Latest Threads
Latest
Greatest Threads
Greatest
Lobby
Lobby
Journals
Journals
Search
Search
Options
Options
Help
Help
Login
Login
Home » Discuss » Journals » Time for change » Read entry Donate to DU
Advertise Liberally! The Liberal Blog Advertising Network
Advertise on more than 70 progressive blogs!
Time for change's Journal
Posted by Time for change in General Discussion
Fri Mar 28th 2008, 10:18 PM
To believe that we as a nation have to protect the wealthy from their failures in order to enjoy a stable economy just seems to me like the epitome of foolishness. How much extreme income inequality, joblessness and poverty does our nation have to ex
As I write the title to this post I imagine some corporate “journalist” reading it and a tape starting to play in his or her mind, saying “Uh oh, conspiracy theorist alert!”

The term “conspiracy theorist” is what the gatekeepers of the status quo use to connect in people’s minds those who are skeptical of so-called “conventional wisdom” with “left wing lunatics”. Here is the formula that everyone must be made to understand:

Skepticism of conventional wisdom = conspiracy theorist = left wing lunatic.

I wouldn’t ordinarily consider the term “conspiracy theorist” to be offensive, if it wasn’t uttered with such contempt and used to imply that I am a lunatic. By the plain English meaning of the phrase, all it refers to is someone who thinks seriously about conspiracies. Anyone who doesn’t recognize that the history of the world is filled with conspiracies of major importance hasn’t read much history. Any American who doesn’t recognize that U.S. history is filled with conspiracies of major importance simply isn’t paying much attention.

Consider just our overthrow of the governments of sovereign nations, for example. Beginning in 1893, we overthrew, helped to overthrow, or went to war against the legitimate governments of dozens of sovereign nations, including Hawaii (1893), Cuba (1898), Puerto Rico (1898), the Philippines (1899-1902), Nicaragua (1909), Honduras (1912), Iran (1953), Guatemala (1954), Indonesia (1965), Vietnam (1961-73), Chile (1973), Panama (1989), and Iraq (2003-???). And William Blum writes in “A Concise History of US Global Interventions, 1945 to the Present”, about United States intervention in 11 different Latin American countries during the Cold War.

I note the above as an introduction to this discussion of the Federal Reserve because I want to explain why I am skeptical of “conventional wisdom”. Each of the above noted events were either secret at the time they were carried out, or they were justified with lies. Though they are now so well documented by historians that they cannot be refuted, anyone who would have tried to discuss them at the time they were carried out would have been castigated for lack of patriotism and branded a “conspiracy theorist”.

My point then is that people who are skeptical of “conventional wisdom” are generally not lunatics – they are usually simply independent minded people who have been around long enough and who have paid enough attention to know that “conventional wisdom” should not be automatically accepted as reality.


What is the purpose of the Federal Reserve?

I’m not an economist, I don’t know much about economics, and I’ve generally found reading on the subject to be dry, boring and very difficult to understand. Nevertheless I recently started reading “The Creature from Jekyll Island – A Second Look at the Federal Reserve”, by Edward Griffin, because it was highly recommended to me by a fellow DUer, Larry Ogg.

Griffin describes the Federal Reserve as a cartel of private banks – meaning a group of banks joined together in order to maximize profits by reducing competition through the creation of a monopoly. In the case of the Federal Reserve, that particular cartel was legalized in 1913 with the enactment of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. Of course the U.S. public wouldn’t consciously enable the creation of a legalized cartel. So the real purpose of the Federal Reserve System had to be disguised with a purported purpose. Griffin explains the concept like this:

To cover the fact that a central bank is merely a cartel which has been legalized, its proponents had to lay down a thick smoke screen of technical jargon focusing always on how it would supposedly benefit commerce, the public, and the nation; how it would lower interest rates, provide funding for needed industrial projects, and prevent panics in the economy. There was not the slightest glimmer that, underneath it all, was a master plan which was designed from top to bottom to serve private interests at the expense of the public.


The origins of the Federal Reserve System

Griffin describes the idea for the Federal Reserve System as originating in a highly secret meeting of seven of the wealthiest men in the world, taking place at Jekyll Island, off the coast of Georgia in 1910. The seven men included one of our nation’s most powerful U.S. Senators, Nelson Aldrich, and six bankers. He uses several sources to document the highly secret nature of the meeting, including an article written by one of its participants, Frank Vanderlip, 22 years after the passage of the Federal Reserve Act:

I do not feel it is any exaggeration to speak of our secret expedition to Jekyll Island as the occasion of the actual conception of what eventually became the Federal Reserve System… We were told to leave our last names behind us… We were instructed to come one at a time… where Senator Aldrich’s private rail car would be in readiness…

It was the names of all printed together that would have made our mysterious journey significant in Washington, in Wall Street, even in London. Discovery, we knew, simply must not happen, or else all our time and effort would be wasted. If it were to be exposed publicly that our particular group had got together and written a banking bill, that bill would have no chance whatever of passage in Congress.


A brief summary of how the System works

Griffin goes into great detail as to how the system works, and I’ll skip the great majority of that. This is how he summarizes the plan that emerged from the Jekyll Island meeting:

What emerged was a cartel agreement with five objectives: 1) stop the growing competition from the nation’s newer banks; 2) obtain a franchise to create money out of nothing for the purpose of lending; 3) get control of the reserves of all banks so that the more reckless ones would not be exposed to currency drains and bank runs; 4) get the taxpayer to pick up the cartel’s inevitable losses; 5) and convince Congress that the purpose was to protect the public.

Griffin explains objective # 4 in a chapter titled “The Name of the Game is Bailout”:

A primary objective of that cartel was to involve the federal government as an agent for shifting the inevitable losses from the owners of those banks to the taxpayers. That of course is one of the more controversial assertions made in this book. Yet, there is little room for any other interpretation when one confronts the massive evidence of history since the System was created.

He provides numerous examples of how this has worked. One of the most striking examples was the failure of Continental Illinois, our nation’s 7th largest bank, when it failed in 1982. Griffin describes how its irresponsible policies led to huge profits even as the stage was being set for a massive failure. He describes the details of the failure, and then:

This was the golden moment… Without government intervention, Continental would have collapsed, its stockholders would have been wiped out, depositors would have been badly damaged, and the financial world would have learned that banks not only have to talk about prudent management, they actually have to adopt it. Future banking practices would have been severely altered, and the long-term economic benefit to the nation would have been enormous. But with government intervention, the discipline of a free market is suspended, and the cost of failure or fraud is passed to the taxpayers… Banks can operate recklessly and fraudulently with the knowledge that their political partners in government will come to their rescue when they get in trouble…

The final bailout package was a whopper. Basically, the government took over Continental Illinois and assumed all of its losses ($4.5 billion).

Doesn’t this sound eerily familiar to the recent Federal Reserve actions with regard to Bear Sterns?

Even as the Bush administration insists it won't risk public funds in a bailout, American taxpayers may already be liable for billions of dollars stemming from Federal Reserve and Treasury efforts to quell a financial crisis.

History suggests the Fed may not recover some of the almost $30 billion investment in illiquid mortgage securities it received from Bear Stearns Cos., said Joe Mason, a Drexel University professor who has written on banking crises….


The record of the Federal Reserve System

If the Federal Reserve System really does serve the purpose of stabilizing our economy then one should be able to point to evidence of that. At least that’s what a “conspiracy theorist”… I mean a skeptic would say.

Griffin summarizes the record of the Federal Reserve System in stabilizing our economy:

Since its inception, it has presided over the crashes of 1921 and 1929; the Great Depression of ’29 to ‘39; recessions in ’53, ’57, ’69, ’75, and ’81; a stock market “Black Monday” in ’87 (Is it just a coincidence that all those depressions and recessions began during Republican presidencies?); and a 1000% inflation….

The consequences of wealth confiscation by the Federal-Reserve mechanism are now upon us. In the current decade (the book was copyrighted in 1994), corporate debt is soaring; personal debt is greater than ever; both business and personal bankruptcies are at an all-time high; banks and savings and loan associations are failing in larger numbers than ever before; interest on the national debt is consuming half of our tax dollars…

Griffin concludes from this:

That is the scorecard 80 years after Federal Reserve was created supposedly to stabilize our economy! There can be no argument that the System has failed in its stated objectives… There has been more than ample opportunity to work out mere procedural flaws. It is not unreasonable to conclude, therefore, that the System has failed, not because it needs a new set of rules or more intelligent directors, but because it is incapable of achieving its stated objectives…. That leads to the question: why is the System incapable of achieving its stated objectives? The painful answer is: those were never its true objectives… It becomes obvious that the System is merely a cartel with a government façade… When there is a conflict between the public interest and the private needs of the cartel – a conflict that arises almost daily – the public will be sacrificed. That is the nature of the beast. It is foolish to expect a cartel to act in any other way….

This view is not encouraged by Establishment institutions and publishers. It has become their apparent mission to convince the American people that the system in not intrinsically flawed.

William Greider, in “Secrets of the Temple”, reaches a similar conclusion:

At the time, the conventional wisdom… was that a government institution would finally harness the “money trust,” disarm its powers, and establish broad democratic control over money and credit… The results were nearly the opposite. The money reforms enacted in 1913, in fact, helped to preserve the status quo… Once the Fed was in operation, the steady diffusion of financial power halted. Wall Street maintained its dominant position – and even enhanced it.


My assessment

As I said above, I’m not an economist, so I am certainly less qualified to evaluate Griffin’s arguments than a lot of other people.

What about the record of Federal Reserve System failures that Griffin speaks of? Well, I presume that those who defend the Federal Reserve System would say that our economic history would have been worse without the System, and that it was worse before the System was initiated in 1913. I have no way of evaluating that. So I can’t prove to myself that Griffin is right. But as for those who would claim that we would be worse off without the Federal Reserve Act, I would expect them to be able to offer some proof of that, or at least some strong evidence in favor of that statement. In the absence of such evidence why should we have a system that requires our federal government to bail out wealthy banks when they get into trouble?

When large wealthy banks are on the verge of failure, they generally lobby the federal government to bail them out by claiming that if they fail our economy will suffer grave damage, there will be millions of unemployed, etc. etc. etc. Does it seem reasonable that banks would make such claims if they weren’t true? …. Ok, forget I said that.

The main reason I’m inclined to believe that Griffin’s account is right on the money for the most part, other than the fact that his book is extremely well written and meticulously documented with relatively easy to understand examples, is this: The idea that our government giving billions of dollars to super wealthy corporations because of their failures somehow serves to stabilize our economy is…. well…. It sounds so similar to Reagan’s theory of “trickle down economics” or John McCain’s economic stimulus plan of cutting the corporate tax rate from 35% to 25%, claiming that such a tax cut is “essential to U.S. competitiveness”, “will expand the U.S. economy, creating jobs and opportunities for prosperity”, and “lead to higher wages”. To believe that kind of stuff is almost in the same category as believing the Republican assertion that taxing inheritances even beyond $2 million is necessary to prevent ordinary families from going bankrupt.

To believe that we as a nation have to protect the wealthy from their failures in order to enjoy a stable economy just seems to me like the epitome of foolishness. How much extreme income inequality, joblessness and poverty does our nation have to experience before we wake up and realize what’s going on?
Discuss (112 comments) | Recommend (65 votes)
A summary of my DU posts
Time for change


The good majority of my DU posts consist of one of six general subjects: The need to remove from office the current cancer upon our nation; election fraud; the tragedy of the Bush administration; my ideas on the liberal values that we all hope will some day replace the values that our current government runs on; historical events that I believe cast light upon our current situation; and other political ideas.


The need to remove Bush and Cheney from office

In 2006, John Conyers wrote a 198 page report, documented with 1,401 references, titled “The Constitution in Crisis – The Downing Street Minutes and Deception, Manipulation, Torture, Retribution, Cover-ups in the Iraq War, and Illegal Domestic Surveillance”. The title of his report reflected the primary reasons why George Bush and Dick Cheney must be removed from office: They have made a mockery of our Constitution – the foundation for the rule of law in our nation – by consistently violating it. Our Constitution, if we can keep it in fact and not just in name, makes our nation much more than just a democracy. By providing protections for minorities and the powerless, our Constitution adds civility, humanity, and decency to what could otherwise be a barbaric nation – democratic or not.

Aside from the continuing damage that Bush and Cheney can do to our country in their remaining time in office, including their potential to involve us in ever expanding new wars, failing to remove from office the most lawless presidential administration in our history will set an awful precedent in our nation – a precedent for doing away with our Constitution. Providing in our Constitution a mechanism for impeachment and removal from office was of utmost priority to our Founding Fathers. As Thomas Jefferson once said, “When once a republic is corrupted there is no possibility of remedying any of the growing evils but by removing the corruption and restoring its lost principles…”

Many arguments have been put forward against impeachment. This post answers those arguments. Some opponents of impeachment mistakenly advocate the view that the impeachment of public officials requires evidence of the commitment of an actual crime – and would not be justified by such things as gross violation of the public trust, corruption, negligence, or incompetence. Leaving aside the fact that such an interpretation would leave our nation subject to rule by people who would do great and possibly irreparable harm to it, the preponderance of evidence flatly contradicts that interpretation.

Others claim that we don’t have enough evidence to proceed with impeachment. I argue here that the current evidence for impeachment is so abundant, arguing that we need more sets the impeachment bar at an absurdly high level.

Others argue we don’t have the votes for impeachment – which implies that we must not bring individuals to trial until we have counted the votes, rather the using the trial to get the votes. Such an argument ignores the likelihood that votes will accumulate as Americans watch the impeachment trial and become intensely exposed for the first time to the many outrageous crimes of George Bush and Dick Cheney. And it also ignores the fact that Senators who refuse to vote for conviction will probably be putting their seats in jeopardy.

But perhaps the most urgent reason for moving to impeach Bush and Cheney as soon as possible is that their continuing refusal to be bound by the laws and the Constitution of our nation raises the spectacle that they may be planning a coup d’etat. Why else would they go to such lengths to destroy our Constitution and the rule of law in our nation? We must preempt them by moving as quickly as possible on this.


Election fraud

The DU apparently was born as a result of the 2000 November-December election fraud that began the long nightmare that is the George W. Bush administration.

I went to bed on Election Day 2000, shortly after Bush was announced as our new President, feeling as if the end of world civilization was near at hand. My wife woke me up a couple hours later to tell me the good news that the announcement of Bush’s Presidency had been temporarily cancelled. Thus began a period of 36 days that I followed more intensely than any other news event of my life – ending in the infamous and disastrous Supreme Court decision that marked the beginning of our long road to dictatorship.

My son (EOTE) joined DU in January 2001, a few days after it began, but I did not, for reasons that now escape me. I did, however, do a lot of writing about the 2000 election, including a desperate plea to my Maryland Senators, to please demand a real recount of the 2000 Florida vote. And I also contributed an article to DU on that subject, in my son’s name (I did not use my own name because I was a federal employee and I was afraid that I could get into trouble for writing such an article), in the spring of 2001.

The fraudulent 2004 Presidential election is what brought me into DU. I had worked as a volunteer in the Kerry/Edwards campaign, I had followed the presidential polls obsessively, and by Election Day 2004 I was about as confident as I could be that John Kerry would be our next President. Thus, the reported results of that election were both profoundly disappointing and difficult for me to believe, as they were for the great majority of DUers.

I immediately began an effort to acquire as many election statistics as I could, in a feverish and desperate attempt to prove that the election was a fraud, which I hoped would aid in its overturning. In late November I had my son post an analysis that I did of the discrepancy between the exit polls and the official election results (Note: My son supplied the title, which I feel is too strong, which you can see if you read the article). And finding that it was awkward to have my son post my articles, I joined DU a few days later.

Since then I have posted dozens of election fraud related threads, a small number of the most important of which I have included in my journal.

In particular, I have come to believe that the main mechanism by which the 2004 election was stolen was the massive and illegal targeted purging of Democratic voters in Ohio, especially in Cleveland. This thread contains a great amount of evidence to support that contention.

In addition, I believe that there is good evidence that says that large numbers of votes in Cuyahoga County were deleted by its central tabulator, as explained in this thread, which also discusses an early 2006 partial audit of Cuyahoga County. And, I think that the death of Raymond Lemme, who while investigating Clint Curtis’ sworn allegations of vote switching computer programs, was found dead in a Georgia hotel room, just a couple weeks after telling Curtis that he had traced the corruption “all the way to the top”, is extremely suspicious to say the least. Here is my explanation of the controversy over the discrepancy between the 2004 exit polls and the official 2004 vote count. And here is a summary of several reasons I have written about for believing that the 2004 election was stolen.

Finally, here are my ideas for preventing another stolen election in 2006 and 2008.


The tragedy of the Bush administration

The fake war on terrorism

I believe that a crucial requirement for a good understanding of the Bush administration’s actions since September 11, 2001, is the realization that its “War on Terrorism” is nothing but a colossal fake. Only with that realization do numerous Bush administration characteristics and actions make sense, including: Its disinterest in Osama bin Laden; its great urge to rush into a war with Iraq at any cost; its utter contempt for international law and the rest of the world; its succession of no-bid contracts for its wealthy friends; its lavish tax cuts for the wealthiest of our citizens and corporations during ‘time of war’; the Dubai port deals; and, its attempt to turn our democracy into a dictatorship.

With that in mind, I wrote in this post about the main reasons why I believe that the Bush administration was complicit in the 9-11 attacks. There are many reasons why I believe that now, but the initial and still most important reason is the utter failure of our military, the mightiest military that the world has ever known, despite repeated warnings and more than ample time on 9-11 itself, to protect its own capital city.

Abuse of the human rights of prisoners for no apparent purpose

To me, the most sickening and disgraceful aspect of the Bush administration’s “War on Terrorism” is its complete lack of concern for human rights, demonstrated among other ways by the indefinite confinement, without trial or even bringing of charges, of thousands of prisoners of war, and its frequent use of torture. I have discussed this issue in several OPs, starting with this one. Here I describe the issue as seen through the eyes of a U.S. Army Muslim Chaplain who had ministerial responsibilities for hundreds of our prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, who witnessed the severe and daily abuse of his charges over a period of several months, and who eventually was imprisoned himself when it was felt that he was making too many waves over what he had seen. Here is my summary of what the great journalist Seymour Hersh had to say on this subject, based on his numerous high level sources. Jimmy Carter felt so strongly about this issue that he broke the unwritten rule against ex-Presidents criticizing sitting Presidents, with one of the most scathing attacks on this policy that I have ever seen. And Senator Richard Durbin was the victim of continued public verbal abuse from the right for daring to make public how our government was treating its prisoners.

Lying us into war

It is evident to most informed people that one of the biggest motivations for Bush's "War on Terror" was to provide a justification for the invasion of Iraq. Seymour Hersh’s excellent account of how the Bush administration manipulated and twisted intelligence in order justify a preemptive war against Iraq is a must read for anyone who still supports this administration and thinks that the Iraq war was necessary. And as for Bush's excuse that we are now fighting that war for the benefit of the Iraqi people, Democrats should start talking about how the Iraqi people actually feel about us being in their country.

Just how bad are Bush and his cronies and how much danger do they pose to American democracy?

George w. Bush and his administration and fellow travellers in today's Republican Party are about as bad as they come. They are anti-science ignoramuses. They are chicken hawks. They have no consciences. They are torturers. They are cowards. They are evil. And I doubt that there are any moral boundaries beyond which they will not go to get their way.

I think that in the interest of preserving our democracy, we should be aware of the similarities between the Bush administration and Hitler’s Nazis (which I wrote about even before the revelations about Bush’s warantless wiretapping), and understand that if we aren’t vigilant, yes it CAN happen here too.


Moral values that separate us from today’s Republicans

It makes me so mad to hear people ridicule what they consider to be “liberal values” and compare them unfavorably to the wonderful moral values of George W. Bush and his Republicans friends. In the vast majority of cases these people don’t even have a vague idea about what liberal values really are. They have simply been conditioned by our corporate media over several years or decades to believe that liberals encourage irresponsibility, are ‘soft’ on national defense and ‘law and order’, and are wild spenders. These ridiculous myths about liberals have in turn encouraged the Democratic Party to disavow the liberal label and in some cases to veer way to the right. I submit that, rather than running away from the liberal label we should be proud of it, and we should challenge those that seek to disparage it. And to further make this point I posted a tribute to several historical and current political leaders who have been unafraid to speak out loudly for what they believe in, and I suggested an answer to those Republican morons who accuse liberals of hating America.

Let's take a look at some of the specific moral values that separate Democrats from Republicans:

Republicans like to pretend that they're more moral than us because they're more "religious"

Many of those who disparage liberals are fundamentalist Christians who repeatedly invoke the name of Jesus Christ, and who believe that the superiority of their moral values to those of liberals and Democrats is proven by their repeated references to Jesus. Don’t these people understand that Jesus was a liberal, whose moral values were much closer to those of the Democratic Party than to those of the Republican Party, with whom they align themselves and vote for? Isn't it an astounding paradox that the Republican Party has usurped for their own purposes one of the most liberal religious leaders in world history, while at the same time showing nothing but contempt for liberals and liberal principles?

The movement for privatization of government functions

One of the biggest threats to our democracy is the privatization movement. In the name of “freedom” and “self-reliance”, the leaders of this movement advocate the freedom of powerful corporations to destroy our environment and to run our elections, our schools, our social safety net programs, and our prison system, as well as every other program which has long been considered a legitimate function of government. The fact that government is elected by the people to serve public functions, whereas the purpose of private corporations is to make profits for their investors, is either totally lost on these people, or else they simply feel that the above mentioned programs should be run for profit rather than for service.

Al Gore alluded to this issue in his great film, "An Inconvenient Truth", where he discussed the unholy alliance between government, private industry, and the press, whereby a corrupt government, in exchange for legal bribes from the industries they are supposed to control, propagates false information and policies that are favorable to those industries instead of the public that they are elected to serve. I discuss my own personal experience with that unholy alliance, where the FDA withdrew an about to be published scientific article I had written, under pressure from a manufacturer who stood to be economically hurt by the information in that article.

The need for a free and independent press

Another great threat to our democracy is the ownership of our country’s news media by a very small group of wealthy individuals who have strong ties to the Republican Party, and whose motivation in providing “news” is to maintain satisfaction with the status quo, rather than to report what is important and true. Two prime examples of corporate media shills and pseudo-journalists who pretend to be real journalists are Chris Matthews and Tim Russert. Bill Moyers explains how this situation threatens to destroy our democracy, and how this came about through the dismantling of rules and regulations which were meant to prevent the monopolization of our news. And Robert Parry explains why he started his web site to help combat the misinformation we get from our corporate media.

Health care

Liberals, and most other decent people, believe that people should be entitled to decent health care. That is why, prior to the "pro-life" administration of George W. Bush, infant mortality rate in the United States had been steadily declining for several decades. But shortly into the Bush administration, due to the starving of women and infant health programs for federal funds, infant mortality rate began a steady rise. Nor do Republicans care much about veterans' health, as indicated by the rejecting of this much needed veteran's health bill in the U.S. Senate by virtually a strict party line vote.

An enquiring mind

One of the many tricks that our corporate media uses to squelch alternative viewpoints is to label anyone who substantially disagrees with their “correct” version of the news as “conspiracy theorists”. Well, I have news for them. The views of us “conspiracy theorists” are usually much more closely aligned with reality than is most of the trash that we hear from the corporate news media these days, such as the stories about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, which were used to justify our illegal preemptive invasion of that country. We “conspiracy theorists” believe that it is not only the right of American citizens to challenge the corporate news media story lines, but it is our responsibility as well, as good citizens who care about our country.

The dignity of all human beings

Perhaps the most important value held by liberals is a belief in the dignity of all human beings – hence the 19th century movement by liberals to abolish slavery. Here is one of my favorite stories on that subject.

A summary

And here is a post where I talk about all the major values that separate Democrats from Republicans.


Historical events that help us understand our present

Though there is little doubt that George W. Bush is by far the worst president we’ve ever had, our past history is at least partly responsible for preparing the way for this tragedy. The history of our nation is full of examples of failures to live up to our ideals. In addition to our long history of slavery and our near extermination of the Native American population of our present day country, we began a long history of overseas imperialism beginning in the late 19th Century. The long standing history of extreme hostility to socialism by the elites of our country has been responsible for much of this imperialism, as well as domestic repression against labor unions and others who would speak out against the status quo. The usurpation by our Executive Branch of the war making powers given to Congress by our Founding Fathers did not originate with George W. Bush. And the attitudes fostered by our long history of slavery are still with us today, especially in the areas of our country where slavery thrived for so long.

Today, as the transgressions of George Bush and Dick Cheney threaten the existence of our nation as we know it, we would do well to recall how the German nation was led into tyranny more than six decades ago. The parallels between Hitler’s war on terror and George Bush’s war on terror are extraordinarily striking in my opinion. And the better able we are to recognize the danger, the more likely we are to take steps to prevent a similar fate.


Political ideas

Republicans have 3 great advantages in elections against Democrats, whereas the only advantage that the Democratic Party has is that its policies are meant to serve all Americans, rather than just the select few. In addition to electoral fraud and huge sums of money donated to the GOP by their corporate masters as legalized bribery, Democrats have to contend with a multitude of news media whores.

But those advantages are not sufficient for a Party that has nothing of value to offer to our country. So, when we suggest investigation of their corrupt deeds they call us conspiracy theorists. When we suggest policies such as making basic affordable health care available to all Americans they accuse us of class warfare. And when we criticize the rampant corruption at the highest levels of government they accuse us of "hating America". And when none of that works they try to scare us by telling us that if we don't give them unlimited power over us we risk being killed by terrorists.

If there was ever a presidential administration that needed to be impeached, this is it. Grass roots efforts are under way to accomplish this, and we can all help. Our Democratic leaders need to seriously consider and talk about this. And they must be united and avoid inter-party warfare.
Profile Information
Time for change
Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your ignore list
DU Donor DU Donor
8462 posts
Member since Thu Dec 2nd 2004
Silver Spring, MD, US
Male
Visitor Tools
Use the tools below to keep track of updates to this Journal.
 
Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals  |  Campaigns  |  Links  |  Store  |  Donate
About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy
Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.