The EXEGETIST: A Library Of Independent Political Thought. By: Jack H. Dawsey

Afghanistan: Is It America’s Waterloo?

 By: Jack Dawsey

Careful historians may record that neither President Ronald Regan, nor his ramped-up military spending of the 1980’s won the Cold War.  Instead, historians will likely note that a little known country in Central Asia, Afghanistan, bankrupt the mighty USSR. 

Afghanistan, unknown by many American school children until 9-11, is rich in heritage, albeit foreign to Western culture.  When the former USSR invaded Afghanistan, the rebels hunkered down and repelled the air and ground assault with a tenacious zeal.  The proud Afghans defended their ancient homeland.   

Today, many in the former USSR are reduced to poverty.  Some are without food while others are without basic shelter. Subsequent to their invasion of Afghanistan, the proud Soviets witnessed an economic decline they never envisioned.  In the opinion of this writer, the Soviet people had one basic problem: blind political allegiance.

They were blinded by their arrogance and misguided by their political leaders, and as a result, were robbed of their national treasure through a series of foolish military interventions.

While their political leaders boasted of invincibility (and got drunk on Vodka), the proud Soviet people were hoodwinked into a no-win war in Afghanistan.  Is America making the same mistake?  

Personally, I think the arrogance of the one mirrors the other.  Much like the former USSR, the American Congress is drunk.  The people too are drunk, but not on hard drink.  Their stupor is a mental mind-set that I call: “paralysis-analysis.” We are paralyzed by our news media, cable, radio talk, and TV psychobabble.  We are so connected to our IPOD’s and IPHONE’s that we have become oblivious of the real world.  While we eat, drink and be merry, our young men and women are sacrificing life and limb in a corrupt foreign government.  The words of Rudyard Kipling’s The Young British Soldier apply.  

“When you’re wounded and left on Afghanistan’s plains, And the women come out to cut up what remains, Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains, An’ go to your Gawd like a soldier.”

I ask, “Will Afghanistan be America’s Waterloo?”  I also ask, “If the War is truly legitimate, then to succeed our whole nation demands personal sacrifice and commitment.  If it takes a village to raise a child, (so some say), it takes a nation, committed, to win a war. America is not committed.  The ½ of the 1% of Americans currently in uniform cannot win this war, alone. Uncle Sam needs you too. The whole population must adorn a uniform, (figuratively speaking), and go to war -if the war is legitimate. 

Sacrifices may include such things as a special war tax, and or it may include the rationing of goods and services.  It may even demand reinstituting the military draft.  And doubtless, it requires a mind-set to secure our ports and borders.  Isn’t it foolish to wage a foreign war while neglecting our ports and borders?  It’s imperative that Americans change their priorities, (and their political leaders).

Moreover, if the security of Western civilization is at stake, (as republicans and democrats would have us believe), I asks, “Is America the only responsible nation, and must the American soldier bear the preponderance of the war alone?”

Where are the commitments of Europe and the Far East?  Shouldn’t they have a junk-yard dog in this fight?  They need to be fully vested.  As a starter may I suggest the 3-M Program: Manpower, Money, and Machine?

Up The Creek Without a Paddle 

 By: Jack Dawsey

For 2-years I have been publishing my editorials to the people of Sampson County in the Sampson Sun, and posting them on my web site: www.theexegetist.com

Thanks to Ms. Donna Bass, she has allowed me the space and liberty to write my opinions in her paper, without filter or requiring me to leave my mind hanging on a nail, as some editor’s demand. 

To you Sampsonians, I thank you for reading my articles and I thank you for the kind letters and emails you’ve sent.  By now you have noticed that most of my articles have been financial in scope and nature, always advocating your best interest. In this week’s editorial, I pull another political thread through that cloth.  But first, consider this.

The current propaganda coming out of America’s TV and cable news media-outlets makes Germany’s 1930’s Goebbels Propaganda Machine, second class.  Comparatively speaking, Goebbels was a lightweight.

To hear some in the media tell it, Obama is to blame for the BP oil disaster, the war, and all the government graft and corruption for the past 30-years, having reached its zenith during the Bush Administration.  Some believe, jokingly speaking, that Obama is responsible for the ingrown toe-tails of the elderly living in local nursing homes. 

Instead of shedding light, (conservative and liberal media) tend to fogify and cloud the issue.  For example, have you noticed that Congress has held numerous financial hearings to determine the cause that bankrupt this great nation, and found nothing?   Isn’t it amazing?  Where are the investigative reporters?  Where are the reporters like the Watergate era, when they nailed President Nixon and his cronies to the barn door in shame?  Where were the investigative reporters when Wall Street and our banks lost $trillions of your money in fantasy loans while Congress was asleep at the switch?

After losing $trillions, the investment bankers petitioned Congress and demanded the taxpayer replace their losses, and Congress obliged.  They even had the audacity to ask for a surcharge to your credit card, and Congress obliged. 

By the way, have you ever heard a Congressman ask one of the Wall Street CEO’s or an insurance investment bankster what happen to all of their depositor’s money?  Have you heard a Congressman ask, “Where did the money go?”  Have you heard them ask, “You mean to tell me you didn’t know the money was disappearing from your bank, and if you didn’t know, aren’t you guilty of criminal negligence?” 

I do believe that Obama when he was a U.S. Senator is responsible, in part, for helping Congress to legalize Credit Default Swaps.  In that respect, his vote(s) gave the investment bankers and insurance companies a legal way to steal Reserves so that no criminal charges could be brought against them by plaintiffs.

In all the injustice(s) done to the taxpayer, 2000  – 2008, there was silence.  There was silence until the Tea Party rallied in 2009 and railed against Obama which makes their motive, suspicious.  Their militancy and anger scares me more than the Wall Street banksters.

Other than the militant tea-baggers and noise makers on Faux News, I think most people do care.  In my opinion, they are concerned and frightened, but when they look for leadership, they find none from their republican and democrat representatives.  It seems that our politicians have become a joke, as evidenced by the mindless minions in power that inhabit federal and state government.

And have you noticed the liberal media’s sudden turn against Obama now that BP has a hole in the ocean floor that is destroying our eco-system?  Could it be they smell defeat in November and want to cut their losses now to save face?

And finally I ask, do you suppose the American people will revert back and reelect the same old crowd that first wrecked our economy by driving it into the ditch during the Bush years?   I don’t know, but when choices for leadership are twiddle-de or twiddle-dumb, that’s like being “up the creek” without a paddle.  If you ask me our canoe has sprung a leak and we are sinking into the mire.  Who is going to bail us out when we lose everything?

Counterfeit Money, How Much Do You Have In Your Bank? 

By: Jack Dawsey

A government that prints money, (by fiat and at will), is morally wrong.  And; in the opinion of this writer, is as guilty as a counterfeiter.  In either case, the “people” have no way of protecting their savings because a gloat in money supply causes devaluation -the most hideous of taxation.

Devaluation is caused by bad government policies, such as; for example, creating new programs or taking the nation to war without paying for them.

It’s a fact that most people do not understand the principle of money supply in the federal budget; hence, our politicians deceive us by blaming the other party for our financial woes.  But when a government, (democrat and republican), get “in bed” with corporations; and counterfeit (i.e., devalue) money to give the “appearance” of policy success and bolster corporate foreign trade, they no longer deserve the respect of the voter.

Government creates money for a variety of reasons: (a) to temporarily boost the economy, or (b) to rig an approaching election, or (c) for other devious reasons.  But it’s wrong and here are some short term/long term consequences. 

When the nation’s currency declines in value, export products become more attractive in foreign markets, and corporations temporarily benefit.  And too, there is usually a corresponding temporary drop in unemployment which gives the false impression that government policy is correct. But, the downside is the dollar becomes permanently devalued and your personal wealth is reduced.   Corporations and politicians receive the gold while you get the shaft.  Consider the following.

Instead of taxing you to pay for the War in Iraq and Afghanistan, (a war the Bush Administration thought would be over in less than 90-days), they planned its cost, off-budget.  As a result, the process of devaluation commenced.

When a government floats its currency to repay borrowed money, it accepts an exchange rate less than the original.  If the interest rate is too small to an investor, the borrower is required to receive a lesser rate of return.  In short, that’s precisely what has happened to our currency.  Let’s take some examples.

In March 2003 when America invaded Iraq, an ounce of gold was selling for $335.  The dollar was worth @1/335^th per oz. of gold.  Today, gold sells for over $1,100 making that same dollar worth @1/1,100^th in value to gold.  Luckily, America is not on the gold standard.   

In 2003 sweet crude oil was selling for $35 a barrel.  Today it sells for @$70.  Therefore, in seven years the value of the dollar dropped from 1/35^th of a barrel in value to 1/70^th.   Thankfully, as in gold, the dollar is not predicated on the instability of oil.  Given oil’s instability, let’s hope the world’s major trading partners don’t adopt it as the center piece in trading currency.  

Oil is however the economic engine that drives the world’s economy and the dollar has been clobbered in its buying power.  Here’s another case in point and I bet every housewife knows its reality.

At the beginning of the war, a loaf of bread sold for 89-cents.  Today, that same loaf costs @$2.79.  In a word, when the political powers fail to secure the dollar, “We, the people…” pay an enormous hidden cost through devaluation. 

In the 20^th century, the world’s central banks adopted the dollar as the center piece of international trade, but that may change.  If republican and democrat administrations continue to flood the market with greenbacks, I suspect the central banks may change its world currency.  There is substantial talk about doing that from Russia, China, Iran, Pakistan, India and some European countries.

The by-product of government counterfeiting is devaluation.  It’s a hideous thief and poses a serious threat that I call: the acceptable depression.    If Bush or Obama had paid for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars with an equitable tax, your personal wealth would not have suffered so badly.

Will the world experience another 1930’s Great Depression?  I hope not.  But given the dollar’s weakness and seeing how it has hollowed-out the European economy, another Great Depression is possible.

In any event, a massive realignment of personal wealth is occurring as you read this article. [By the way, the redistribution of income, a standing accusation made against Obama by republicans actually started to occur during the Bush Administration].  The 33^rd President of the United States said that America’s liberty and prosperity is threatened, worse, when the nation’s wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few.  President Truman went on to say that the remedy to stop it was to tax the rich and powerful.

In this writer’s opinion, if the democrats and republicans don’t end this war, (or win it), or pay for it through taxation, then I say, woe the working poor, woe unto the unemployed. Woe unto the farmer, and the retiree living on a pension.   Move over Middle Class.  You’re a relic of the past.  www.theexegetist.com

Your World is Changing

By: Jack Dawsey

Arizona Immigration Law: A Dumb Thing

By: Jack Dawsey

Have you been following the new Arizona state law on immigration?  It supposedly is predicated on the federal law.  Critics say it’s a dumb thing.  What say you?

For your information, I understand there is a provision in the law requiring public workers to alert Immigration and Customs Enforcement of illegal immigrants, applying for benefits i.e., “legal” benefits for their American-born children -benefits to which their illegal immigrant parents aren’t entitled.  Isn’t that a bit of an oxymoron or a case of putting a mother between a rock and a hard place?  For example, take Maria, an illegal immigrant mother living in Arizona.  She goes to a government office to make application for her children’s legal benefits provided for them from the state-run Medicaid program.  Hearing of the new state law requiring public workers to alert government officials of illegal immigrants applying for their children’s benefits, Maria is fearful.  When the public worker asks for identification, Maria runs.  Sadly, without government assistance, Maria has no way to treat her 3-year old daughter’s liver problem of Hepatitis, (a contagion disease to the rest of the community), or her 7-year old son’s bronchial asthma or Tuberculosis.  Because of the law, Maria is reluctant to take her children to a hospital emergency room too.   [By the way, in the opinion of this writer, an enacted law, state or federal, ought to have a moral base and not enacted purely on partisan political politics]. 

Doubtless, the new immigration law has a terrifying effect, not only in Arizona but I suspect here in North Carolina and elsewhere.  In all probability, the law will lead our Mexican immigrants to agonize over whether or not to attend school, or church, or report to their respective job.  And too, it’s likely to lead them to fear our local police because driving while brown may have the same de facto crime as driving while black.  The law may become a basis for the police to stop motorists on any pretense to check their status.

I read on the Internet where the author of the new Arizona Immigration Law, Republican State Sen. Russell Pearce is happy about the law causing immigrant’s misery.  According to an article that I read, he has a hard time having compassion for criminals, and it’s about time people started being afraid… 

Apparently, Pearce is a strong believer in the misinformation disseminated by political operatives over the Internet, contending illegal immigrants improperly receive public benefits.  Or, he thrives on the misery of others.  His law, instead of addressing the crux of the matter, actually sets up a public worker to commit a crime by failing to report the “appearance” of an illegal immigrant.  I’m told the law allows citizens to sue public agencies when they believe immigrants are receiving improper state benefits.  The Arizona law has potential for a fiasco to this whole country, including Sampson County.

I would like to ask Sen. Pearce if he believes the sick, “legal” American children –although anchors of Maria- are criminals.  I would like to ask him if he believes the primary purpose of civil law is to strike constant fear in the hearts and minds of Americans, black, brown, white or yellow.  If that’s his conclusion, and that we should live in a community of fear, I suggest he amend his law to require all men to grow a small hair-line mustache, and learn anew the phrase: “seig-heil!”   

This Arizona Law will put “all of us” on the slippery slope of madness.  Is that what we want from our representatives?

The failures of Republican and Democrat Congresses alike, dating back to the 1970’s, is the single, causative factor giving birth to 24-karat ding-a-ling laws like the 2010 Arizona Immigration Law.  The failure of our Congress is causing irresponsible law-making in our state assemblies.  www.theexegetist.com

Weak Dollar Raises Talk of Alternative World Currency

 By: Jack Dawsey

About a year ago in the Sampson Sun, I predicted the possibilities the U.S. dollar could be, (and I underscore the word could), be replaced with another currency.  At the time, I mentioned that it could be replaced by the Amero, i.e., a combination and merging of the American dollar, and the Mexican peso, and the Canadian maple leaf.  Since that article, just about every day seems to bring more bad news for the dollar.

There’s been steady erosion in the greenback’s value.  It’s down 16% according to some experts in just the last 6-months.  That’s down 16% in “your” money -not down 16% in the values on Wall Street where daily manipulations occur with the blessings of the Federal Reserve System and the U.S. Congress (composed of democrats and republicans).

Depending on whom you believe, the dollar’s real value is hovering near its 52-week low, and represents either the market’s devastating verdict on the Obama Administration, or the foolish rediscover of newly emboldened Wall-Street investors.  Maybe it’s a bit of both, but the beat goes on.

The dollar devaluation is now making Chinese officials nervous. They are taking a bath in losses on their enormous U.S. Treasury holdings, now paying a whopping .001 percent.  It’s been reported that foreign bankers are talking of promoting an alternative global currency, such as the euro, or the yuan or a new medium of exchange designed by the International Monetary Fund.

Not long ago the USA Today, a national newspaper, compared the following year-to-date changes in the value of the dollar against various other foreign currencies.  They published for example, that the dollar has fallen and weakened a negative -20.8% against the Canadian dollar, and weakened a negative -14.0% against the English pound.  It has fallen a negative -7.6% against the European euro, and a negative -5.0% against the Indian rupee.  And guess what?  It has even weakened a negative -6.8% against the S. Korean won.  Yes, that’s correct, South Korea.

Do you remember that country?  Did you know that some 50,000 plus young American soldiers lost their lives in Korea from 1951-1953? 

When my 17-year old Marine Corps brother, now deceased, was there in 1952 he lost the use of his thumb.  Moreover, as a result of fighting the North Korean and Chinese insurgents, he incurred a mental breakdown that he lived with for the next 45-years -with little assistance from the Veteran Administration.

He said that in 1952 South Korea didn’t have a pot to pee in, nor a window to throw it out.  Yet today, their currency is equal and rivals the American dollar.

Hum!!!!  Let me see.  Consider this: Since the Korean War, we have elected five republican presidents and five democrat presidents, and appointed one republican, Gerald R. Ford.  Nonetheless, our nation is deeper in debt than ever before and we’re losing the fight against foreign currencies.  Is there something wrong with this picture?

Still, and flying in the face of the last 60-years of American history, some voices on the far right wing of our political spectrum, such as Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn. and the half-term governor of Alaska and nut-case Newt from Georgia are crying: anti-American conspiracy!  Or worse, “lock and load” your guns.  They blame the Obama Administration, apparently a political convenience.    

I wonder if the enormous U.S. debt that started 30-years ago and has continued through both democrat and republican administrations had anything to do to weaken the dollar?  I wonder if trying to fight two wars at the same time, on a U.S. Congress credit card has anything to do with a worthless dollar?  I’ll defer to the reader to figure that out.

By the way, vote Republican or Democrat in the May Primary.  When you do, listen carefully for a certain, pop-culture song while in the voting booth.  Your ears may hear Sonny and Cher singing their 1968 blockbuster hit: “And the beat goes on…”        www.theexegetist.com

Health Care Reform

By: Jack Dawsey

With respect to the recent passing of the Health Care Reform Bill, I offer this opinion to the reader. 

First, in American history, when did life expectancy start its upward climb the most?  Was it in the late 19^th century, when anesthesia was discovered -making surgery easier?  Or, was it in the 20^th century, when medicines became more available?  Or, in your opinion, was it in this 21^st century, when CAT scans, and Nuclear Medicine, and MRI’s proliferated? 

Experts believe the answer is “all of the above” with a caveat.  The caveat is access, having access to the basics of health care.

Obviously, statistics aren’t always reliable.  As they say, “Liars figure, and figures lie…” but it’s a good bet that life expectancy started its uptick in America shortly after WW-II.  Ironically, American life expectancy appears to have gained its largest increase as thousands of young Americans soldiers were being killed in World War II, Korea, and Vietnam.

Part of the answer may be attributed to America’s war mobilization.  Americans discovered better access to medical care through the military, or in jobs linked to the military industrial complex, and companies having contracts with the military, and through the outgrowth of programs developed from the New Deal of the 1940’s.  It’s been said that good health care is less about technologies than about having access to it.

For all the disagreements about Obama Care, (and there are flaws in the new Health Care Reform Bill as with all bills coming out of Congress), it’s imperative to focus on the component: access. 

America’s history reveals that Americans have seen a steady increase to “access” to health care.  Sadly, a reversal of that trend has occurred since about the 1990’s.

I recently read a report that sited one-quarter of Californians have no health insurance coverage, period.  Relatively speaking, that report could as easily apply to North Carolina, or any other state. Despite the efforts of both, Republican and Democrat Presidents, the political failures in our nation to enact universal health care are abominable.  And frankly, today, for Republicans to walk “lock step” against the current health care package, (more modest than their patron saint Richard Nixon proposed in the 1970’s), is disgusting.  Moreover, for Republicans to demagogue the health care issue with threats of court action, or their so-call “repeal” campaign slogan; that, by the way is a false choice, is appalling to this writer.

If these modern-day re’ pub’ a thug-radicals had their way with respect to health care, the number of uninsured Americans would rise exponentially.

By the way, don’t you think with respect to having compassion, particularly for the poor and disenfranchised, that a true republican rises to manhood or womanhood and breaks the band of fear and cynicism that binds their party, today?

Who among us who would deny a suffering neighbor access to medical services? That’s precisely what we do when we look away, or “wink” at the uninsured in need of America’s medical system.  Whatever happened to America’s moral compass and character?

Opponents of this editorial claim that “all” Americans have access to health care.  According to them, a visit to the local hospital emergency room is all that’s required.  But that’s not entirely true.  First, not all of rural America, (and that’s most of this huge nation), have access to hospitals.  But moreover, why should an uninsured mother of a sick child sit for hour(s) and hour(s) in an emergency room -waiting for services?  And when services are finally rendered, the enormous extra cost of that service is ultimately passed on to YOU, either in annual health premium increases, or in the daily cost of doing business for the hospital?  Isn’t it a matter of being penny wise and pound foolish?

I recently read a report that our children are two-and-a-half times as likely to die before the age of 5 as children in Sweden, and that American women are 11 times as likely to die in pregnancy or childbirth as Irish women.  While I can’t confirm the actual statistics of that report, it seems to me that if the stats are ½ the number it should concern us.    

I concur that the new Health Care Reform Bill will not solve “all” the issues of health care.  But, it’s a start. 

Did you know that Social Security and Medicare required years of amendments to improve?  Would you like to follow today’s foolish republicans and “repeal” those programs?  Besides, if you’re one of the 40-million without medical access, the Health Care Reform Bill is a game-changer.

www.theexegetist.com

Modern American Politics: Is It Extreme?

By: Jack Dawsey

Does it seem or appear to you that today’s American politics have gotten too ruckus, extreme and negative?  I think so.

In 2004 when I resigned my post as a republican county commissioner, (Carteret County, NC), I renounced the beloved party of whom I had been member 42-years and published an article.   In the article, I established –to my satisfaction- the issue that my Republican Party (both national and state) had been hijacked by extremists and radicals much like the Democratic Party was in the 1960’s.

It’s been 6-years since that publication, and I’m more convinced now than ever of my arguments.

Today; as an Independent, (and in jest), I poke fun at my Republican and Democrat friends.  I tell them that my original birth certificate DISQUALIFIES me from being a member of either the Republican or Democrat Party.  They ask, “How so?”  And I say “Because my birth certificate has my real daddy’s name recorded on it.”

I could cite a ream of paper showing the rank hypocrisy in today’s politics, but for this editorial consider this:

For example, there are some very radical Republicans that claim their party is the best party because it believes in a smaller government and fewer taxes. According to them, their party is not only more frugal, but it is against government deficit spending.  In this writer’s opinion, their actions belie their words.  They seem to have this habitual habit to increase budget deficits by providing tax cuts to the richest corporations, while growing the Military Industrial Complex and expanding the scope government.

They say, “Cut government programs…” but refuse to identify the programs to cut, i.e., Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, and the Military Industrial Complex; that together, make up the preponderance of the federal budget. Besides, when republicans had the opportunity to reduce the federal budget, 1994-2006, they didn’t. Instead, they increased the deficit by starting new programs like Medicare Part D, and engaging a war without paying for it.

Their philosophy is much like the metaphor of trying to pack 10-lbs of horse manure into a 5-lb bag.  They like to argue that government doesn’t work.  And sure enough, when they’re elected they prove it.

Now on the other hand, the Democratic Party is a case too for sore-eyes.   Democrats are the author of the corrupt put and take system of our government.  “You put the money in it, and they take it out.”   

Their form of corruption is much like the ole country boy and the slick political banker.  Have you heard that story? 

If a country boy stiffs a political banker of $250,000, the country boy gets 15-years in state prison. But when the political banker steals $250,000 from the country boy, the bank merges with a larger bank and the governor promotes the politician to head up the state banking commission.  

Given the current mess that we are in, isn’t it about time to ask some pointed questions to both political parties? 

For example, since Republicans claim to believe in a smaller or non-intrusive government, ask them if they will agree to privately fund the nation’s interstate highway system, or the nation’s bridges, tunnels, railroads, and our public school system?

And since they rant and rave against socialism, (even draw you into a “fist-a-cuff” over the use of the word, socialism), shouldn’t they return their Social Security and unemployment compensation checks to the government?  Moreover, if they have an aging mother or grandmother, receiving Medicaid or Medicare, or Hospice, shouldn’t they demand for their beloved to be disconnected from that “socialist” government program too?

And by the way, since Republicans claim they hold a monopoly on the virtues of capitalism and the free market economy, shouldn’t they be more responsible in Congress and demand an end to the nation’s trade imbalance from the slave economies of the world, like China?

But no!  Republicans want their cake (and yours too) to do as they please with it, while condemning the baker that cooked it.

And finally, my advice to the “put and take” democrats is: “write the state institution from where you received your political science degree and demand a CASH REBATE on your education.  You got gypped!    

www.theexegetist.com

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell

By: Michael Sperry

Through careful observation and diligent listening to the arguments of those opposed to changing the “Don’t Ask; Don’t Tell” policy for gays in the military, it appears to me that those opposing this policy are identical to those people who ostensibly support a military equal to none. Yet, these same people, in deference to their own sexual insecurities (OMG! if I support changing this policy someone might think that I am gay; or worse, I support Obama) would deny the military the necessary tools to conquer our enemies in the “War on Terror” thus causing unnecessary casualties; civilian and military.

Continuing this policy would deprive that same military of the services of people that it desperately requires; e.g. language specialists fluent in those dialects and languages spoken in the Middle East and western Asia. After a rational analysis; does the current policy serve the national security interests of our nation; at home or abroad?  sperry@mcdonaldco.k12.mo.us

American Corporations and the Supreme Court

 Part 2

 How We Got Here

By: Jack Dawsey

As I stated in the first installment, the word Corp’ocracy, (replacing the word Democracy), may appear in the next edition of Webster’s New College Dictionary.  It’s because the United States Supreme Court’s most recent 5 to 4 decision (January 21,  2010) in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, removed long-established legal barriers preventing corporations and unions from spending unlimited sums of money to influence voters in political campaigns.

Heretofore, politicians had to arguably show that they and their political campaigns were not owned by American corporations.  But the court’s ruling actually stacks the deck against peoples of all political stripes now.  It enables corporations to buy (themselves) a Congress. How did we get here?

Some contend that the founders of the nation did not like corporations.  Clearly, for the first 100-years, it seems corporations were given only limited “privileges” and not “rights.”  Only persons had rights under the law.

But after the 14^th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified in 1868, (an Amendment that extended equal protection under the law to all male citizens of the U.S regardless of race), the mischief began.

Because of the 14^th Amendment, corporate attorneys seized the moment.  In earnest, they began to advocate for “corporate personhood.”   Finally in 1886, the opportunity presented itself in: The County of Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific Railroad (SPRR). 

The substance of that case was not so much “corporate personhood” but deducting mortgage costs on (SPRR’s) vast holdings.  But, as in all legal decisions “words” have consequences.

In that 1886 case, Chief Justice Waite said, “The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the 14^th Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations.  We are all of the opinion that it does.”   

It seems that this one statement laid the golden egg for corporate attorneys.  This one single sentence likely changed the frame of North American politics. It laid the foundation of corruption by recognizing corporations as “persons” and not as “things” which the founders of the nation intended.

The irony is that in his “official stations Judge Waite was able, upright, and impartial; in private life he was just and true, pure in his morals, exemplary in his habits, and faithful in the discharge of all his duties.” -Google

Wittingly or unwitting, Judge Waite may have set the course to thwart the noble experiment of government “for, of, and by” the people.   And to think that less than 25-years before he uttered his words, this nation engaged in a great civil war.  A war that spilled the blood of 620,000 of this nation’s best and brightest to preserve Lincoln’s assertion: “That this nation shall not perish from the earth…”

I believe, as many other advocates of representative government, that the (little noticed) decision of January 21^st 2010 to apply the 1^st Amendment (and by extension the 14^th Amendment) to corporations put the finishing nail in America’s political coffin.

Unless a true and independent 3^rd political party is given birth in this country, a vote for a republican or a democrat in November is, (in my opinion), no more than a gesture in pretense for democracy.