates, as local power brokers take over.

In almost every case, both with European feudalism and feudalism in China, South America, and Japan, “feudalism coincided with a profound weakening of the State, particularly in its protective capacity.”

Whether the power and wealth agent that takes the place of government is a local baron, lord, king, or corporation, if it has greater power in the lives of individuals than does a representative government, the culture has dissolved into feudalism.

Bluntly, Bloch states: “The feudal system meant the rigorous economic subjection of a host of humble folk to a few powerful men.”

This doesn’t mean the end of government, but, instead the subordination of government to the interests of the feudal lords. Interestingly, even in Feudal Europe, Bloch points out, “The concept of the State never absolutely disappeared, and where it retained the most vitality men continued to call themselves ‘free’…”

The transition from a governmental society to a feudal one is marked by the rapid accumulation of power and wealth in a few hands, with a corresponding reduction in the power and responsibilities of governments that represent the people.

Once the rich and powerful gain control of the government, they turn it upon itself, usually first eliminating its taxation process as it applies to themselves. Says Bloch: “Nobles need not pay taille [taxes].”

Or, as Glenn Simpson noted in the Wall Street Journal, "General Electric Co., for example, reported paying an effective tax rate of 19% last year on world-wide income, compared with 26% in 2003."

Corporations are taxed because they use public services, and are therefore expected to help pay for them - the same as citizens.

Corporations make use of a work force educated in public schools paid for with tax dollars. They use roads and highways paid for with tax dollars. They use water, sewer, and power and communications rights-of-way paid for with taxes. They demand the same protection from fire and police departments as everybody else, and enjoy the benefits of national sovereignty and the stability provided by the military and institutions like NATO and the United Nations, the same as all residents of democratic nations.

In fact, corporations are heavier users of taxpayer-provided services and institutions than are average citizens. Taxes pay for our court systems, which are most heavily used by corporations to enforce contracts. Taxes pay for our Treasury Department and other governmental institutions which maintain a stable currency essential to corporate activity. Taxes pay for our regulation of corporate activity, from assuring safety in the workplace to a pure food and drug supply to limiting toxic emissions.

Under George W. Bush, the burden of cleaning up toxic wastes produced by corporate activity has largely shifted from polluter-funded Superfund and other programs to taxpayer-funded cleanups (as he did in Texas as governor there before becoming President).

Every year, millions of cases of cancer, emphysema, neurological disorders, and other conditions caused by corporate pollution are paid for in whole or in part by government funded programs from Medicare to Medicaid to government subsidies of hospitals, universities, and research institutions funded by tax dollars through the NIH and NIMH.

Because it's well understood that corporations use our tax-funded institutions at least as heavily as do citizens, they've traditionally been taxed at similar rates. For example, the top corporate tax rate in the US was 48% during the Carter administration, down from the a peak of 53% during the Eisenhower and Kennedy years.

Today it stands at 35%, but in May of 2001 Bush administration Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill suggested there should be no corporate income tax whatsoever. This was the opening salvo in a very real war to have working people bear all the costs of the commons and governance, while the wealthy corporate elite derive most of its benefits.

And, as George H.W. Bush pointed out when he was president, this isn't just an American phenomenon. It's a New World Order.

"The corporate tax-cutters of recent years stretch from Portugal, where the rate has dropped 10 points to about 17%," notes The Wall Street Journal's 28 January article, "to Austria, down nine points to about 25%."

A cornerstone of the conservative movement to consolidate power in the hands of a wealthy corporate elite, the campaign to end corporate income taxes altogether - and leave the rest of us to pick up the entire tab for corporate use of our institutions and corporation despoliation of our commons - first picked up steam when Reagan came to power in 1980.

As Cato Institute adjunct scholar Richard W. Rahn noted in Rev. Moon's Washington Times, "The idea and practice of the corporate income tax has been dying slowly for the last two decades."

The December 1, 2004 Washington Times article, titled "End Corporate Income Tax," reflects a powerful and growing movement not just in the United States but across the world. So-called "free trade" agreements and supranational institutions like the WTO have given multinational corporations control of the economic lives of nations that were previously democracies. Holland, Ireland, Germany, Portugal, Belgium - the list goes on and on.

In a feudal state, as Bloch reminds us, the nobles need not pay taxes.

And as Mussolini told us, the newest form of feudalism has been reinvented and renamed. He called it "fascism" - a word that was defined by The American Heritage Dictionary (Houghton Mifflin Company, 1983) as "fas-cism (fash'iz'em) n. A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism."

We are quickly shifting toward a corporate-run state in countries all over the world. It appears "free" and even allows elections, albeit they are only among candidates funded and approved by corporate powers, held on voting machines owned by those corporate powers, and marketed in media owned by those corporate powers.

But this bears little resemblance to the democratic republic envisioned by our nation's Founders.

If our elected representatives - and those of other "free" nations - don't quickly wake up and reverse course, we will soon again be in a feudal world. And it's up to us - We the People - to help them awaken.

 

[sealybobo]

And YOU talk about someone swallowing propaganda hook, line and sinker???



PUH-LEASE

Our bridges are falling apart (among other things), and its Ronald Reagan’s fault.

A few hours before the bridge collapsed in Minnesota, a news release landed (among hundreds) in my email inbox. It was from the right-wing “Heartland Institute” and a Minnesota conservative group calling itself the “Taxpayers League of Minnesota.” It read:

Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R) issued 20 full or partial vetoes of tax hikes and spending increases in May, giving taxpayers reason to smile. …

May 1, Pawlenty, in a move that took everyone by surprise, vetoed an entire $334 million “emergency” capital investment bill. Pawlenty said in his veto message the bill authorized “more than four times more spending on projects than I requested and is simply too large.”

Two weeks later Pawlenty announced another important veto, this one to block a transportation bill containing more than $5 billion in tax and fee increases…

“Buying down property taxes through local government aid programs has never proven to be a long-term solution to property tax pressures,” Pawlenty said in a May 30 veto message.

Phil Krinkie, president of the Taxpayers League of Minnesota, agreed.

“Relying on the benevolence of local units of government to restrain their spending and lower property taxes when the state drops sacks of money in their lap is simply foolish,” Krinkie said. “Thankfully, Minnesota has a governor that recognizes this.”

The transportation bill veto is the only one the DFL [the Democratic Farm and Labor party which controls the Minnesota legislature] tried to override. The attempt came with less than 20 minutes remaining in the session and was defeated by House Republicans, led by Minority Leader Marty Seifert (R-Marshall).

“Democrats made too many campaign promises to win their seats and are now learning they can’t pay for them,” Marshall [Seifert] said after the failed override attempt.

Ultimately, it was the DFL’s inability to override any of Pawlenty’s vetoes–particularly of the transportation bill–that resulted in a comparatively small $3 billion increase in state spending with no new taxes.

Said Krinkie of the 2007 session, “Minnesotans really need to thank Gov. Pawlenty and Rep. Seifert’s House Republicans. These guys stood strong in the face of overwhelming pressure and came through for taxpayers when they really needed them.”

If by “taxpayers” one means “millionaires, billionaires, and corporations,” the news release was accurate. And now its authors have blood on their hands.

After the Republican Great Depression, FDR put this nation back to work, in part by raising taxes on income above $3 to $4 million a year (in today’s dollars) to 91 percent, and corporate taxes to over 50% of profits. The revenue from those income taxes built dams, roads, bridges, sewers, water systems, schools, hospitals, train stations, railways, an interstate highway system, and airports. It educated a generation returning from World War II. It acted as a cap on the rare but occasional obsessively greedy person taking so much out of the economy that it impoverished the rest of us.

Through the 1950s, though, more and more loopholes for the rich were built into the tax code, so much so that JFK observed in his second debate with Richard Nixon that dropping the top tax rate to 70% but tightening up the loopholes would actually be a tax increase.

JFK pushed through that tax increase to take us back toward FDR/Truman/Eisenhower revenue levels, and we continued to build infrastructure in the US, and even put men on the moon. Health care and college were cheap and widely available. Working people could raise a family and have security in their old age. Every billion dollars (a half-week in Iraq) invested in infrastructure in America created 47,000 good-paying jobs as Americans built America.

But the rich fought back, and won big-time in 1980 when Reagan, until then the fringe “Voodoo economics” candidate who was heading into the election trailing far behind Jimmy Carter, was swept into the White House on a wave of public concern of the Iranians taking US hostages. Reagan promptly cut income taxes on the very rich from 70% down to 27%. Corporate tax rates were also cut so severely that they went from representing over 33% of total federal tax receipts in 1951 to less than 9% in 1983 (they’re still in that neighborhood, the lowest in the industrialized world).

The result was devastating. Our government was suddenly so badly awash in red ink that Reagan doubled the tax paid only by people earning less than $40,000/year (FICA), and then began borrowing from the huge surplus this new tax was accumulating in the Social Security Trust Fund. Even with that, Reagan had to borrow more money in his 8 years than the sum total of all presidents from George Washington to Jimmy Carter combined.

In addition to badly throwing the nation into debt, Reagan’s tax cut blew out the ceiling on the accumulation of wealth, leading to a new Gilded Age and the rise of a generation of super-wealthy that hadn’t been seen since the Robber Baron era of the 1890s or the Roaring 20s.

And, most tragically, Reagan’s tax cuts caused America to stop investing in infrastructure. As a nation, we’ve been coasting since the early 1980s, living on borrowed money while we burn through (in some cases literally) the hospitals, roads, bridges, steam tunnels, and other infrastructure we built in the Golden Age of the Middle Class between the 1940s and the 1980s.

We even stopped investing in the intellectual infrastructure of this nation: college education. A degree that a student in the 1970s could have paid for by working as a waitress at a Howard Johnson’s restaurant (what my wife did in the late 60s - I did so working as a near-minimum-wage DJ) now means incurring massive and life-altering debt for all but the very wealthy. Reagan, who as governor ended free tuition at the University of California, put into place the foundations for the explosion in college tuition we see today.

The Associated Press reported on August 4, 2007, that the president of Nike, Mark Parker, “raked in $3.6 million [in compensation] in ‘07.” That’s $13,846 per weekday, $69,230 a week. And yet it would still keep him just below the top 70% tax rate if this were the pre-Reagan era. We had a social consensus that somebody earning around $3 million a year was fine, but above that was really more than anybody needs to live in America.

In the worldview Americans held in the 1930-1980 era, Parker’s compensation was reasonable. But William McGuire (aka in the business press as “Dollar Bill“) taking over $1.6 billion - $1,600,000,000.00 - from the nation’s second largest health insurance company (you wonder where your health care dollars are going?) would have been considered excessive before the “Reagan Revolution.”

There is much discussion of what the floor on earnings should be - the minimum wage - but none about the ceiling. That’s largely because effectively there is no ceiling, and those who control vast wealth in America are happy to have Americans fight over “How poor is too poor?” just so long as nobody asks “How rich is too rich?”

When Reagan dropped the top income tax rate from over 70% down to under 30%, all hell broke loose. With the legal and social restraint to unlimited selfishness removed, “the good of the nation” was replaced by “greed is good” as the primary paradigm.

In the years since then, mind-boggling wealth has risen among fewer than 20,000 people in America (the top 0.01 percent of wage-earners), but their influence has been tremendous. They finance “conservative” think tanks (think Joseph Coors and the Heritage Foundation), change public opinion (Walton heirs funding a covert effort to change the “estate tax” to the “death tax”), lobby congress and the president (who calls the “haves and the have-more’s” his “base”), and work to strip down public institutions.

The middle class is being replaced by the working poor. American infrastructure built with tax revenues during the 1934-1981 is now crumbling and disintegrating. Hospitals and highways and power and water systems have been corporatized. People are dying.

And Bush, following closely in Reagan’s footsteps, is making things worse. As Senator Bernie Sanders pointed out at recent hearings for the confirmation of Bush’s new nominee for the Office of Management and Budget:

Since Bush has been president:

over 5 million people have slipped into poverty;
nearly 7 million Americans have lost their health insurance;
median household income has gone down by nearly $1,300;
three million manufacturing jobs have been lost;
three million American workers have lost their pensions;
home foreclosures are now the highest on record;
the personal savings rate is below zero - which hasn’t happened since the great depression;
the real earnings of college graduates have gone down by about 5% in the last few years;
entry level wages for male and female high school graduates have fallen by over 3%;
wages and salaries are now at the lowest share of GDP since 1929.
The debate about whether or not to roll Bush’s tax cuts back to Clinton’s modest mid-30% rates is absurd. It’s time to roll back the horribly failed experiment of the Reagan tax cuts. And use that money to pay down Reagan’s debt and rebuild this nation.

 

[DiamondDave]

nice copy/paste job of socialist propaganda, comrade

ThomHartmann.com - Nobles Need Not Pay Taxes
http://www.thomhartmann.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1&Itemid=38


Yet... I bet you would scream bloody murder if someone used Rush or some other right-wing commentator as a reference

 

[Ravi]

Hello, has anyone actually noticed that this yellowcake in question was something we've known about all along?

If there was any evidence of WMD Bush would be slavering at the bit to redeem himself and announce it.

 

[editec]

Why do you think rich people were being overtaxed before Reagan got into office?

And did HW Bush cut their taxes even more? Were they still being "over" taxed?

And then GW Bush cut their taxes even MORE.

I say they aren't paying enough taxes. Look at the economy dummy. Look at the debt. Look at social security.

You aren't rich stupid. What's wrong with you. You are being overtaxed, but not them. Get that through your thick skull.

It's called the STOCKHOLM syndrome, I suspect.

It's extrmely common for the peasants to imagine that the king is their chum.

Inevitably they end up finding someone other than the people in charge to blame the ills of their nation on.

It's quite common which is exactly why dictators always have plenty of willing workers willing to screw the people for their master.

 

[sealybobo]

nice copy/paste job of socialist propaganda, comrade

ThomHartmann.com - Nobles Need Not Pay Taxes
ThomHartmann.com - Roll Back the Reagan Tax Cuts


Yet... I bet you would scream bloody murder if someone used Rush or some other right-wing commentator as a reference

I suspect you haven't had an original thought in your life. Who has? I play guitar. I learned from the Stones, Doors, Prince, Queen, CCR, G&R, James Taylor, John Cougar, Foo Fighters, Toby Keith, Billy Joel, Willie Nelson, Garth, Keith Urban, Steve Miller Band, Clapton, etc.

Sorry, i'm a hack.

Where did you learn what you know? Or did you figure everything out on your own? Chances are, you have only learned from your dumb dad. Most conservatives are products of their fathers ignorance.

Don't people study Plato, Socrates, Bach, Bethoven, etc.?

We wouldn't know how to keep time if someone else didn't invent the clock, right?

That's why Hillary said, "it takes a villiage to raise an idiot. What villiage did you come from again?

 

[DiamondDave]

I suspect you haven't had an original thought in your life. Who has? I play guitar. I learned from the Stones, Doors, Prince, Queen, CCR, G&R, James Taylor, John Cougar, Foo Fighters, Toby Keith, Billy Joel, Willie Nelson, Garth, Keith Urban, Steve Miller Band, Clapton, etc.

Sorry, i'm a hack.

Where did you learn what you know? Or did you figure everything out on your own? Chances are, you have only learned from your dumb dad. Most conservatives are products of their fathers ignorance.

Don't people study Plato, Socrates, Bach, Bethoven, etc.?

We wouldn't know how to keep time if someone else didn't invent the clock, right?

That's why Hillary said, "it takes a villiage to raise an idiot. What villiage did you come from again?

Funny... I had no father around, ever in my life.... but nice ASSumption, you ignorant swine... I am my own man, learning from my own life and own experience and my own EFFORTS...


go back to your commune


oooooooohhh... I am SO impressed... you play guitar... I guess NOBODY ever learns to do that without being a governmental theory genius

 

[midcan5]

Funny... I had no father around, ever in my life.... but nice ASSumption, you ignorant swine... I am my own man, learning from my own life and own experience and my own EFFORTS...

And you created the world? language? food? cars? et cetera? The only thing you created was your imaginary world, enjoy it there but if you use anything at all made by others maybe then you'll come back to reality. You're even using the internet Gore helped create. LOL

PS Reagan had the largest peace time tax increase ever, I give Ronnie credit he realized he was screwing things up and changed his mind.

"There is no historical evidence that tax cuts spur economic growth. The highest period of growth in U.S. history (1933-1973) also saw its highest tax rates on the rich: 70 to 91 percent. During this period, the general tax rate climbed as well, but it reached a plateau in 1969, and growth slowed down five years later. Almost all rich nations have higher general taxes than the U.S., and they are growing faster as well."
Tax cuts spur economic growth


A vote for John McCain is a vote against the fundamental principle of America, the right of the individual to lead their life privately without the government interfering.

 

[DiamondDave]

Any more copy/paste socialist drivel??? You bite socialist propaganda and myth like a starving Bass seeing it's first cricket on the surface of the water in 2 weeks

This ain't a hive, hippie

 

[editec]

A new aristocracy is taking over not just the United States of America but also the world. Proof of how far along it has come was in an article by Glenn R. Simpson in the January 28, 2005 edition of The Wall Street Journal.

"European countries have been steadily slashing corporate tax rates," wrote Simpson, adding, "...between 2000 and 2003, one nation after another has moved toward lower corporate rates with fewer loopholes."

On January 31, 2005, the Journal followed up with another story ("Tax Showdown Promised by EU Chief") pointing out that "...the new president of the European Commission launched a blunt attack on French and German efforts to end tax competition among European Union countries."

Ironically, EU leader José Manuel Barroso is also quoted in the Journal as saying: "Corporatist vested interests are the most important problem, be they from the left or the right."

This is more than just a tax cut story. It's about a fundamental shift in power and wealth from average people and the governments they had formed to represent them, to the capture of those governments and economic enslavement of their people by corporate aristocracies.

In it, Europe is simply following the lead set out by the United States, starting with the Reagan/Bush administration, when, in 1983, corporate taxes revenues were slashed to a low not seen since 1929.

This isn't the first time this has happened. Marc Bloch is one of the great 20th Century scholars of the feudal history of Europe. In his book "Feudal Society" he points out that feudalism is a fracturing of one authoritarian hierarchical structure into another: the state disintegrates, as local power brokers take over.

In almost every case, both with European feudalism and feudalism in China, South America, and Japan, “feudalism coincided with a profound weakening of the State, particularly in its protective capacity.”

Whether the power and wealth agent that takes the place of government is a local baron, lord, king, or corporation, if it has greater power in the lives of individuals than does a representative government, the culture has dissolved into feudalism.

Bluntly, Bloch states: “The feudal system meant the rigorous economic subjection of a host of humble folk to a few powerful men.”

This doesn’t mean the end of government, but, instead the subordination of government to the interests of the feudal lords. Interestingly, even in Feudal Europe, Bloch points out, “The concept of the State never absolutely disappeared, and where it retained the most vitality men continued to call themselves ‘free’…”

The transition from a governmental society to a feudal one is marked by the rapid accumulation of power and wealth in a few hands, with a corresponding reduction in the power and responsibilities of governments that represent the people.

Once the rich and powerful gain control of the government, they turn it upon itself, usually first eliminating its taxation process as it applies to themselves. Says Bloch: “Nobles need not pay taille [taxes].”

Or, as Glenn Simpson noted in the Wall Street Journal, "General Electric Co., for example, reported paying an effective tax rate of 19% last year on world-wide income, compared with 26% in 2003."

Corporations are taxed because they use public services, and are therefore expected to help pay for them - the same as citizens.

Corporations make use of a work force educated in public schools paid for with tax dollars. They use roads and highways paid for with tax dollars. They use water, sewer, and power and communications rights-of-way paid for with taxes. They demand the same protection from fire and police departments as everybody else, and enjoy the benefits of national sovereignty and the stability provided by the military and institutions like NATO and the United Nations, the same as all residents of democratic nations.

In fact, corporations are heavier users of taxpayer-provided services and institutions than are average citizens. Taxes pay for our court systems, which are most heavily used by corporations to enforce contracts. Taxes pay for our Treasury Department and other governmental institutions which maintain a stable currency essential to corporate activity. Taxes pay for our regulation of corporate activity, from assuring safety in the workplace to a pure food and drug supply to limiting toxic emissions.

Under George W. Bush, the burden of cleaning up toxic wastes produced by corporate activity has largely shifted from polluter-funded Superfund and other programs to taxpayer-funded cleanups (as he did in Texas as governor there before becoming President).

Every year, millions of cases of cancer, emphysema, neurological disorders, and other conditions caused by corporate pollution are paid for in whole or in part by government funded programs from Medicare to Medicaid to government subsidies of hospitals, universities, and research institutions funded by tax dollars through the NIH and NIMH.

Because it's well understood that corporations use our tax-funded institutions at least as heavily as do citizens, they've traditionally been taxed at similar rates. For example, the top corporate tax rate in the US was 48% during the Carter administration, down from the a peak of 53% during the Eisenhower and Kennedy years.

Today it stands at 35%, but in May of 2001 Bush administration Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill suggested there should be no corporate income tax whatsoever. This was the opening salvo in a very real war to have working people bear all the costs of the commons and governance, while the wealthy corporate elite derive most of its benefits.

And, as George H.W. Bush pointed out when he was president, this isn't just an American phenomenon. It's a New World Order.

"The corporate tax-cutters of recent years stretch from Portugal, where the rate has dropped 10 points to about 17%," notes The Wall Street Journal's 28 January article, "to Austria, down nine points to about 25%."

A cornerstone of the conservative movement to consolidate power in the hands of a wealthy corporate elite, the campaign to end corporate income taxes altogether - and leave the rest of us to pick up the entire tab for corporate use of our institutions and corporation despoliation of our commons - first picked up steam when Reagan came to power in 1980.

As Cato Institute adjunct scholar Richard W. Rahn noted in Rev. Moon's Washington Times, "The idea and practice of the corporate income tax has been dying slowly for the last two decades."

The December 1, 2004 Washington Times article, titled "End Corporate Income Tax," reflects a powerful and growing movement not just in the United States but across the world. So-called "free trade" agreements and supranational institutions like the WTO have given multinational corporations control of the economic lives of nations that were previously democracies. Holland, Ireland, Germany, Portugal, Belgium - the list goes on and on.

In a feudal state, as Bloch reminds us, the nobles need not pay taxes.

And as Mussolini told us, the newest form of feudalism has been reinvented and renamed. He called it "fascism" - a word that was defined by The American Heritage Dictionary (Houghton Mifflin Company, 1983) as "fas-cism (fash'iz'em) n. A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism."

We are quickly shifting toward a corporate-run state in countries all over the world. It appears "free" and even allows elections, albeit they are only among candidates funded and approved by corporate powers, held on voting machines owned by those corporate powers, and marketed in media owned by those corporate powers.

But this bears little resemblance to the democratic republic envisioned by our nation's Founders.

If our elected representatives - and those of other "free" nations - don't quickly wake up and reverse course, we will soon again be in a feudal world. And it's up to us - We the People - to help them awaken.

Yeah, NEO Feudalism is where this world is headed, I think.

Now, instead of having a dominating church ruling over us, we'll have a ruling corporate elite calling the shots.

 

[DiamondDave]

And you would rather have a power based liberal elite with their socialist control...

No... I'll stick with the concept, and all the positives and negatives, of freedom

 

[Care4all]

Hey Midcan5. I thought of something yesterday when a neo con poster scoffed off my "proof" because it came from a "liberal" source of media. I asked him, "what media do you approve of"? Since they think MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, Time, NY TIMES, Rolling Stones, etc. Since they think EVERY media is liberal, I want to know what sources they approve of. I can't wait to hear back from them.

And, if I'm right and the mainstream media has been taken over by rich corporations who's intent is to turn the media pro GOP, what chance is there that we will ever find anything that paints them in a negative way?

So of course all my sources will be "liberal". The "conservative" media sure isn't going to tell us the truth. Right?

if it is corporate media, when dems control the whitehouse with, ''the people's choice'', behind them the media will turn to a more democratic or liberal bias....they go, with the flow....for money made on commercial time bought....

they were the GOP's media during the first 5-6 years of president Bush, now they ARE leaning towards a visibly democratic bias, with the president's approval rating in the toilet....

IN OTHER WORDS, the media is a harlot, they whore themselves to whoever gives them more dough to their bottom line imo.

THIS does NOT mean that the news we get from the main stream media is false by any means...just that there could be bias in ther spin or editorial of the News....

We should just be ''aware'' of it....

care

 

[M14 Shooter]

And you would rather have a power based liberal elite with their socialist control...
No... I'll stick with the concept, and all the positives and negatives, of freedom

Liberty, by necessity, is neither neat, nor clean, nor tidy.
Those that would make it so, through government, are the enemies of same.

 

[Charles_Main]

So many Retarded liberal fools.

we are all doomed.

 

[sealybobo]

if it is corporate media, when dems control the whitehouse with, ''the people's choice'', behind them the media will turn to a more democratic or liberal bias....they go, with the flow....for money made on commercial time bought....

they were the GOP's media during the first 5-6 years of president Bush, now they ARE leaning towards a visibly democratic bias, with the president's approval rating in the toilet....

IN OTHER WORDS, the media is a harlot, they whore themselves to whoever gives them more dough to their bottom line imo.

THIS does NOT mean that the news we get from the main stream media is false by any means...just that there could be bias in ther spin or editorial of the News....

We should just be ''aware'' of it....

care

The media is privately owned. They don't have to report the way Congress wants them to report. Perfect example, Fox News. What you might be seeing is that Nancy Pelosi is now the person they interview, instead of Tom Delay, so the messenger is different.

Forget about radio and newspapers. Tv is the most powerful media. So while the corporate media might let guys like Savage and Hartmann on the radio, you won't see them on tv. And you always see 3 republicans and one liberal whenever they have guests on tv.

Fact, Bush committed a felony at least 30 times. MINIMUM. You don't hear that on tv, do you? The felonies he committed are much worse than Monicagate. Where are they talking about it? No Where.

President George W. Bush violated the US Constitution and the law when he authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) to conduct warrantless surveillance of Americans. Three principles are enshrined in the Fourth Amendment.

A person’s home is his/her sanctuary.
Citizens are safe from unreasonable search and seizure without a warrant.
The warrant must be provided by an independent court upon probable cause.

President Bush also violated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). I will begin at the roots of US law showing that authorizing warrantless surveillance of US Citizens is a violation of the Fourth Amendment. I will then show how FISA came about and how the Bush Administration violated this law.

What is the controversy? Since 2001 the Bush Administration has allowed the NSA to read emails, listen to telephone conversations, (Lacayo, 2006) and capture data about incoming/outgoing phone calls of tens of millions of American Citizens (Cauley, 2006). The fact that the NSA spied on Americans without first obtaining a warrant is without dispute (Risen, 2005). This has been widely reported and has been acknowledged by President Bush (Sanger, 2005). The Bush Administration argues that this authority was specifically given to the president in Article II of the US Constitution and in the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), enacted on September 18, 2001 (Gonzalez, 2006, January 16).

The American legal system owes its roots to the Common Law, a set of laws based, not on statute but on precedent (Wikipedia.org, Common Law, 2006). To this date, the Supreme Court will acknowledge the precedent of the common law in writing its opinions. Sir Edward Coke’s writings on the English common law were the definitive legal texts for over 300 years. (Wikipedia.org, Sir Edward Coke, 2006) In 1628 Sir Coke wrote “A man's house is his castle – et domus sua cuique est tutissimum refugium.” The Latin phrase means "And where shall a man be safe if it be not in his own house?” The writers of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were keenly aware of Coke’s writings and echoed his language. For example they borrowed the phrase “life, liberty and the pursuit of [property] happiness” directly from Coke.

During the 1700’s, King George allowed customs officials to search anywhere at any time by using “writs of assistance,” (U-S-History.com, Writs of Assistance, 2006) or non-specific warrants. This behavior was such an affront to the American Colonists that they later referred to it in the Declaration of Independence, justifying the Colonists’ desire to become self-governed.

In 1761, James Otis referred back to the writings of Coke when he argued in court against the writs of assistance. He said:



“A man’s house is his castle; and whilst he is quiet, he is as well guarded as a prince in his castle. This writ, if it should be declared legal, would totally annihilate this privilege. Custom-house officers may enter our houses when they please; we are commanded to permit their entry. Their menial servants may enter, may break locks, bars, and everything in their way; and whether they break through malice or revenge, no man, no court may inquire” (U-S-History.com, James Otis, 2006).


The Common Law concept of a person’s home as his or her sanctuary was clearly on the Founding Fathers’ minds when they included the fourth amendment to the constitution.



“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”


The Supreme Court several times has affirmed the need for an independent court to issue warrants, maintaining a separation of power. For example, in Trupiano vs. United States, 334 U.S. 699, the Supreme Court wrote, “It is a cardinal rule that, in seizing goods and articles, law enforcement agents must secure and use search warrants wherever reasonably practicable…This rule rests upon the desirability of having magistrates rather than police officers determine when searches and seizures are permissible and what limitations should be placed upon such activities.”

These important principles - that a person’s home is his/her sanctuary, that they are safe from unreasonable search and seizure without a warrant and that the warrant must be provided by an independent court upon probable cause – went undisputed for generations. The importance of these principles was again affirmed in the wake of the scandals of the Nixon Administration.

In the early 1970’s, under direction from the Nixon Administration, the FBI and other governmental agencies were used to spy on those whom Nixon chose to label as “dissidents.” Some of those dissidents included Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., Eldridge Cleaver, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and anti-war protesters. Years later, in an interview with television personality David Frost, Nixon responded to a series of questions (LandmarkCases.org, 2006):




FROST: So what in a sense, you're saying is that there are certain situations, and the Huston Plan [which included warrantless wiretapping] or that part of it was one of them, where the president can decide that it's in the best interests of the nation or something, and do something illegal.


NIXON: Well, when the president does it that means that it is not illegal.

FROST: By definition.

NIXON: Exactly. Exactly. If the president, for example, approves something because of the national security, or in this case because of a threat to internal peace and order of significant magnitude, then the president's decision in that instance is one that enables those who carry it out, to carry it out without violating a law. Otherwise they're in an impossible position.


This interview was later included in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. This evidence was used in writing the law known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). This act restricts the right of the intelligence agencies to intercept communication that involves US Citizens or long-term residents of the US. The law requires the Attorney General to go before a special FISA court to obtain a warrant for foreign surveillance in which one of the parties is a US Citizen. There are also exceptions built into the law, allowing a 15-day grace period for warrantless wiretapping during times of war and providing for retroactive warrants (FISA, 1978).

How difficult was it to obtain a warrant using the FISA process? According to The Crisis, the official publication of the NAACP (Gaines, 2006), “From 1979 to 2004, FISA denied only four of the government's applications for surveillance while approving 18,727 requests…The four rejections occurred in 2003.”

It was in the days following September 11th that President Bush ordered spy agencies, including the NSA to begin surveillance activities that included US Citizens. Despite a clear mandate from the Constitution and from FISA to first obtain a warrant, the president decided that he had the authority to ignore the requirement and to “use all necessary and appropriate force.”

The warrantless surveillance program remained a secret from the public until December 16, 2005. The New York Times knew about the spying program for more than a year, but had delayed publication of the article upon request from the Bush Administration.

Like the Nixon Administration before it, the Bush Administration has justified its actions by arbitrarily assigning people labels. Nixon arbitrarily labeled US Citizens as “dissidents.” The Bush Administration has branded people as “persons of interest,” “terrorists” or “enemy combatants.” Among some of the groups targeted by the Bush Administration are Greenpeace; Food Not Bombs; Code Pink, an international women's peace organization; and the Rhode-Island based Community Coalition for Peace (ACLU, 2006a).

In summary, the roots of American law have long established the rights to privacy and protection within one’s home and possessions. This principle was enshrined in the fourth amendment to the US Constitution. This right to protection from search and seizure was further clarified by Congress in the wake of the scandals of the Nixon Administration and set into statute under FISA. None of this has stopped the Bush Administration from flagrantly violating the law in its “war on terror.” By ignoring the constitutionally-mandated separation of powers, the Bush Administration has brought us to another constitutional crisis. How this will end is up to the Courts, to Congress and to us, the citizens of the United States who hold those elected officials accountable.

References:

ACLU (2006a). FBI Counterterrorism Unit Spies on Peaceful, Faith-Based Protest Group, retrieved May 14, 2006 from American Civil Liberties Union : FBI Counterterrorism Unit Spies on Peaceful, Faith-Based Protest Group

ACLU (2006b). National Security Letters Gag Patriot Act Debate, retrieved May 4, 2006 from American Civil Liberties Union : National Security Letters

ACLU (2006c). Presidential Powers, NSA Spying, and the War on Terrorism: Americans’ Attitudes on Recent Events, retrieved on May 28, 2006 from http://www.aclu.org/images/general/asset_upload_file966_24263.pdf

Bartels, L. (1993, June) Messages Received: The Political Impact of Media Exposure. American Political Science Review 87(2) pp. 267-285

Brief of Amici Curiae, Center for Constitutional Rights and the American Civil Liberties Union

Cauley, L. (2006, May 11). NSA has massive database of Americans’ phone calls. USA Today, p. 1A, 5A

Cole, D. (2006, February 20). NSA Spying Myths, Nation, 282(7), pp. 5 – 7

Editorial (2005, January 26). The Wrong Attorney General, New York Times, 154(53106), p. A16

Editorial2006, 12 March). Domestic Spying Powers: Show some spine Congress. Philadelphia Inquirer, The (PA)

Egelko B. (2006, April 8). Court filings may reveal role of AT&T in federal Net spying. San Francisco Chronicle (CA). p. A5

Eggen, D. (2004, August 20). U.S. Uses Secret Evidence In Secrecy Fight With ACLU. Washington Post, p. A17

Gaines, P. (2006 March/April). Surveillance: Bush's Spies, Hoover's Ghost. The Crisis. pp.12 – 15

Gellman, B. (2005, November 6). The FBI’s Secret Scrutiny. Washing Post, p. A01

Gonzalez, A. (2006, January 16) Letter from the Office of the Attorney General to Senator Bill Frist, dated 16 January 2006, retrieved 20 April 2006 from http://www.fas.org/irp/nsa/doj011906.pdf

Gonzalez, A. (2006, February 6). United States Attorney General, US Department of Justice FDCH Congressional Testimony, Senate Judiciary Committee, NSA and Domestic Spying, 02/06/2006

Hirsch, E., Kett, J., and Trefil, J. (Eds.) (2002), The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition, Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Jaeger, P. & Bertot, J. & McClure, C. (2003). The impact of the USA Patriot Act on collection and analysis of personal information under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Government Information Quarterly 20, pp. 295 – 314

Kelly, B. (2003). Worth Repeating: More Than 5,000 Classic and Contemporary Quotes. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Academic & Professional

Lacayo, R., et al (2006, January 9). Has Bush Gone Too Far? Time, Vol. 167 Issue 2, pp. 24-32

LandmarkCases.org article on David Frost interview of Richard Nixon, retrieved May 1, 2006 from Nixon's Views on Presidential Power, United States v. Nixon (1974), Landmark Supreme Court Cases

Lyon, B., Secret Evidence, retrieved May 13, 2006 from FindLaw's Writ - Lyon: Secret Evidence

McCombs, M. & Shaw, D. (1972 Summer). The Agenda-Setting Function of Mass Media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36(2) pp. 176-187

Montesquieu, Charles de Secondat, baron de (2002). The Spirit of Laws, Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books

PBS (2006, May 11). NSA Program Revealed, retrieved May 16, 2006 from Redirect

Priest, D. (2006, May 13). Secrecy Privilege Invoked in Fighting Ex-Detainee's Lawsuit. Washington Post, p. A03

Q&A: The NSA's Domestic Eavesdropping Program. Retrieved May 4, 2006 from Q&A: The NSA's Domestic Eavesdropping Program : NPR

Risen, J. & Lichtblau E. (2005, December 16) Bush Lets U.S. Spy on Callers Without Courts. New York Times p. A1

Rudalevige A. (2005). The New Imperial Presidency: Renewing Presidential Power after Watergate. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

Sanger, D. (2005, December 18). In address, Bush says he ordered domestic spying. New York Times, p. 1

Savage, C. (2006, April 30). Bush challenges hundreds of laws. Boston Globe, Retrieved May 7, 2006, from Bush challenges hundreds of laws - The Boston Globe

Savage, C. (2006, May 3). Hearings vowed on Bush’s Power. Boston Globe, Retrieved May 6, 2006 from Hearing vowed on Bush's powers - The Boston Globe

Schlesinger, A. (2004 Reprint edition). The Imperial Presidency. Boston: Mariner Books.

Testimony before congress. Retrieved May 4, 2006 from Implementation of the USA PATRIOT Act: Sections of the Act That Address the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)

U-S-History.com article on Writs of Assistance, retrieved on May 2, 2006 from Writs of Assistance

U-S-History.com article on James Otis, retrieved May 2, 2006 from James Otis

FISA (1978), US Code, Title 50, Chapter 36, Subchapter I – Electronic Surveillance, retrieved April 30, 2006 from US CODE: Title 50,SUBCHAPTER I—ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE

White, J. (2005, December 23). Unable to End 'Unlawful' Detention, Judge Says. Washington Post p. A04

Wikipedia.org article on Common Law, retrieved on May 13, 2006 from Common law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia.org, article on Natural Law, retrieved on May 13, 2006 from Natural law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia.org article on Sir Edward Coke, retrieved May 3, 2006 from Edward Coke - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia.org, Transparency (humanities), retrieved May 16, 2006 from Transparency (humanities) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia.org, USA PATRIOT Act, retrieved May 16, 2006 from USA PATRIOT Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Labels: constitution, David Frost, FISA, Natural Law, Nixon, NSA, spying, telephone companies, warrantless spying