Excerpted from Thom Hartmann's newest book, Screwed; The Undeclared War Against the Middle Class -- And What We Can Do About It
We have a name for government of, by, and for corporations. It's called fascism.
Benito Mussolini, one of the best-known fascists of the twentieth century, claimed to have invented the word. It was actually Italian philosopher Giovanni Gentile who wrote the entry in the Encyclopedia Italiana that said: "Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power." Mussolini, however, affixed his name to the entry and claimed credit for it.
In 1938 Mussolini realized his vision of fascism when he dissolved Parliament and replaced it with the Camera dei Fasci e delle Corporazioni-the Chamber of the Fascist Corporations. Corporations were still privately owned, but now instead of having to sneak their money to folks like Tom DeLay and covertly write legislation, they were openly in charge of the government.
Franklin Roosevelt's administration was quite aware of the nature of the fascist government. In early 1944 the New York Times asked Vice President Henry Wallace (in Wallace's words) "to write a piece answering the following questions: What is a fascist? How many fascists have we? How dangerous are they?"
In April 1944, when Vice President Wallace published his answer in the Times, he certainly could point to examples of Americans who had aligned themselves with Mussolini and Hitler. Wallace notes that "American fascists were clandestinely aligned with their German counterparts before the war, and are even now preparing to resume where they left off, after 'the present unpleasantness' ceases." Indeed, several well-known and powerful Americans-including Prescott Bush, George W.'s granddaddy-lost businesses in the 1940s because of charges by Roosevelt that they were doing business with Hitler.
...American fascists-those who would want former CEOs as president, vice president, House majority whip, and Senate majority leader and who would write legislation with corporate interests in mind-don't generally talk to We The People about their real agenda or the harm it does to small businesses and working people. Instead, as Hitler did with the trade union leaders and the Jews, they point to a "them" to pin with blame and distract people from the harms of their economic policies.
In a comment prescient of George W. Bush's suggestion that civilization itself is at risk because of gays, Wallace continued:
The symptoms of fascist thinking are colored by environment and adapted to immediate circumstances. But always and everywhere they can be identified by their appeal to prejudice and by the desire to play upon the fears and vanities of different groups in order to gain power. It is no coincidence that the growth of modern tyrants has in every case been heralded by the growth of prejudice.
It may be shocking to some people in this country to realize that, without meaning to do so, they hold views in common with Hitler when they preach discrimination.
But Wallace believed that even the techniques of distraction and discrimination would not be enough to convince the people to turn their government over to the corporatocracy. Fascists could gain real power only by lying to the people. Unfortunately, Wallace believed it would be easy for fascists to lie because they controlled the media:
The American fascists are most easily recognized by their deliberate perversion of truth and fact. Their newspapers and propaganda carefully cultivate every fissure of disunity, every crack in the common front against fascism. They use every opportunity to impugn democracy. . . .
The American fascist would prefer not to use violence. His method is to poison the channels of public information. With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money or more power.
In his strongest indictment of the tide of fascism he saw rising in America, Vice President Wallace added,
They claim to be super-patriots, but they would destroy every liberty guaranteed by the Constitution. They demand free enterprise, but are the spokesmen for monopoly and vested interest. Their final objective toward which all their deceit is directed is to capture political power so that, using the power of the state and the power of the market simultaneously, they may keep the common man in eternal subjection.
Finally, Wallace said,
The myth of fascist efficiency has deluded many people. . . . Democracy, to crush fascism internally, must . . . develop the ability to keep people fully employed and at the same time balance the budget. It must put human beings first and dollars second. It must appeal to reason and decency and not to violence and deceit.
We must not tolerate oppressive government or industrial oligarchy in the form of monopolies and cartels.
Hiding Behind the Flag Today we again stand at the same crossroad Roosevelt and Wallace confronted during the Great Depression and World War II. Fascism is again rising in America, this time calling itself "compassionate conservatism."
The cons' behavior today eerily parallels the day in 1936 when Roosevelt said, "In vain they seek to hide behind the flag and the Constitution. In their blindness they forget what the flag and the Constitution stand for."
The cons are passing budgets that give billions to private companies to conduct an illegal war on our behalf while cutting money for food for low-income families. They tell us it is unpatriotic to criticize the government, then want to give corporations free-speech rights to lie about their products to the American people. They defend the President for eavesdropping on Americans without a warrant in violation of half the Bill of Rights, but they don't want Americans to know which lobbyists have influenced their votes.
We can't sit on our hands and hope someone else will do something. If our elected representatives don't wake up and reverse course, we will soon no longer recognize the country our Founders created. It's up to us-to We the People-to sound the alarm.
I find it quite humorous that Thom Hartman would use FDR as an example.
Since FDR's admin in the name of defeating the Axis (A worthy goal I hope all here agree on) -
-Interred US citizens for the duration without Habeas Corpus
-Listened in on all calls that used an operator without wiretap authorization.
-Suspended the right to assemble whenever it conflicted with production wartime (facist or socialist control of the means of production) goals [suppression of union rallies (go look in union archives. Newspapers rarely reported it.]
-Deaths of US citizens resultant from the above.
- And lets not forget the whole inter the US Japanese population on the West Coast.
by
Vulture (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 153 comments)
on Wednesday, October 4, 2006 at 8:33:13 AM
In 1937 and 1939, the Supreme Court handed down a pair of decisions in the matter of Nardone v. United States. The Court held that the Communications Act of 1934 barred federal surveillance of telephone lines, and that evidence obtained from such surveillance couldn't be introduced at trial.
In response, Attorney General (and future Supreme Court justice) Robert Jackson ended the FBI's longstanding surveillance of suspected saboteurs and spies. FBI director J. Edgar Hoover protested this decision. In an April 13, 1940 memorandum to Jackson, Hoover outlined a number of pending investigations that were hampered by Jackson's decision. Hoover concluded, "Frankly, the Bureau cannot cope with this problem without the use of wire taps and I feel obligated to bring this situation to your attention at the present time rather than to wait until a national catastrophe focuses the spotlight of public indignation upon the Department because of its failure to prevent a serious occurrence."
President Roosevelt sided with Hoover, not Jackson. In a signed May 21, 1940 memorandum to his attorney general, FDR wrote:
I have agreed with the broad purpose of the Supreme Court decision relating to wire-tapping in investigations. The Court is undoubtedly sound both in regard to the use of evidence secured over tapped wires in the prosecution of citizens in criminal cases; and is also right in its opinion that under ordinary circumstances wire-tapping by Government agents should not be carried on for the excellent reason that it is almost bound to lead to abuse of civil rights.
However, I am convinced that the Supreme Court never intended any dictum in the particular case which it decided to apply to grave matters involving the defense of the nation.
It is, of course, well known that certain other nations have been engaged in the organization of propaganda of so-called "fifth columns" in other countries and in preparation for sabotage, as well as in actual sabotage.
It is too late to do anything about it after sabotage, assassinations and "fifth column" activities are completed.
You are, therefore, authorized and directed in such cases as you may approve, after investigation of the need in each case, to authorize the necessary investigating agents that they are at liberty to secure information by listening devices direct to the conversation or other communications of persons suspected of subversive activities against the Government of the United States, including suspected spies. You are requested furthermore to limit these investigations so conducted to a minimum and to limit them insofar as possible to aliens.
FDR's assertion that the Supreme Court didn't read the Communications Act to bar surveillance for national defense wasn't based on the statute's text. The Communications Act provided that "no person not being authorized by the sender shall intercept any communication and divulge or publish the existence, contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning of such intercepted communication to any person." The only source for FDR's national-security exception was the same as the one now presented as a defense of the NSA surveillance program: the president's inherent constitutional authority, as commander in chief of the armed forces, to conduct surveillance as an incident to the military's defense of our nation.
Despite FDR's readiness to use his inherent authority, he and Jackson pushed Congress to give the administration statutory authority. As Jackson recounted in his memoir, the administration sought authorization for surveillance for not only "espionage [and] sabotage," but also "extortion and kidnapping cases." The House was willing only to authorize FBI wiretapping "in the interest of national defense." As today, any such legislation was opposed by the ACLU, as well as (in Jackson's words) "others of liberal persuasion."
FDR and Jackson also opposed those who sought to require that surveillance be approved not only by the attorney general but also by the courts, through warrant requirements. As Jackson wrote in a March 19, 1941 letter to Rep. Hatton Summers, "I do not favor the search warrant procedure.... Such procedure means loss of precious time, probably publicity, and filing of charges against persons as a basis for wire tapping before investigation is complete which might easily result in great injury to such persons."
In the end, FDR and the Congress weren't able to agree on a legislative compromise. Nonetheless, President Roosevelt continued to authorize national-security surveillance. All of this predated America's entry into the Second World War.
AFTER CHOOSING TO AUTHORIZE SURVEILLANCE, President Roosevelt faced angry legislators (similar to Senator Specter and others today) who called for disclosure of the surveillance program's details in order to inform the legislative debate. FDR decided that Congress was not entitled to, and could not be trusted with, such information. He thus refused to comply.
Attorney General Jackson spelled this out in an April 30, 1941 letter to Rep. Carl Vinson, Chairman of the House Committee on Naval Affairs. Jackson reviewed the history of presidential refusals to disclose national security information, beginning with President Washington's 1796 refusal to disclose the details of treaty negotiations. Jackson warned that to provide such information to Congress would enable congressional personnel to leak details to the public, thereby tipping off targets and embarrassing informants. He said that disclosure would "prejudice the national defense and be of aid and comfort to the very subversive elements against which you wish to protect the country." And despite the fact that Congress was attempting to pass legislation pertaining to that very program, Jackson concluded that information regarding the surveillance "can be of little, if any, value in connection with the framing of legislation or the performance of any other constitutional duty of the Congress."
.......
Of course there is the fact that, since the time of FDR, who admittedly sacrificed his liberal principles to fight the Nazis, there have been a number of laws passed which make wiretapping without a warrant illegal as hell......including changes to the specific communications act mentioned in both SC decisions back then, every mention of wiretapping includes the assumption of a warrant.
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2388 comments)
on Wednesday, October 4, 2006 at 6:58:39 PM
Sorry the FDR admin empowered non governmental employees to listen in on telephone conversations. Not exactly covered in your statement about offical wiretapping by the FBI and such. Next I would point out that the Canadians did similar wartime practices.
Ardee have your ever spoken to a ATT operator from WWII, a army CIC agent, a police officer? It was quite draconian in the methods they used and the rights of citizens that they trampled all thanks to the blessing of FDR.
by
Vulture (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 153 comments)
on Thursday, October 5, 2006 at 12:09:40 AM
Of course there is the fact that, since the time of FDR, who admittedly sacrificed his liberal principles to fight the Nazis, there have been a number of laws passed which make *wiretapping without a warrant illegal as hell*......including changes to the specific communications act mentioned in both SC decisions back then, every mention of wiretapping includes the assumption of a warrant.
This aint the thirties and the law has become quite a bit more specific since that time. Even then the SC recognized the basic illegalities and un American actions of the administration and said so......
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2388 comments)
on Thursday, October 5, 2006 at 7:26:07 AM
Ardee are you even cognizant of US WWII history. Or do you just run google searches for things that match your argument? The abuses I am talking about mainly occurred in the ealy FORTIES.
And I will point out that the 6th appeals court thought so little of the initial decision that they allowed the wiretapping program to continue during the appeal porocess.
I am quite certain now that the SC will uphold the process as not unconsitutiional during the present "wartime" (whatever word that relly says we are in a state of war but can't bring ourselves to declare it).
by
Vulture (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 153 comments)
on Thursday, October 5, 2006 at 9:45:54 AM
In 1937 and 1939, the Supreme Court handed down a pair of decisions in the matter of Nardone v. United States. The Court held that the Communications Act of 1934 barred federal surveillance of telephone lines, and that evidence obtained from such surveillance couldn't be introduced at trial.
Thats 1937 and 1939....moron.
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2388 comments)
on Thursday, October 5, 2006 at 5:48:30 PM
agendized and wing nutty poster. I do wish to make a general statement about this type of troll however. One notes how she ignores that which cannot be refuted, such as the point that, since the time of FDR's wiretapping, the laws have been strengthened and made more specific vis-a-vis this practice. The Telecommunications Act assumes a warrant for ANY sort of activity like this, and again, this is not the thirties. The very way the FISA court was established leaves no reason not to seek a warrant, a government agency can begin a tap 72 hours prior to seeking the warrant, thus it is plain that failing to go to this court shows plainly that they want noone knowing what they do.
As to this particular poster, well, yes I am over the top rude to her, I see her as the antithesis of an American and a source of weakness to that which this nation should be in this world. For many, many decades these people, and make no mistake, they are few indeed, were considered odd and drew smiles and sneers and were generally ignored.
As the Democrats controlled the Legislature for forty years they grew more and more corrupted by their power. To their credit(?) it took decades while the current majority became corrupted in minutes. All the while agendised folks like Richard Mellon Scaife, Sun Myong Moon, et al spent millions acquiring media sources and working to establish links with nut job groups on the extreme right, those they could easily manipulate and use as committed cadre, folks like this silly little bird whose every post shows plainly that the truth does not enter into any discourse, and facts are nuisances to be distorted or ignored. The quip about using a search engine shines like a beacon and betrays her neurosis and the fact of her scorn for truth. What curious person would not search for truth, who but the nutjobs look only for corroboration? Note that I used a very right wing source for my paste, and yes I always seek all sides of arguments, this distinguishes me from the useless carrion bird who seeks only disruptive commentary and mangling of reality ( one hundred posts and how many honest debates? How many serious comparisons of history and fact? Not a one, but one hundred silly and sophomoric japes about liberals of which there might be a few here but I ,for one am not), a sad and sorry citizen that one.
To those who find my rudeness unacceptable I do not apologise though I am sorry that you are offended. I am offended by the actions of my nations leadership and the aiding and abetting of those who will very soon return to the anonimity their stupidity deserves. I would expect, as the leadership of the current administration crumbles under the weight of its crimes and misdemeanors, its sick sexuality ( how many more pedophiles or those driven mad by their shame at being homosexual, which is nothing to be ashamed of frankly) and its denial of basic rights to humanity, more stridency and more desperate dialogue to follow. Does anyone wonder why Jeff Guckert was signed into the WH 97 times and stayed all hours of the night......Who is it do you suppose...my money is on Rove.
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2388 comments)
on Thursday, October 5, 2006 at 8:56:48 PM
Mandatory- the second change brought because of VultureTX
rant skipped
So Ardee are you trying to claim that during WWII, US based ATT operators did not routinely listen to phone calls routed by them in order to detect spys, to deter people talking about censored subjects, and to gather information deemed critical to the US war effort. And report same information to the US govt?
by
Vulture (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 153 comments)
on Friday, October 6, 2006 at 4:22:00 PM
I do wish to make a general statement about this type of troll however. One notes how she ignores that which cannot be refuted, such as the point that, since the time of FDR's wiretapping, the laws have been strengthened and made more specific vis-a-vis this practice. The Telecommunications Act assumes a warrant for ANY sort of activity like this, and again, this is not the thirties. The very way the FISA court was established leaves no reason not to seek a warrant, a government agency can begin a tap 72 hours prior to seeking the warrant, thus it is plain that failing to go to this court shows plainly that they want noone knowing what they do.
Answer the original question or slink back under your rock.....
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2388 comments)
on Friday, October 6, 2006 at 6:29:58 PM
Mandatory- the second change brought because of VultureTX
you said "In 1937 and 1939, the Supreme Court handed down a pair of decisions in the matter of Nardone v. United States. The Court held that the Communications Act of 1934 barred federal surveillance of telephone lines, and that evidence obtained from such surveillance couldn't be introduced at trial."
So unless you deny that the operators did as I said during WWII FDR did wiretapping on a massive scale compread to GWB.
Well unless it is actually legal for a wartime president to conduct such operations.
/Ardee I posted and you will not admit that my points are valid; so WTF should I defend GWB's actions?
by
Vulture (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 153 comments)
on Saturday, October 7, 2006 at 12:42:20 AM
Once again your selectivity betrays your motivation
Your entire political apparatus is crumbling around your ears. Your neoconservative republican leadership has proven to have put the welfare of said leadership before the
interests of the nation and the world. The lies and distortions are raining down upon them as they are being disclosed in increasing numbers. The real conservatives are saying that they will no longer support these clowns and will in fact refrain from even going to the polls this coming election cycle.
We see that Condi Rice met with Tenet and his chief deputy, was warned in no uncertain terms that this nation was going to be attacked, and in fact was attacked a mere 60 days later. Not only does she claim to have no memory of said meeting (as if one might forget such a warning especially in the light of coming events)the 911 commission was not given this little detail....can you say criminal action with possible prosecution?
Yet in the face of this crumbling of your little minority, in the light of the obvious relegation back to the sidelines of politics for your little minority and much too radicalized and self involved allies you continue to plod and trudge in the minutia of your silly little nonesensical point.
Yes, FDR wiretapped, I pointed that out in a reference to a very right wing web site as a sop to you you imbecile, and he did so despite the SC telling him it was illegal and unconstitutional. But them your mind turns off when I went on to note that, perhaps because of his actions, laws against such wiretapping and eavesdropping were strengthened, eventually the FISA court was created to facilitate such endeavors should they be needed in a time of peril for this nation. Considering that wiretapping can be commenced immediately under FISA and seventy two hours is given for an appearence to get a warrant the only possible reason for Bush to fail in this duty is that he knows full well that he would be unable to obtain such a document due to the folks he is tapping and the methods he uses.
George Bush has assumed dictatorial powers for the Executive branch, I believe they are criminal and should result in his impeachment, which they most probably will not. He uses signing statements as line item vetoes, another crime against the nation, he lies, distorts and cheats. His eavesdropping and wiretapping is done with a body of laws prohibiting such that did not exist during FDR's time, that were possibly created because of the excesses of FDR. This you choose to ignore because it fails to fit in your rather psychotic view of what is legal, ethical and allowable.
You and yours are returning to the dust bin of history, where you can do no further harm to the US and the world. As the bard once noted, you have strutted your time upon the stage and now your lines are done. You ruled through fear and manipulation and the public is damned tired of being lied to and manipulated, we are sick of the murders of our children in a war built upon those lies and distortions and we will not tolerate further abuses of our privacy. We have seen ample evidence that your leaders put their own self interests before what is right and proper, moral and ethical and , being a moral and ethical people we citizens of this nation are about to throw your asses out!
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2388 comments)
on Saturday, October 7, 2006 at 12:08:41 PM
Mandatory- the second change brought because of VultureTX
ardee squealed "You and yours are returning to the dust bin of history, where you can do no further harm to the US and the world. "
I heard the same thing back in '92 dude. And again in '04. Funny thing is, I have grown in power and my track record of success has only been lengthened. But go ahead and be delusional; it's safer for all than if you ever accomplished anything. Becuase although you keep lumping me with the neo-coms , I'm not. Militaristic yeah , I am George Patton kind of guy for dealing with all my enemies.
/And yes I read the posts, but you still miss that FDR did it and got away with it. And that GWB can use presidential precedent for acts in a time of war to do the same. Rant all you want but I don't see anybody getting an impeachment out of the wiretapping. and considering the 6th courts appeal statement, I don't even see the DEMs trying to use it in the election. Since the wiretapping is ONGOING.
//But nice that you made such excuses for FDR.
by
Vulture (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 153 comments)
on Saturday, October 7, 2006 at 2:38:18 PM
Your posts prove, again and again that you are a delusional and egomaniacal little twerp whose only "power" is to post mispelled little rants filled with distortion and delusion on a rather obscure and relatively unimportant little web site....such power!!. So transparent in fact that middle school kids can see through you.
What freaking power do you have you egomaniac? You and yours are babbling right on down the slide into the trash can, and take your cover ups of sexual predators, your tortures, your illegal invasions, your piracy of the tax monies, your responsiblity for incompetence and corruption with you......you will no longer be around.
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2388 comments)
on Sunday, October 8, 2006 at 11:51:43 AM
Mandatory- the second change brought because of VultureTX
Who's is delusional again? I wanted GWB to pass a bill I was supporting in Texas. Result he got elected in part because of me. I wanted Iraq as a forward base for US troops. It is done. Sure I am not alone, but he did listen. Whick AFAIK everyone who is anti GWB claims he doesn't.
What have you gotten out of your politicians again?
When has your Congressmen reutrned your calls? Remember I am an independent who made a deal and got results.
You can't even get the GOP out of power by yourselves and you certainly can't "bring them to justice" So try again.
/Results matter.
// BTW Great non event for October 5th. That was really showing them the power of the left.
///Spelling Nazis are those who over compensate for their English Degree. [An English Lit. Graduate told me that one]
by
Vulture (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 153 comments)
on Sunday, October 8, 2006 at 12:40:49 PM
Have you mentioned this delusion to your psychiatrist?
I email my representatives and they or a staffer does respond occasionally. That is the way it works here on earth. How it works on your home world is unknown to me....
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2388 comments)
on Monday, October 9, 2006 at 7:25:36 AM
But let's face it,that is not how deals are made. If your elected representatives are not replying to you directly then they usually consider you a flake or an opposition partsan.
I somehow sense you don't understand a representative democracy and its practical implemenatation in the US today.
Congrats you can't accomplish anything politically here in the US; so you are out to overthrow the system. Figures.
by
Vulture (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 153 comments)
on Monday, October 9, 2006 at 10:22:49 AM
