Obama & Dem Leaders Act Same As Bush: Lying Corporatist, Stealing Our Bill of Rights - Page 5 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Cynthetiq · 07-10-2008, 03:35 AM

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI...vote=00168#top

Politics, seems to be business as usual as far as I can tell, which isn't very much.

dc_dux · 07-10-2008, 03:58 AM

In terms of the roll call vote, McCain hasnt voted on any bill in the Senate since April....that way he can take credit for bills that pass that he opposed..like the recent GI Bill.

In terms of the FISA bill...as bad as it is with the retroactive immunity for telecomms, it still is an improvement over the Protect America Act by:

codifying the fact that FISA provides the sole legal authority for wiretaps (no more claiming that an AUMF provides that authority)

providing greater standards of "reasonable cause" for the FISA court to issue warrants for wiretaps

providing greater oversight of the FISA warrant process

provides far more restrictions on "reverse targeting" of US citizens

IMO, the 30-40 civil lawsuits against the telecomms would never have seen the light of day under any circumstances. I believe criminal sanctions against the major perpetrators (Bush/Gonzales) is still a possibility.

And my friends farther left than me are over reacting and are assuming that the next president will show the same blatant disregard for the law as Bush and the next Congress will be as negligent in its oversight as the Republican Congress was between 2001 and 2005 when the illegal warrantless wiretaps occured.

In the end, I pretty much agree with Feingold's conclusion, the most outspoken opponent of the bill in the Senate, although I think he is over reacting as well (for the reasons I noted above):

Quote:

Feingold conceded that public disappointment following gains for Democrats in the 2006 elections was understandable, but said that a Democratic president, "in particular, Barack Obama, should allow us to greatly change this mistake."

"Barack Obama believes in the Constitution," he continued. "He's a constitutional scholar. I believe that he will have a better chance to look at these powers that have been given to the executive branch, [even though] he'll be running the executive branch.

I think he will understand and help take the lead in fixing some of the worst provisions."

"I do think that people have a right to be disappointed," he went on, "but they also have a right to hope for change--on this issue, in particular--starting in January."

host · 07-10-2008, 08:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

In terms of the roll call vote, McCain hasnt voted on any bill in the Senate since April....that way he can take credit for bills that pass that he opposed..like the recent GI Bill.

In terms of the FISA bill...as bad as it is with the retroactive immunity for telecomms, it still is an improvement over the Protect America Act by:[indent]codifying the fact that FISA provides the sole legal authority for wiretaps (no more claiming that an AUMF provides that authority)

Don't piss down the back of my fucking neck and then tell me it;s raining, _dux.... bullsheeeeeet!!!!!!!! (If that kinda treatment is what I want, my buddy Obama is more than willing to whip it out !)

I'll slice and dice this, two ways for you.....

Quote:

http://my.barackobama.com/page/commu...2fafw23/gGxdXZ
Response to Obama's FISA Statement
By no one - Jul 4th, 2008 at 5:11 am EDT
Also listed in: Senator Obama - Please Vote NO on Telecom Immunity - Get FISA Right

Comments | Mail to a Friend | Report Objectionable Content
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tags: rights
Obama's Statement on FISA http://my.barackobama.com/page/commu...rospars/gGxsZF along with a response from constitutional law and civil rights litigator Glen Greenwald http://utdocuments.blogspot.com/2008...t-on-fisa.html

Obama: "The exclusivity provision makes it clear to any president or telecommunications company that no law supersedes the authority of the FISA court."

Greenwald: "The exclusivity provision has been the backbone of FISA for 30 years. There is no reason to believe that saying it a second time would have any positive effect."

Obama: "In a dangerous world, government must have the authority to collect the intelligence we need to protect the American people."

Greenwald: "Right, which is why the present system was set up; under that system, the Bush administration admitted that there had never been a situation in which the present system did not allow for sufficient wiretapping authority. The guy making that statement should know; it was his job to ask the FISA court for warrants."

Obama: "As I've said many times, an independent monitor must watch the watchers to prevent abuses and to protect the civil liberties of the American people. This compromise law assures that the FISA court has that responsibility."

Greenwald: "No, that's what the present system does. The new bill says that the FISA court will only be allowed to determine whether the wiretapping program violates civil liberties, not whether particular wiretaps do."

Obama: "And in case anyone is worried that the current authority is insufficient for emergencies, I'd refer you first to the link from above, where the administration admitted that it was fine, and would also point out that FISA (as amended by the PATRIOT Act) allows for 72 hours of wiretapping before consulting the courts, which should be plenty of time in an emergency."

Greenwald: "The Inspectors General report also provides a real mechanism for accountability and should not be discounted. It will allow a close look at past misconduct without hurdles that would exist in federal court because of classification issues. The recent investigation (PDF) uncovering the illegal politicization of Justice Department hiring sets a strong example of the accountability that can come from a tough and thorough IG report."

Obama: "I don't know enough to comment on it; but 1) this sort of report could be obtained without immunity and the other bad provisions and 2) if the bill is passed, we'll lose the Constitution's most important mechanism for accountability, which is the courts."

Greenwald: "Even if the IG report eventually uncovered wrongdoing, Congress wouldn't act on it; if they were interested in acting on it, they would have by now (and they wouldn't be on the verge of passing this bill)."

Obama: "With regard to classification, we have mechanisms for that, and it hasn't been a significant hurdle for any of the three cases that have already been heard at the Federal level."

Greenwald: "I'm persuaded that it is necessary to keep the American people safe -- particularly since certain electronic surveillance orders will begin to expire later this summer."

Obama: "The orders that will expire are the ones he voted against, as he said at the start of his post. He should be glad they're expiring."

Greenwald: "The orders that will expire are the ones he voted against, as he said at the start of his post. He should be glad they're expiring."

Quote:

http://utdocuments.blogspot.com/2008...t-on-fisa.html
Thursday, July 03, 2008
Obama's new statement on FISA

Barack Obama has issued a new statement on FISA in response to the growing number of his supporters objecting to his position. Genuine credit to him for being responsive this way and for having his site be a forum for disagreement among his supporters and himself. Providing a forum for those sorts of debates is a sign of a secure and healthy campaign.

Despite that, the statement contains many dubious claims and, in a couple cases, outright misleading statements. Worse, Obama's statement only addressed the objections to the telecom immunity provisions of the bill, while ignoring the objections to the (at least) equally pernicious new warrantless eavesdropping powers the bill authorizes. Taking Obama's claims in order:

It grants retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that may have violated the law by cooperating with the Bush administration's program of warrantless wiretapping. This potentially weakens the deterrent effect of the law and removes an important tool for the American people to demand accountability for past abuses. That's why I support striking Title II from the bill, and will work with Chris Dodd, Jeff Bingaman and others in an effort to remove this provision in the Senate.
Obama says he will vote to remove immunity from the bill, but he knows full well that this effort will fail and that the final bill will have telecom immunity in it. The bottom line is that he will nonetheless end up voting for this bill with immunity in it even though he previously vowed to support a filibuster of "any bill" that contains retroactive immunity. Put another way, Obama claims he opposes telecom immunity but will vote for a bill that grants it.

But I also believe that the compromise bill is far better than the Protect America Act that I voted against last year.
Whether it's better than the Protect America Act (PAA) is irrelevant. The PAA already expired last February. If the new FISA bill is rejected, we don't revert back to the Protect America Act. We just continue to live under the same FISA law that we've lived under for 30 years (with numerous post-9/11 modernizing amendments). So whether this bill is a mild improvement over the atrocious, expired PAA is not even a coherent reason to support it, let alone a persuasive one.

The exclusivity provision makes it clear to any president or telecommunications company that no law supersedes the authority of the FISA court.
The current FISA law -- as a federal court ruled just yesterday http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwa...ain/index.html -- already has the same exclusivity provision, and it did nothing to stop the President and the telecoms from breaking the law anyway. The fact that Obama is now going to vote to end the telecom lawsuits and immunize the lawbreakers means that there will be no consequences for their having broken the law. How can Obama possibly claim that the "exclusivity" provision in the new FISA bill has value when the current law that they broke already has the same provision?

As I wrote today:

They're presenting as a "gift" something you already have, and telling you that you should give up critical protections in exchange for receiving something that you already have -- namely, a requirement that the President comply with eavesdropping laws. What they're doing is tantamount to someone who steals your wallet, takes all the money out, gives the empty wallet back to you, and then tells you that you should be grateful to them because you have your wallet.

Exclusivity is obviously no reason to change the current FISA law since it already has exclusivity in it. Obama:

In a dangerous world, government must have the authority to collect the intelligence we need to protect the American people.
The government already has "the authority to collect the intelligence it needs to protect the American people." That authority is called FISA, which already allows the Government extremely broad authority to spy on any suspected terrorists. The current law results in virtually no denials of any spying requests. So how can Obama -- echoing the Bush administration -- claim a new law is needed to provide "the authority to collect the intelligence we need to protect the American people" when the current FISA law already provides that?

But in a free society, that authority cannot be unlimited. As I've said many times, an independent monitor must watch the watchers to prevent abuses and to protect the civil liberties of the American people. This compromise law assures that the FISA court has that responsibility.
This is just false. The new FISA bill that Obama supports vests new categories of warrantless eavesdropping powers in the President (.pdf), and allows the Government, for the first time, to tap physically into U.S. telecommunications networks inside our country with no individual warrant requirement. To claim that this new bill creates "an independent monitor [to] watch the watchers to prevent abuses and to protect the civil liberties of the American people" is truly misleading, since the new FISA bill actually does the opposite -- it frees the Government from exactly that monitoring in all sorts of broad categories.

Why else would Bush and Cheney be so eager to have this bill if it didn't substantially expand the Government's ability to eavesdrop without warrants?

The Inspectors General report also provides a real mechanism for accountability and should not be discounted. It will allow a close look at past misconduct without hurdles that would exist in federal court because of classification issues. The recent investigation (PDF) uncovering the illegal politicization of Justice Department hiring sets a strong example of the accountability that can come from a tough and thorough IG report.
Having the Executive Branch investigate itself for alleged lawbreaking is not "oversight." In our system of Government, government officials and corporations which are accused of breaking the law are subjected to courts of law -- just like everyone else -- not to "investigations" by agencies within their own branches of government with very limited powers. Marcy Wheeler has more on the extremely limited capacity of Inspectors General to investigate lawbreaking at high levels of government.

The ability to monitor and track individuals who want to attack the United States is a vital counter-terrorism tool, and I'm persuaded that it is necessary to keep the American people safe -- particularly since certain electronic surveillance orders will begin to expire later this summer. Given the choice between voting for an improved yet imperfect bill, and losing important surveillance tools, I've chosen to support the current compromise.
This is the most misleading part of Obama's statement. The "certain surveillance orders [which] will begin to expire later this summer" -- that Obama claims we must maintain -- are warrantless eavesdropping orders that were authorized by the PAA, which Obama voted against last August. As I asked the other day:

Had Obama had his way, there never would have been any PAA in the first place, and therefore, there never would have been any PAA orders possible. Having voted against the PAA last August, how can Obama now claim that he considers it important that the PAA orders not expire? How can he be eager to avoid the expiration of surveillance orders which he opposed authorizing in the first place?
Moreover, the Government already has "the ability to monitor and track individuals who want to attack the United States" under the current FISA law. Citing the need for such monitoring in order to justify this new FISA bill is just pure fear-mongering ("you better let us eliminate FISA protections if you want us to keep you safe from the Terrorists"). Obama has always said in the past that "the FISA court works." When did he change his mind and why?

I do so with the firm intention -- once I'm sworn in as president -- to have my Attorney General conduct a comprehensive review of all our surveillance programs, and to make further recommendations on any steps needed to preserve civil liberties and to prevent executive branch abuse in the future.
This expression of Obama's "intention" has so many equivocations and vague claims as to be worthless. In a society that lives under the rule of law, government officials and corporations which break our laws are held accountable by courts of law, not by vague promises from politicians of some future "review" and "recommendation" process grounded in claims that we can trust the Leader to do the right thing, whatever he decides in his sole discretion and infinite wisdom that might be. That is no consolation for blocking courts from adjudicating whether laws were broken here, which is what the bill that Obama supports will do.

Let's call this what it is...._dux, it's a naked, fucking "power grab" by the cynical elite who control the "other" right wing party.....in tended to manipulate the fanatical main right ring party into handing new "lawful" anti fourth amendment rights to the presumed presidential campaing victor in november. It shows that there is not respect for the people and the limits delineated in their bill of rights, in either of the elite party leader groups.

We "got" nothing _dux....democrat leaders think they did, but it makes them look weak, vaciliating, unprincipled, untrustworthy, and not different enough from republicans for it to matter much!

dc_dux · 07-10-2008, 08:29 AM

host...I am not trying to bullshit you or anyone.

But I think Greenwald is....by playing on the fears of the worst possible scenario (mimicking a Bush tactic) of having the next president being as corrupt and unethical as Bush and a Congress as unresponsive and irresponsible as the 107th-109th

I recognize the shortcomimngs of the bill, particularly the retroactive immunity. But even some leading Democratics who voted against it -- Leahy, Boxer, Schumer, Whitehouse -- have acknowledged it provides better oversight and more safeguards against abuse than the PAA.

And, IMO, a fallback to the orginal FISA law would be a greater loss for the Democrats by playing right into Bush/Republican hands that the Dems "are weak on national security."

My goal is to elect a Democratic president, expand a Democratic Congress....and then FIX IT!

host · 07-10-2008, 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

My goal is to elect a Democratic president, expand a Democratic Congress....and then FIX IT!

If the cesspool that is/was the "crowd" assembled on Jupiter Island, the group that gives us both Bushes....the most underreported "assembly" of bankers, arms merchants, intelligence apparatus movers/shakers, media owners, cabinet level "advisors", world's richest, in the history of modern journalism....that the "system" is what they've designed it to be....unchangeable without them signing off on the changes.....is an indication of the challenge....the hopelessness of your mission....what you seek is not possible to achieve, _dux.....

What you witness yesterday in the senate is Obama going through the vetting process,,,,seeking the approval of those who are actually "in charge".

dc_dux · 07-10-2008, 08:46 AM

host....I agree with you on many issues. I even accept the undue influence of the PTB.

But here is where we part ways.....I believe in a pragmatic approach to affecting change by working the system where you believe in a "people's revolution" to take the power back from the PTBs.

host...the problem with your approach is that you cant have "people's revolution" without the people...and the fact is, you dont have them on your side.

What you might accomplish is the reverse of your goal...driving many moderate Independents back to the right. What I am trying to accomplish is to act on those growing number of policy issues where those moderate Independents will ally with progressives and build on that foundation.

host · 07-10-2008, 10:00 AM

dc dux,
My concern driven question is.....what if you're engaged in the only venue and process THEY have relegated you and the other actors who believe in and operate in that arena ....out of THEIR way unless/until you and your process are useful to them, like yesterday, in the FISA fight that wasnlt? Who gained....the PTB, with their penchant for intelligence gathering and control...or the people? You're right about the indifference related ignorance of the people, but somebody has to fill the role I am trying to fill. It used to be filled sometimes in the congress....it took depression as the catalyst, but in the 30's, Dickstein McCormack, Gerald Nye, and TNEC rattled the PTB's cages. No one in congress continues to question the PTB, or even it's errand boys...the sitting and past presidents. I think the PTB had already become too international in scope, in the decade before WWI, for what you advocate doing now, and for what Nye and TNEC tried to raise awareness obout...to have an effect....a transfer of appreciable power away from the PTB, for it to be worth your effort/devotion. From what I am seeing, the German Dye Trust's relationships of neccessity....the intellectual property related arrangements, made the PTB 's allegiance, extranational:

(Consider that all of Time's reporting was mocking of efforts to investigate and uncover the secrets of the PTB, if inquiry was undertaken by elected officials....)

Quote:

from: http://www.archive.org/stream/treaso...eger00ambrrich
Treason's Peace
Howard Watson Armbruster©1947
A Crossroads Press Book
Beechurst Press
New York, NY
438 pps. -- First/Only Edition -- Out-of Print
--[1]--

DEDICATED TO
CAPTAIN WATSON AMBRUSTER II, U.S.A. AIR FORCE
AND TO HIS CHILDREN,
WATSON III AND MARGARET URSULA,
FOR WHOSE FUTURE SECURITY, WITH
THOSE OF THEIR GENERATION, THIS STORY
HAS BEEN WRITTEN.

PREFACE
The Pattern of Farben

THE HUGE INTERNATIONAL chemical combine and cartel leader that is known
today as I. G. Farben had its beginning some seventy-five years ago, with the
founding in Germany of six small coal-tar dye companies. By 1939 these six
companies had grown into the ominous-sounding INTERESSEN GEMEINSCHAFT
FARBENINDUSTRIE AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT, of FRANKFORT am MAIN, which translated
literally, means "community of interests of the dye manufacturing companies."

I. G. Farben is usually discussed as a huge German cartel which controls
chemical industries throughout the world and from which profits flow back to
the headquarters in Frankfort. Farben, however, is no mere industrial
enterprise conducted by Germans for the extraction of profits at home and
abroad. Rather, it is and must be recognized as a cabalistic organization
which, through foreign subsidiaries and by secret tie-ups, operates a
far-flung and highly efficient espionage machine—he ultimate purpose being
world conquest—and a world super-state directed by Farben.

Perhaps the chief distinguishing characteristic of this vast
organ-ization is the definite pattern to which it holds. From its beginning
the Farben pattern-based upon intensive research wedded to ap-plied science,
plus a cynical disbelief in the existence of social, eco-nomic, or political
morality-has never varied; its rhythm appears changeless.

This book is the story of the Farben pattern—as it has appeared in the United
States, and a glimpse of its extent in Latin America. It is a story of the
shadowy designs that repeatedly have come up through the fabric of our
industrial, social, and political life.

Viewed over a long period of years it appears as an interlocking design of
propaganda, espionage, sabotage, and corruption......

Quote:

http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,795457,00.html
Monday, Jul. 28, 1941
Who Owns Aniline?

The $62,000,000 General Aniline & Film Co., whose Swiss owners want to sell it, was understood to have found a bidder last week. The would-be buyer was not named. When and if the sale is made, a medal—whether for bravery, ingenuity or at the very least dope-upsetting—will be in order for the buyer.

General Aniline is a desirable property. It is the second largest U.S. manufacturer of photographic equipment (after Eastman), and is tied for third place with American Cyanamid (after Allied Chemical and Du Pont) in the making of dye-stuffs. Its earnings—$4,106,000 last year —are bolstered with defense business; among other things it is the largest U.S. producer of khaki dyes.

But it was formed under the auspices of I. G. Farbenindustrie, the great German dye trust, and it has prospered with the help of Farben skills and patents. Two years ago General Aniline—until then known as American I. G. Chemical Corp. —reorganized, and has since denied or minimized any Nazi affiliations. But it cannot seem to convince the U.S. Government that its ownership is in trustworthy hands.

More than 90% of General Aniline's stock is owned "of record" by the I. G. Chemie of Switzerland, but nobody has said who the "beneficial" (real) owners are. I. G. Chemie is a holding company, set up by and once on intimate terms with I. G. Farben. The intimacy was ostensibly terminated a year ago; I. G. Chemie paid I. G. Farben 25,000,000 Swiss francs, and the Farben's interest in I. G. Chemie seemed almost to vanish. But General Aniline's outward characteristics remained not Swiss but German. Its president, Dietrich A. Schmitz, is a brother of the chairman of the board of I. G. Farben, Hermann Schmitz. Walter H. vom Rath, Aniline's secretary, is the son of a Schmitz predecessor as chairman of the Farben. General Aniline had some distinguished American directors when the Germans set it up in '27. But Walter Clark Teagle, chairman of Standard Oil of N.J. (with which the Farben used to share patents) resigned from the Aniline board last year, and Edgar M. Clark (a Standard Oil man) and Edsel Ford followed suit early this month. As the U.S. got less & less neutral, the Nazi cloud over Aniline looked thicker every day.

Few months ago a remarkable new character appeared on the stage. Blond, blue-eyed, young (32) Dr. Werner Karl Gabler is a Zurich-born Swiss who is also a New Dealer. He has been in the U.S. about five years, taken out his first papers, once served as ghost writer to the late philanthropic Edward A. Filene, became well known in Washington as economist-lobbyist for the liberal American Retail Federation. Suddenly, at the suggestion of the Swiss Minister (whose wife is Henry Wallace's sister), Gabler was offered a new retainer: the I. G. Chemie. His assignment: to negotiate the sale of Chemie's 90% interest in General Aniline to Americans, thus get Aniline out from under its Nazi cloud.

Economist-Negotiator Gabler, a pronounced anti-Nazi, went about his task with great circumspection. He carefully described his mission to people in the Treasury, State and Justice Departments, FBI and SEC. He says he never phoned Basel without first telling FBI and State. Furthermore, his relations with General Aniline were correctly stormy. Messrs. Schmitz, Vom Rath and other directors, he says, threatened to resign in a body when he proposed a voting trust to control Aniline, on which a U.S. Government and a Chemie nominee should have equal voice. They seemed to fear any arrangement that would lessen their managerial domination of Aniline. Dr. Gabler does not like them.

His job was tough enough without their opposition. Dr. Gabler's wares have three deterrents to purchasers:

1) General Aniline (with other chemical companies) is under investigation by Thurman Arnold and a grand jury is now-sitting on the evidence. The Department makes its now-familiar allegation that international patent agreements with I. G. Farben led to current shortages of vital materials in the U.S. Any purchaser of Aniline would buy into a possible indictment.

2) Some of Aniline's voting stock, though physically in a U.S. bank, was owned "of record" by Dutch interests until 1939, and was caught by the U.S. freezing order before its recorded ownership could be fully transferred to I. G. Chemie. Since Dutch assets in the U.S. are frozen much solider than Swiss. I. G. Chemie might have a hard time delivering those shares.

3) If the Swiss sell General Aniline, they will want to be paid. But U.S. funds cannot be paid to Swiss nationals unless the Swiss Government can convince the Treasury that the recipient is un-Nazi. Whether I. G. Chemie is un-Nazi is the question around which the whole sale revolves.

I. G. Chemie is on the British blacklist. The Department of Justice (in its recent magnesium suit) implied that it was Nazi-controlled. Important individuals in State, Treasury and SEC believe it to be Nazi-controlled. The whole Swiss economy is under Nazi pressure, since German coal and iron are essential to it. (Last week the two nations signed a new trade agreement.)

Since General Aniline is a technologically important company, its sale to U.S. interests would seem an obvious boon to U.S. defense. But if Washington believes the seller is Nazi-controlled, Washington will look doubly hard at any buyer. Some of Dr. Gabler's fellow New Dealers, though no more anti-Nazi than he, believe he was hired because he had an "in" with the New Deal. If that was a Nazi plan, it could be an example of the super-ingenuity of Nazi infiltration tactics. Now that the U.S. has declared open economic war (see p. 63), a sale of General Aniline is not necessary to keep its skills and money in the country.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...851454,00.html
Monday, Nov. 10, 1941

Judge John E. Mack, a Dutchess County lawyer who nominated Franklin D. Roosevelt for his first political job (New York State Senator in 1910), who went on to nominate him for President in 1932 and in 1936, got a new job last week. He became president of General Aniline & Film Corp. (originally formed by the German Dye Trust), whose real owners' nationality is still beclouded (TIME, July 28).

Franklin Roosevelt's "old friend and neighbor" did not look like the operating' head of a big dyestuffs and camera com pany at first blush. His most famous previous jobs: 1) defense counsel (successful) of Mrs. Anne Urquhart Stillman in the scandalous 1921 divorce suit brought against her by her husband, the late New York Banker James A. Stillman; 2) representing Edward ("Daddy") Browning in the "Peaches" Browning 1926 separation action; 3) defense counsel (un successful) for U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Martin T. Manton against bribery charges in 1939.

But Aniline does not need chemists or executives as much as it needs friends. Judge Mack replaces D. A. Schmitz (brother of the German Dye Trust's Hermann Schmitz) who disappeared last month in an offhand Aniline announcement that he was "not now . . . president." Mack's election, the Aniline board evidently believes, will help uncloud the company. But the solution of the Aniline problem is not so simple as that.

Next month (or maybe sooner) the chairman of Aniline's parent I. G. Chemie, Felix Iselin, will arrive from Switzerland to see about selling Chemie's large interest in Aniline stock. He will confront a tangled lineup of interested parties. The Treasury, which must unfreeze the stock if any money is to change hands, has already vetoed one would-be purchaser and may veto others. The Department of Justice is investigating Aniline's relationship both to Chemie and to the German Dye Trust. Several Wall Street groups, which admire the company more than its present management, are trying to buy control from the Swiss. But the present management wants the management control left where it is now. Mack-for-Schmitz is their opening gambit.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...777659,00.html
Monday, Apr. 06, 1942

Man of Promise. For months Trust-Buster Arnold has tried to break up a patents cartel formed in 1929 by Jersey Standard and Germany's Hydra-headed I. G. Farbenindustrie. Last week Standard signed a consent decree, released 2,000 patents royalty-free, took a $50,000 fine. In return, Thurman Arnold agreed to withdraw the most sinister conclusion in his complaint: that Standard had held up the U.S. synthetic rubber program.

Arnold was faithful, in his fashion; that statement was kept out of court. But next day he appeared before the Truman Committee and the whole story came out. The committee had heard him before on the same subject, in a kind of rehearsal behind closed doors. Now, for the public, his horrific charges were aired again:

Under the cartel, Germany got the benefit of U.S. technical developments; the U.S. did not get Germany's.

Standard's ruddy-faced, Texas-drawling President William S. Farish replied for the company: the cartel began when Standard paid I. G. Farben $30,000,000 for patents on a German-invested hydrogenation process. The process, used in Germany to make synthetic oil from coal, was used in the U.S., by Standard and its licensees, to create the world's greatest supply of 100-octane aviation gas. A variation of the same process is now used by Humble Oil in a new plant which makes 30,000,000 gallons of synthetic toluol a year for TNT. The cartel also gave the U.S. its buna knowledge, except the process for making rubber from coal, a Nazi Government-sponsored program.

http://www.prorev.com/bush2.htm

In 1980, when George H.W. Bush was elected vice president, he placed his father's family inherence in a blind trust. The trust was managed by his old friend and quail hunting partner, William "Stamps" Farish III. Bush's choice of Farish to manage the family wealth is quite revealing in that it demonstrates that the former president might know exactly where some of his inheritance originated. Farish's grandfather, William Farish Jr., on March 25th, 1942, pleaded "no contest" to conspiring with Nazi Germany while president of Standard Oil in New Jersey. He was described by Senator Harry Truman in public of approaching "treason" for profiting off the Nazi war machine. Standard Oil, invested millions in IG Farben, who opened a gasoline factory within Auschwitz in 1940. The billions "Stamps" inherited had more blood on it then Bush, so the paper trail of UBC stock would be safe during his 12 years in presidential politics.

....Thus was launched an expose of commercial corruption that is without parallel
in the history of legitimate business in the United States. But that raid was
the first of a long series of ineffectual blows at the German-controlled
chemical cartels that for seventy-five years have operated within our
borders-ineffectual because they have not yet destroyed the corrupt influence
and power of these monopolies, whose purpose, since their inception, has been
to stifle our military effectiveness and to strengthen the resources of the
Fatherland.

The leading German chemical companies before the first World War were known
throughout the world as the Big Six. Direct predecessors of the gigantic I.
G. Farbenindustrie, in which they were later merged, these six companies were:

1. Badische Anilin und Sodafabrik. (known as Badische)

2. Farbenfabriken vorm. Friedr. Bayer & Co. (known as Bayer or Elberfeld)

3. Aktiengesellschaft fur Anilinfabrikation. (known as the Berlin Company)

4. Farbwerke vorm. Meister Lucius und Bruning. (known as the Hoechst Co.)

5. Leopold Cassella G. m. b. H. in Frankfurt. (known as Cassella)

6. Kalle & Company. (known as Kalle)

All of these companies made dyestuffs and the intermediates from which
coal-tar dyes are produced; several of them also produced pharmaceutical
products from coal-tar intermediates and other chemical bases.

There were numerous other smaller German dyestuff producers but these six
concerns, with several hundred million dollars in assets, united early in the
century in two cartels, dominated the coal-tar industry in Germany, and
controlled the world's markets for dye stuffs.

In America, where business was a strictly private affair, and all attempts at
government supervision were fought tooth and nail by our rugged
individualists, the Big Six found fertile ground for their "peaceful
penetration." Here in America with the cooperation of the German government,
they established their agencies, and pursued a ruthless policy of economic
strangulation, with the result that upon our entry Into World War I,
America's organic chemical industry, the very lifeblood of modem warfare,
consisted of little more than a series of small assembly plants.

The completeness with which we failed to develop this militarily strategic
industry attests the determination of purpose and the typical German
thoroughness with which the representatives of Kultur carried out, within our
borders, their coordination of industry with the forces of war.

The early history of these six German companies takes in the birth of the
commercial development of dyes made from coal tar. Three generations ago
these dyes began to replace many of the natural or vegetable dyes. However,
it was not a German, but a young English chemist, William H. Perkin, who
discovered in 1856 that a usable purple, or mauve color, could be produced
from aniline, the oil-like product distilled from coal tar, which had been
produced originally in 1826.

History records that young Perkin was not attempting to make a dyestuff at
the time, but was experimenting, unsuccessfully, with the aniline in an
attempt to produce synthetic quinine. Some 70 years later, one of Farben's
chemists succeeded in doing what Perkin had set out to do and produced the
coal-tar derivative known as Atabrine which today, as a substitute for
quinine, occupies such a vital place in our control of malaria.

It was the Germans, however, who most industriously followed up Perkin's
discovery of an aniline dye. Intensive research was encouraged at German
universities, and by subsidies from the German government. The late
Congressman Nicholas Longworth told of a conversation he had with a
distinguished American chemist who had graduated from the University of
Heidelberg many years before, and who told Longworth that when he said
goodbye to his head professor he asked why it was that so much of the German
research work in chemistry was in the development of coaltar dyes. The
professors so engaged were receiving higher salaries than their colleagues,
and the industries were receiving government bonuses. The German professor
replied, "Young man, some day this work will save the Fatherland." In light
of more recent events, that professor can hardly be considered a good
prophet, but his remark indicated the early German vision of world supremacy
in science-out of which the Farben pattern of world conquest was to emerge.

The objectives of the original German dye cartels in the United States
were by no means confined to obstructing our development of the dye industry.
It was of utmost importance to forestall the establishment of any primary
phase of the coal-tar industry which might make this country independent of
Germany for coal-tar intermediates, and for other chemical products used in
making dyes during peace, or explosives and munitions during war. In the
early development of the dye industry in Germany, the high cost of individual
dyes was due to the large quantities of certain byproducts which had no value
but which had to be extracted from the coal tar in order to produce the dyes.
And the great variety of colors was due largely to the continuous research
devoted to the profitable utilization of these by-products. Despite this
research, however, the stock piles reached enormous size. Then, early in this
century the Germans realized the military significance of the coaltar
product, trinitrotoluol (TNT) which could readily be made from the
by-products. Thereupon, research to produce certain new colors suddenly
ceased, and the stock piles were allowed to accumulate for the war that was
to come.

The two Big Six cartels appeared perfectly willing that the few American
manufacturers who were trying to make dyes should continue their struggle to
do so, providing they secured the bulk, of their intermediates from Germany.
They laughed at this competition, but they were systematic in their price
cutting and utterly ruthless in their determination that a coal-tar industry
which could quickly be turned from dyes to munitions should not exist in the
United States.

Throughout this period, while our coal-tar industries languished or were
still-born whenever attempts were made to start them, it is estimated that we
were letting a billion dollars worth of coal gas go to waste annually through
the chimneys of the old-fashioned beehive ovens in which substantially all of
our coke was then made. The gas went to waste because we had no coal-tar dye
industry to make it profitable.

At one time, when a group of three of the largest American manufacturers of
heavy chemicals decided to start the production of aniline oil so that our
feeble dye industry would not be totally at the mercy of the Germans, a
special emissary of the Big Six came to the United States with the impudent
demand that production of the oil he stopped, and made the equally impudent
offer that the cartels would repay the Americans for such expenditures as had
been incurred.

To protect the domestic producers from the price slashing on aniline that
followed the refusal of the Americans to shut up shop, Congress placed a 10
percent duty on aniline oil. The Big Six, however, retaliated by dropping the
price on aniline far below any possible cost of production in the United
States.

Originally the German dyes were exported to the United States through houses
which handled a variety of imported products. Later, exclusive selling
agencies or branch houses were established here by each of the Big Six. These
branches and agencies had their main office in New York City, and maintained
branches in New England, Philadelphia and other centers where dyes were
consumed in quantities by textile, leather, paper and printing ink
manufacturers.....

The background is that, as early as in 1908, Northeastern US arms manufacturers were "gearing up" production for war. The record shows that US government officials neither requested nor encouraged this private "enterprise"..... Marcellus Dodge borrowed/invested $62 million in 1914, 3 years before US involvment in WWI, to turn Remington Arms and United Metal Cartridge into a huge armament manufacturing powerhouse, raising employment in a year, from 5000 to 50,000. By 1916, the bankers took control of Remington/UMC, under the management of it's VP and director, Samuel Pryor. Pryor bought Jupiter Island in Hobe Sound, Fl, about 1930. His daughter Permelia and Brown Bros. Harriman partner husband, Joseph Reed, decided who could buy property on the island.

In 1933, Walter S. Carpenter, head of the Du Pont Corp. finance committee, and by 1940, first outside the Du Pont family president and later chairman of the company, negotiated the sale of Reminton/UMC to Du Pont. Walter Carpenter was permitted to buy property on Jupiter Island. Du Pont bros. attorney during Sen. Nye's investigations of the WWI armament and explosives indiustry (took place in 1934...) was Col. Wild Bill Donovan, WWII director of OSS. Jupiter Island homeowner, Paul Mellon, son of Treas, Sect'y Andrew.... had a daughter, Ailsa who was married to the head of OSS in London, David Bruce. When his by then, ex-wife and Mellon daughter died in 1969, she was the wealthiest woman in the US.

Even in 1968, only 153 people in the US, were worth over $150 million, according to Fortune Mag.... and I posted in another thread that Jupiter resident and Yale bonesman, Robert Lovett headed the committee that dersigned the CIA....as asst. secretary of war, under Roosevelt's successor, Truman, Lovett always had been a proponent of massive bombing of civilian urban centers....what do you think his advice to Truman was, as far as using the A-Bomb, developed by his Jupiter Island neigbor, Walter Carpenter's company, Du Pont?

Call me crazy, but I think the PTB only permitted Nye's investigation because they were worried about revolution at the depths of the 30's depression, and investigations were permitted as safety valves....to let off steam.....

The point.....the PTB may simply have you in an elaborate "day care center", where they feed you "crumbs", and you view it as "consensus building pragmatism"....."progress" which they dangle in front of you, but, you will never have....as the way this FISA "op" went down...since June 20th, clearly shows....the PTB deciding to flex it's muscles....and shit in all of our little peon, faces!

host · 07-11-2008, 11:17 AM

I've posted a sequel to the post above, here:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...17#post2484817

dc_dux · 07-23-2008, 08:41 AM

host....do you think a Church Committee-style investigation would demonstrate a commitment by the Democrats to address the abuses of the Constitutional and US and international law by the Bush administration?

Quote:

The last several years have brought a parade of dark revelations about the George W. Bush administration, from the manipulation of intelligence to torture to extrajudicial spying inside the United States. But there are growing indications that these known abuses of power may only be the tip of the iceberg. Now, in the twilight of the Bush presidency, a movement is stirring in Washington for a sweeping new inquiry into White House malfeasance that would be modeled after the famous Church Committee congressional investigation of the 1970s...

...The proposal for a Church Committee-style investigation emerged from talks between civil liberties advocates and aides to Democratic leaders in Congress, according to sources involved. (Pelosi's and Conyers' offices both declined to comment.) Looking forward to 2009, when both Congress and the White House may well be controlled by Democrats, the idea is to have Congress appoint an investigative body to discover the full extent of what the Bush White House did in the war on terror to undermine the Constitution and U.S. and international laws. The goal would be to implement government reforms aimed at preventing future abuses -- and perhaps to bring accountability for wrongdoing by Bush officials...

...The parameters for an investigation were outlined in a seven-page memo, written after the former member of the Church Committee met for discussions with the ACLU, the Center for Democracy and Technology, Common Cause and other watchdog groups. Key issues to investigate, those involved say, would include the National Security Agency's domestic surveillance activities; the Central Intelligence Agency's use of extraordinary rendition and torture against terrorist suspects; and the U.S. government's extensive use of military assets -- including satellites, Pentagon intelligence agencies and U2 surveillance planes -- for a vast spying apparatus that could be used against the American people.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/20...omm/index.html

I think it would be invaluable and I would even go so far as grant immunity to some of the "lower" players in order to get at the truth.

host · 08-31-2008, 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

host....do you think a Church Committee-style investigation would demonstrate a commitment by the Democrats to address the abuses of the Constitutional and US and international law by the Bush administration?

I think it would be invaluable and I would even go so far as grant immunity to some of the "lower" players in order to get at the truth.

If the impact (20 months into democratic control of the house....) of the numerous investigations led by Conyers and Waxman, are any indication, _dux, I would have to say, I doubt that a "Church Committee-style investigation", would have any appreciable effect on public opinion.

On a side note.....

If there was a truly beneficial difference between the "two parties" in the struggle over the distribution of power and wealth resulting from the achievements of one party vs. the other, would we see "results", like these?

Quote:

naked capitalism: Alan Blinder: "Is History Siding With Obama’s Economic Plan?"

http://www.amazon.com/review/product...owViewpoints=1

The table also shows that families at the 95th percentile fared almost as well under Republican presidents as under Democrats (1.90 percent growth per year, versus 2.12 percent), giving them little stake, economically, in election outcomes. But the stakes were enormous for the less well-to-do. Families at the 20th percentile fared much worse under Republicans than under Democrats (0.43 percent versus 2.64 percent).

If only those running for president who are approved by the wealthiest and most powerful do become the major party nominees, would the results be any different than the ones described above? If the top one percent own 33 percent of total US wealth, do the results of the study described above, show that their wealth has been dimnished by anything happening in the American political system?

dc_dux · 08-31-2008, 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

If the impact (20 months into democratic control of the house....) of the numerous investigations led by Conyers and Waxman, are any indication, _dux, I would have to say, I doubt that a "Church Committee-style investigation", would have any appreciable effect on public opinion.

host...the difference would be that such a Committee or Commission would have enforcement powers to compel testimony and documents - something that standing Congressional committees do not have. Bush has effectively stalled testimony of key officials and documents to the point that he can now run out his term w/o compliance, even if ordered by the courts in the next few months.

So much has been withheld from Congressional oversight inquiries in the last two years that there needs to be a means for such information to be exposed....not for retribution, but for reform.

While it may not result in punishment in and of itself, it could result in enactment of additional legislative safeguards to prevent the types of Executive Branch abuses that have occurred over the last eight years.

And it could refer alleged criminal acts to the DoJ for further investigation and prosecution.

host · 08-31-2008, 04:34 PM

Another example for why I don't expect change to come "through the system", dc_dux. If it comes at all, it will be in spite of "the system", not via it. It's reduced to something of no more consequence, that would actually benefit most of us....than say....NASCAR, only it has much poorer ratings and lower viewer, share.....

Complicit enablers, or idiot enablers.....and it doesn't really matter which.....SHEESH !

Background:

Quote:

http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the...ag-who-ap.html

Update, Correction: I've checked with a committee staffer, and the issue is not rejection of a nomination (Bradbury's nomination was returned, as happens at the end of a Congress, not rejected). The issue is timing. He has served longer than the 210 day limit, so can no longer serve as Acting AAG.

Senate meets briefly to block Bush appointment - USATODAY.com
Democrats wanted to block one such recess appointment in particular: Steven Bradbury, acting chief of the Justice Department's Office of Legislative Counsel ...
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...k-senate_N.htm

Quote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/24/wa...erland&emc=rss

January 24, 2008
Justice Nomination Seen as Snub to Democrats
By PHILIP SHENON and ERIC LICHTBLAU

WASHINGTON — The Justice Department lawyer who wrote a series of classified legal opinions in 2005 authorizing harsh C.I.A. interrogation techniques was renominated by the White House on Wednesday to a senior department post, a move that was seen as a snub to Senate Democrats who have long opposed his appointment.

The lawyer, Steven G. Bradbury, who has run the department’s Office of Legal Counsel without Senate confirmation for more than two years, has been repeatedly nominated to the job of assistant attorney general for legal counsel.

But the earlier nominations stalled in the Senate because of a dispute with the Justice Department over its failure to provide Congress with copies of legal opinions on a variety of terrorism issues. Under Senate rules that place a time limit on nominations, Mr. Bradbury’s earlier nominations expired.

Late last year, Democrats urged the White House to withdraw Mr. Bradbury’s name once and for all and find a new candidate for the post after it was disclosed in news reports in October that he was the author of classified memorandums that gave approval to harsh interrogation techniques, including head slapping, exposure to cold and simulated drowning, even when used in combination.

Mr. Bradbury’s memorandums were described by Democrats as an effort by the Bush administration to circumvent laws prohibiting torture and to undermine a public legal opinion issued by the Justice Department in 2004 that declared torture to be “abhorrent.”

The department and the White House have insisted that there are no contradictions between Mr. Bradbury’s legal opinions, which are still secret, and laws and rules governing interrogation techniques. A department spokesman, Peter A. Carr, said Wednesday that the department remained eager to see Mr. Bradbury confirmed.

“Steve Bradbury is a dedicated public servant and a superb lawyer, who has led with distinction the department’s Office of Legal Counsel,” Mr. Carr said. “He has proven invaluable to the department, and we will continue to work with the Senate to get him confirmed.”

Joe Shoemaker, a spokesman for Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate, said that by putting Mr. Bradbury’s name forward again as a nominee, “the president has thumbed his nose at Congress and chosen an individual who has been involved in authorizing some of the most controversial policies of this administration.”

Mr. Durbin led the previous efforts to reject Mr. Bradbury’s nomination and sits on the Judiciary Committee, which would have to approve the nomination.

Mr. Bradbury’s new nomination is almost certain to be a focus of questions next week when Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey is scheduled to appear before the Judiciary Committee for his first public hearing since his confirmation to the job in November....

TheHill.com - GAO sides with White House on DOJ lawyer
GAO sides with White House on DOJ lawyer
By Manu Raju
Posted: 06/17/08 07:05 PM [ET]

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has backed the Bush administration in a partisan spat over a controversial Justice Department lawyer.

Gary Kepplinger, general counsel for the nonpartisan GAO, sent Democrats a June 13 letter saying Steven Bradbury has not violated federal law by running the Office of Legal Counsel for three years without Senate confirmation. The decision virtually ensures that the administration will keep Bradbury in the position through the end of President Bush’s term.

The office provides legal advice to the president and attorney general. Bradbury was first nominated to head the office in June 2005, but his confirmation stalled in the Senate after it was revealed that he might have played a crucial role in authorizing memos outlining tough interrogation tactics on terrorism detainees....

U.S. GAO - B-310780, Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998 - Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, June 13, 2008

B-310780, Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998 - Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, June 13, 2008
[Select for PDF file]

B-310780

June 13, 2008

The Honorable Richard J. Durbin
United States Senate

The Honorable Russell D. Feingold
United States Senate

The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy
United States Senate

Subject: Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998 - Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice

By letter dated April 16, 2008, you requested our opinion whether the service of Steven G. Bradbury as the senior official in the Office of Legal Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, is in violation of the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998.[1] For the reasons stated below, we conclude that Mr. Bradbury’s service has not violated the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998....

In response to our request for their views,[6] the Department of Justice advises that Mr. Bradbury did not serve as the Acting Assistant Attorney General during the period from February 15, 2005 (the expiration of 210 days after the vacancy began) to June 23, 2005 (prior to his first nomination) and has not served as the Acting Assistant Attorney General since April 27, 2007. In fact, the Department advises that no one (Mr. Bradbury or anyone else) may serve as the Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel for the remainder of this Administration. Letter of April 29, 2008. Rather, Mr. Bradbury is serving as the Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, a position he has held continuously since April 2004. The Department advises that this is the position Mr. Bradbury occupied under the previous Assistant Attorney General, Jack L. Goldsmith, and under the Acting Assistant Attorney General, Daniel Levin. The Department concludes that Mr. Bradbury is performing the duties of his position and that there are no duties that only the Assistant Attorney General for OLC may perform....

dc_dux · 08-31-2008, 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

Another example for why I don't expect change to come "through the system", dc_dux. If it comes at all, it will be in spite of "the system", not via it. It's reduced to something of no more consequence, that would actually benefit most of us....than say....NASCAR, only it has much poorer ratings and lower viewer, share.....

Complicit enablers, or idiot enablers.....and it doesn't really matter which.....SHEESH !

host...I think its unfortunate that you have no faith in the system.

It may not be perfect and I certainly dont agree with every policy or action that results, but IMO, there is no better and more accountable system anywhere in the world...particularly when the Constitutional checks and balances work as envisioned....which, I think we would agree, has not been the case over the last eight years.

I honestly dont know what you think might be a better system or how you think you can make things better by working outside the system.

host · 08-31-2008, 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

host...I think its unfortunate that you have no faith in the system.

It may not be perfect and I certainly dont agree with every policy or action that results, but IMO, there is no better and more accountable system anywhere in the world...particularly when the Constitutional checks and balances work as envisioned....which, I think we would agree, has not been the case over the last eight years.

I honestly dont know what you think might be a better system or how you think you can make things better by working outside the system.

I think there will be attempts, when the economic pain that is is the process of planting itself, really gets going....like this, by Upton Sinclair, in 1934,

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/general...ml#post2407157

....to go around the system, within the framework of political organizing and the voting process,

but, I don't think it will even be tolerated to the level that Sinclair attempted, if the events of this weekend are an indicator;

Federal government involved in raids on protesters - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com

....I think the folks in charge of the emerging police state will provoke the spilling of blood which, once it begins to flow in earnest, won't be easy to end, as the atrocities accumulate, but.... maybe the people will just sit there and take it, no matter the height of the level of corruption, oppression, and injustice.

07-10-2008, 03:35 AM	#161 (permalink)
Cynthetiq Tilted Cat Head Administrator Location: Manhattan, NY	http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI...vote=00168#top Politics, seems to be business as usual as far as I can tell, which isn't very much. __________________ I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. What's the best nation in the world? DO-NATION!

07-10-2008, 08:29 AM	#164 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	host...I am not trying to bullshit you or anyone. But I think Greenwald is....by playing on the fears of the worst possible scenario (mimicking a Bush tactic) of having the next president being as corrupt and unethical as Bush and a Congress as unresponsive and irresponsible as the 107th-109th I recognize the shortcomimngs of the bill, particularly the retroactive immunity. But even some leading Democratics who voted against it -- Leahy, Boxer, Schumer, Whitehouse -- have acknowledged it provides better oversight and more safeguards against abuse than the PAA. And, IMO, a fallback to the orginal FISA law would be a greater loss for the Democrats by playing right into Bush/Republican hands that the Dems "are weak on national security." My goal is to elect a Democratic president, expand a Democratic Congress....and then FIX IT! __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

07-10-2008, 08:46 AM	#166 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	host....I agree with you on many issues. I even accept the undue influence of the PTB. But here is where we part ways.....I believe in a pragmatic approach to affecting change by working the system where you believe in a "people's revolution" to take the power back from the PTBs. host...the problem with your approach is that you cant have "people's revolution" without the people...and the fact is, you dont have them on your side. What you might accomplish is the reverse of your goal...driving many moderate Independents back to the right. What I am trying to accomplish is to act on those growing number of policy issues where those moderate Independents will ally with progressives and build on that foundation. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 07-10-2008 at 08:51 AM..

07-11-2008, 11:17 AM	#168 (permalink)
host Banned	I've posted a sequel to the post above, here: http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...17#post2484817