Plutocracy Now!

a website highlighting the plutocracy we live in.

[plutocracynow]

edit: I think this thread (the OP) got removed/deleted from /r/television... interesting. I've been an employee of Comcast for almost the last 9 year...

[plutocracynow]

[magictransistor]

[plutocracynow]

"Hey, is it me you're looking for?"

[plutocracynow]

[plutocracynow]

As President Obama and Congressional lawmakers begin a new round of deficit-reduction talks, a new Pew Research Center survey illustrates an important aspect of their challenge: While Americans see a need to make changes to the popular entitlement programs, they "decisively support" keeping Social Security and Medicare benefits as they are now.

[plutocracynow]

Sen. Orrin Hatch Says "The Poor" Should Do More To Shrink Deficit, Not The Rich

WASHINGTON -- Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) voted against beginning debate on a measure that would have the Senate declare the rich should share the pain of debt reduction Thursday, a day after arguing that it's the poor and middle class who need to do more.

"I hear how they're so caring for the poor and so forth," Hatch said in remarks on the Senate floor Wednesday, in reference to Democrats. "The poor need jobs! And they also need to share some of the responsibility."

Hatch's comments were aimed at a motion that passed 74 to 22 to start debating a non-binding resolution that says millionaires and billionaires should play a more meaningful role in reducing the nation's debt.

Just one Democrat, Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), voted against having the debate. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), who had previously called the resolution "rather pathetic," nevertheless voted to move ahead on it.

But it was Hatch whose remarks Wednesday raised the idea that the wealthy are already doing too much, even as the nation's effective tax rates are at modern lows since the Bush administration slashed rates in 2001 and 2003. In his view, it seems, the middle class and poor should be picking up the slack.

"The top 1 percent of the so-called wealthy pay 38 percent of all income tax. The top 10 percent are paying 70 percent of all income tax," Hatch said. "The top 50 percent pay somewhere near 98 percent of all income taxes. 51 percent don't pay anything," Hatch said, suggesting the payroll taxes that the poor and middle classes pay towards Social Security yields them an especially generous benefit.

"Democrats say they [the 51 percent] pay payroll taxes. Well, everybody does that because that's Social Security. They pay about one-third of what they're going to take out over the years in social security," Hatch railed. "Obamacare -- a family of four earning over $80,000 a year -- gets subsidies. Think about that. That's what we call the poor?"

Hatch hedged that the the poorest of the poor shouldn't have to pay taxes. But he was clear that people who qualify for subsidies because they can't afford things like health care should dig deeper.

"Now, we don't want the really poor people who are in poverty to have to pay income taxes," he said. "But 51% of all households. And that's going up, by the way, because of our friend down in the White House and his allies."

[plutocracynow]

[plutocracynow]

Executive pay raises 23% this year.

IT turns out that the good times are even better than we thought for American chief executives.

A preliminary examination ofexecutive pay in 2010, based on data available as of April 1, found that the paychecks for top American executives were growing again, after shrinking during the 2008-9 recession.

But that study, conducted for The New York Times by Equilar, an executive compensation data firm based in Redwood City, Calif., was just an early snapshot, and there were even more riches to come. Some big companies had not yet disclosed their executive compensation.

So Sunday Business asked Equilar to run the numbers again.

Brace yourself.

The final figures show that the median pay for top executives at 200 big companies last year was $10.8 million. That works out to a 23 percent gain from 2009. The earlier study had put the median pay at a none-too-shabby $9.6 million, up 12 percent.

Total C.E.O. pay hasn’t quite returned to its heady, prerecession levels — but it certainly seems headed there. Despite the soft economy, weak home prices and persistently high unemployment, some top executives are already making more than they were before the economy soured.

Pay skyrocketed last year because many companies brought back cash bonuses, says Aaron Boyd, head of research at Equilar. Cash bonuses, as opposed to those awarded in stock options, jumped by an astounding 38 percent, the final numbers show.

Granted, many American corporations did well last year. Profits were up substantially. As a result, many companies are sharing the wealth, at least with their executives. “We’re seeing a lot of that reflected in the pay,” Mr. Boyd says.

And at a time of so much tumult in the media business, it might be surprising that some executives in media and communications were among the most richly rewarded last year.

The preliminary and final studies put Philippe P. Dauman, the chief executive of Viacom, at the top of the list. Mr. Dauman made $84.5 million last year, after signing a new long-term contract that included one-time stock awards.

Leslie Moonves, of the CBS Corporation, got a 32 percent raise and reaped $56.9 million. Michael White of DirecTV was paid $32.9 million, while Brian L. Roberts of the Comcast Corporation and Robert A. Iger of the Walt Disney Company each received pay packages valued at $28 million.

“Media firms seemed to be paying a lot,” said Carol Bowie, head of compensation policy development at ISS Governance, which advises large investors on corporate governance issues like proxy votes. “Media companies in general tend to be high-payers, and they tend to feed off each other.”

Other big payers included oil and commodities companies like Exxon Mobil and a few technology giants like Oracle and I.B.M.

Some of the other highly paid executives on the new list who were not in the April survey are Gregg W. Steinhafel of Target, who had a $23.5 million pay package; Michael E. Szymanczyk of Altria, $20.77 million; and Richard C. Adkerson of Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold, $35.3 million.

Most ordinary Americans aren’t getting raises anywhere close to those of these chief executives. Many aren’t getting raises at all — or even regular paychecks. Unemployment is still stuck at more than 9 percent.

In some ways, chief executives seem to live in a world apart when it comes to pay. As long as shareholders think that the top brass is doing a good job, executives tend to be well paid, whatever the state of the broader economy. And some corporate boards were probably particularly generous in 2010 after a few relatively lean years for their top executives. In other words, some of this was makeup pay.

“What is of more concern to shareholders is that it looks like C.E.O. pay is recovering faster than company fortunes,” says Paul Hodgson, chief communications officer for GovernanceMetrics International, a ratings and research firm.

According to a report released by GovernanceMetrics in June, the good times for chief executives just keep getting better. Many executives received stock options that were granted in 2008 and 2009, when the stock market was sinking.

Now that the market has recovered from its lows of the financial crisis, many executives are sitting on windfall profits, at least on paper. In addition, cash bonuses for the highest-paid C.E.O.’s are at three times prerecession levels, the report said.

Of course, these sorts of pay figures invariably push the buttons of many ordinary Americans. Yes, workers’ 401(k)’s are looking better than they did in some recent years, but many investors still have not recovered from the hit they took during the financial crisis. And, of course, millions are out of work or trying to hold on to their homes — or both.

And it’s not as if most workers are getting fat raises. The average American worker was taking home $752 a week in late 2010, up a mere 0.5 percent from a year earlier. After inflation, workers were actually making less.

On the flip side, some chief executives have consistently taken token salaries — sometimes, $1 — choosing instead to rely on their ownership stakes for wealth. These stock riches don’t show up on the current pay lists, but they can be huge.

Warren E. Buffett, for instance, saw his stock holdings rise last year by 16 percent, to $46 billion. Other longtime chief executives or founders who are sitting on billions of paper profits include Jeffrey P. Bezos of Amazon.com and Michael S. Dell, the founder of Dell.

Resurgent executive pay has some corporate watchdogs worried that companies have already forgotten the lessons of the bust. Boards have promised to tie executive pay to company success, but by some measures pay is rising faster than performance. The median pay raise for chief executives last year — 23 percent — was roughly in line with the increase in net corporate profits. But it far exceeded the median gain in shareholders’ total return, which was 16 percent, as well as the median gain in revenue, which was 7 percent.

FOR the moment, shareholders aren’t storming executive suites. And while they received a say on pay under new federal rules last year, their votes are nonbinding. In other words, boards can still do as they please.

Pay specialists say companies are taking a hard look at these votes. Still, only about 1.5 percent of the 200 companies in the Equilar study were rebuffed by their shareholders on pay. A vast majority of the votes passed overwhelmingly, with 80 percent or 90 percent support, according to Mr. Boyd of Equilar.

Mr. Boyd says companies are making an effort to explain their pay plans. “We saw companies take it very seriously,” he says of the new rule.

In some respects, the mere possibility that shareholders might reject a proposed pay plan is enough to make corporate executives think again. Ms. Bowie of ISS says that outrageous payouts — such as so-called tax gross-ups, in which companies cover executives’ tax bills on perks like corporate jets — are becoming rarer.

Disney for instance, eliminated tax gross-ups this year in the face of shareholder ire, she said.

Company directors have the power to rein in runaway executive pay, but it is unclear whether either they or shareholders will do so in 2012. “It can be done if there is the will,” Ms. Bowie says.

[plutocracynow]

The Supreme Court shows corporate America how to screw over its customers and employees without breaking the law.

Depending on how you count "big cases," the Supreme Court has just finished off either a great (according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce) or spectacularly great (according to a new study by the Constitutional Accountability Center) term for big business. The measure of success here isn't just the win-loss record of the Chamber of Commerce, although that's certainly part of the story. Nor is it news that—in keeping with a recent trend—the court is systematically closing the courthouse doors to everyday litigants, though that's a tale that always bears retelling. The reason the Roberts Court has proven to be Christmas in July for big business is this: Slowly but surely, the Supreme Court is giving corporate America a handbook on how to engage in misconduct. In case after case, it seems big companies are being given the playbook on how to win even bigger the next time.

Start with one of the most important cases of the term, therecently deceased class-action suit filed by a million and a half women employed by Wal-Mart. The headlines—including mine—contended that the import of the court's decision lay in the ways class-action suits would be severely limited in the future. But dig a little deeper. In his majority opinion on behalf of the five conservatives on the court, Justice Antonin Scalia found that Wal-Mart could not be held accountable for discrimination in pay and promotions because the plaintiffs lacked "convincing proof of a companywide discriminatory pay and promotion policy." Then Scalia went one further and offered Wal-Mart, the largest private employer in the country, a virtual guidebook on how to discriminate better: Do it in bulk up and down the chain of command, and make certain to do it at every possible level. As SCOTUSblog's Lyle Denniston pointed out almost immediately after the decision came down:

For large companies in general, the ruling in Wal-Mart … offered a second message: the bigger the company, the more varied and decentralized its job practices, the less likely it will have to face a class-action claim. Only workers who have a truly common legal claim may sue as a group, the Court majority made clear—and, even that claim will require rigorous proof that every single worker suffered from exactly the same sort of bias. Sample statistics and anecdotes won't do.

The greatest impact of the Wal-Mart decision isn't the blow dealt to class-action suits. It's the guidance it provides employers: Immunize yourself from claims of gender discrimination with a written policy that says "we don't discriminate" and a system of decentralized decision-making. The decision doesn't discourage future corporate discrimination. It just makes it harder to identify and prove it.

The same is true for the court's remarkable 5-4 holding in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion. In that decision, the court read a federal statute to mean that consumers may not participate in class action suits if their contract—in this case, with a cell phone company—contains an arbitration agreement (by which, I promise you, you are currently bound). In AT&T, a class of California plaintiffs tried to bundle together their claims alleging that AT&T had engaged in false advertising and fraud by charging sales tax on phones it had promoted as free. California law provided that the mandatory arbitration provision was not enforceable and that the parties should be allowed to litigate as a class. But the court—Scalia writing again—determined that the California rule was pre-empted by the Federal Arbitration Act. "It was important [for the court] to protect defendants, such as corporations, from the 'in terrorem' effects of class actions, which pressure them into settlements," writes Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC-Irvine School of Law. "In fact, the Court went further and said that the Federal Arbitration Act requires that claims be arbitrated on an individual basis and that class arbitration is not allowed."

Yes, the AT&T case will make class-action suits vastly less likely, as Justice Stephen Breyer pointed out in his dissent: "What rational lawyer would have signed on to represent the Concepcions in litigation for the possibility of fees stemming from a $30.22 claim? The realistic alternative to a class action is not 17 million individual suits, but zero individual suits, as only a lunatic or a fanatic sues for $30." Even more important, however, the case provides corporate America with another useful tip on how to avoid costly litigation: If you haven't already done so, rush to lock your customers and /or employees into invisible mandatory arbitration agreements that will bar them from challenging your misconduct in a class-action suit. As Nan Aron at Alliance for Justice explained when the AT&T case first came down, the real winner here was not "justice":

Corporations will now be able to decide on their own which civil rights and consumer protections they want to obey, knowing that there will be no effective means available to their victims to find redress. Even worse, not only has the radical conservative majority damaged the ability of consumers or employees to find justice, it has effectively removed any incentive for corporations to behave within the law in the first place. Why act lawfully if your victims are helpless, especially in cases like this when the harm to each individual is small but the potential for profit is huge?

Think Progress' Ian Millhiser put it even more starkly. After AT&T, he writes, big corporations "need never worry about a class action again. They can simply tell all of their workers to sign away their rights or they're fired. Likewise, cell phone companies, banks, credit card companies, nursing homes—indeed, anyone who requires you to sign an agreement before they will do business with you—can completely immunize themselves from class actions simply by adding a few magic words to the agreement." We may need a new metaphor. This is not merely closing the courthouse doors anymore. It's turning the civil justice system into a hostage situation.

Which brings us to the third case in this trifecta, a case that has gone largely unnoticed in the blur that is the end of the 2010 term: In yet another 5-4 decision last week, Janus Capital Group, Inc. v. First Derivative Traders, the court not only immunized big business from yet more awkward and messy litigation; it gave them an instruction manual on how best to lie to consumers. Millhiser again:

Securities and Exchange Commission regulations make it illegal to "make any untrue statement of a material fact … in connection with the purchase or sale of any security." And according to a complaint filed by the New York Attorney General's office, an investment company named Janus did exactly that. Essentially, the complaint maintains, Janus promised its investors that it would prevent any new investors from engaging in a particular kind of price manipulation while secretly entering into agreements permitting that manipulation to occur.

In a 5-4 opinion written by Justice Clarence Thomas, the court found that the false and misleading statements made by Janus were not in fact "made" by Janus but by a second company Janus had set up, which acted—in Thomas' view—more like … a speechwriter. And, as a mere speechwriter, of course, it couldn't be held responsible for its statements.

Even though Janus Capital Management did indeed produce the false prospectuses, the court found that they were actually filed by a separate legal entity—the Janus Investment Fund. And even though the Janus Investment Fund is run by Janus Capital Management, Janus Capital Management is not on the hook for the lies. Wrote Thomas, "Even when a speechwriter drafts a speech, the content is entirely within the control of the person who delivers it. And it is the speaker who takes credit—or blame—for what is ultimately said."

Don't even bother asking how huge financial companies will benefit from the holding in the case. It's as easy as setting up a dummy corporation to make your false statements for you. In the wake of the holding, William A. Birdthistle, an associate professor of law at Chicago-Kent College of Law, told Bloomberg columnist Susan Antilla to expect "corporations outside of the investment-management business to alter their legal structures to gain the same protection that funds now enjoy." As he put it, "In Delaware, with 30 minutes and $50, you can create a legal entity."

As the Boston Globe editorialized, the new rule "lets Janus and similar companies hide false information in a complicated organization chart [and] can only undermine public confidence in the mutual fund industry over time." Ask yourself whether you really want the Supreme Court to be in the business of teaching corporate giants how better to deceive you about your investments. Yet Thomas, like Scalia in the AT&T case, was more worried about Janus, and its possible exposure to burdensome new lawsuits, than he was about the investors who were deceived. The purpose of civil litigation isn't solely to redress past wrongs. It's also to encourage better future conduct, particularly in situations where the parties have vastly unequal power. When you obliterate the very possibility of civil litigation, you are, by definition, helping big business screw over the little guy. But when you teach big business precisely howto screw over the little guy, and how to do it faster, cheaper, and without detection … well, that's not even an illusion of justice anymore. It's enabling.

[plutocracynow]

Movement to Abolish Corporate Personhood Gaining Traction

In the year and a half since the Citizens United decision, Americans from all walks of life have become concerned about corporate dominance of our government and our society as a whole. In Citizens United v. FEC, the U.S. Supreme Court (in an act of outrageous “judicial activism") gutted existing campaign finance laws by ruling that corporations, wealthy individuals, and other entities can spend unlimited amounts of money on political campaigns.

Throughout the country people have responded by organizing against “corporate personhood,” a court-created precedent that illegitimately gives corporations rights that were intended for human beings. 

The movement is flowering not in the halls of Congress, but at the local level, where all real social movements start. Every day Americans experience the devastation caused by unaccountable corporations. Thanks to the hard work of local organizers, Boulder, CO could become the next community to officially join this growing effort. Councilmember Macon Cowles is proposing to place a measure on the November ballot, giving Boulder voters the opportunity to support an amendment to the U. S. Constitution abolishing corporate personhood and declaring that money is not speech. 

At the forefront of this movement is Move to Amend, a national coalition of hundreds of organizations and over 113,000 individuals (and counting). Move to Amend is committed to building a grassroots movement to abolish corporate personhood, to hold corporations accountable to the public, and ultimately to fulfill the promise of an American democratic republic. 

Boulder is not alone in this fight, nor is it the first community to consider such a resolution. In April, voters in Madison and Dane County, WI overwhelmingly approved measures calling for an end to corporate personhood and the legal status of money as speech by 84% and 78% respectively. Similar resolutions have been passed in nearly thirty other cities and counties. Resolutions have also been introduced in the state legislatures of both Vermont and Washington. 

Despite the momentum, Move to Amend organizers know this won’t be an easy fight. Corporate America controls traditional media, and has invested heavily in politicians, lobbyists, and extremist groups to oppose our efforts. We can’t expect Congress to act, nor can we depend on the courts to solve a problem of their own making. We draw our strategy and inspiration from the great social movements of history.  

The abolition of slavery, the struggle for women’s suffrage, trade unions, and the civil rights movement all started with grassroots organizing. The ruling elites denounced these movements as un-American, and they will make the same accusation against this effort. Others claimed that those movements went “too far,” and were unrealistic. Thankfully, folks before us did not quit or give up. They gained traction with solid strategy, unwavering commitment, and moral authority. 

Move To Amend proudly identifies with this tradition of engaged citizen participation. Building momentum with local organizing and resolutions is our best chance of driving a constitutional amendment into Congress. Recent events in Boulder provide an example of this strategy in practice. Months of education, organizing, and advocacy by Boulder Move to Amend empowered Councilman Cowles to provide political leadership and prepared the community to respond. 

Awareness of corporate personhood in Boulder is now higher than ever before. It is widely viewed as a mainstream issue, having earned the support of local Democratic Party leaders. Answering critics of the measure, Boulder County Democratic Party Chairperson Dan Gould recently told the Daily Camera that corporate personhood is an issue that must be addressed locally. "This is as important as municipalization, this is as important as school bonds," he said. "This is immediate." 

Move to Amend is gaining momentum rapidly in communities throughout the country precisely because the problems of corporate power are most evident locally. Developers seeking special favors pour money into elections. Big polluters avoid investigations and litigation by hiding behind their illegitimate “rights.” Bad employers lie to the public about unfair labor practices with no legal consequences. People see it every day. They get it and they’re ready to fight back. Move to Amend is here to help them do that with a strategy for long-term success.

[plutocracynow]

Egypt and Tunisia: Plutocracy Won

It is no longer necessary to hypothesize about the purpose of the “velvet revolutions” in North Africa and adjacent states: they are already following the same path as those manufactured in the former Soviet bloc. Senators John McCain, Joe Lieberman, and John Kerry recently went to Tunisia and Egypt with a group of businessmen to discuss the direction of those states.

Senators John Kerry (left) and John McCain (third from left) ring the bell to pen the Cairo stock exchange market on June 26, 2011 (Amr Nabil/AP)

Members of the delegation included General Electric CEO Jeff Immelt, and officials from Boeing, Coca-Cola, Bechtel, ExxonMobil, Marriot, and Dow. Kerry, McCain, and Lieberman have sponsored a Bill to create “economic assistance funds” for Egypt and Tunisia. “In proposing the bill, the elected officials urged the United States to back the revolutionary movements across the region known as the ‘Arab Spring.”‘[1] Now that the “Arab Spring” has been largely successful, the Senators can be open in support for what the US really instigated from the start at a time when media and political pundits and Administration spokesmen put on a show on the world stage of being “taken by surprise.”[2]

A press release from Senator McCain’s office states that, “the delegation met with government, business, and civil society leaders and discussed how greater democratic and economic reform can lead to greater foreign investment.”[3] What McCain’s office is stating is that the US senior policy-makers, along with a gaggle of business executives, have not wasted much time in going to the two states in which the “Arab Spring” originated. They have sought to lay down thedirection of the two states in regard to political and economic processes, to enable Tunisia and Egypt to enter as fully paid up (literally) members of the “new world order.” McCain is quoted as stating:

This delegation, which consisted of leaders from some of America’s largest companies, was also a critical show of support for Tunisia and Egypt as they continue their unprecedented transitions to democracy. The success of these transitions requires vigorous economic growth in both countries. At this critical time for all of our economies, the U.S. private sector can play an essential role in creating mutually beneficial economic gains for Americans, Tunisians, and Egyptians alike.[4]

The delegation has made its position clear to the Egyptian and Tunisian interim governments: The future economic direction of those states that have succumbed to the “Arab Spring” will proceed along the path expected by those who provided the training and the funding for the revolts. Immelt of General Electric alluded to precisely what type of economic model was expected:

I was pleased to join Senators McCain and Kerry on this important trip to Egypt and Tunisia to help drive market competitiveness and open up opportunities … Recent events here present a critical opportunity to re-energize economic growth and development. As GE and other U.S. businesses invest in this dynamic region, we will create opportunities for the people of the region as well as Americans.[5]

We might discern from the statement by Mr Immelt one of the major aims of globalist sponsorship for the “Arab Spring”: “market competitiveness” and the opening up of the economies of the region to predatory capital. The “energizing of economic growth and development” will be of the type that accords with free market and “open society” doctrine. Immelt talks of “creating opportunities in the region as well as for Americans,” which is a euphemism for a system that has profited the globalists beyond measure, but which has provided no opportunities for ordinary folk in the USA and the West, let alone being able to usher in a Golden Age of prosperity and universal happiness for those in North Africa and nearby states. Indeed, as recent years have shown, the free market model being foisted over the world is designed for the benefit of an international oligarchy, but one that seems to have unleashed a system that they are not themselves able to control, or at least one whose chaos might provide the pretext for further plutocratic domination. If it has not been able to bring anything but chaos and dispossession to the masses of the USA and the West generally, what is the “free market” expected to bring to the masses of Arabs? However, as with the opening up of China by the Rockefeller-Kissinger crowd during the 1970s, from the globalists’ point of view, the utopian vision is for many more Muslims to be guzzling Coca Cola and more fully engaging as consumers in the global village.

Apart form Immeld, he other business executives in the delegation were:

• C. David Welch, Region President for Europe, Africa and Middle East, Bechtel, Ltd.

• Jeffrey Johnson, President, Middle East, Boeing.

• Curtis A. Ferguson, President, Coca-Cola Middle East & North Africa.

• James R. Fitterling, Executive Vice President and President, Corporate Development, Hydrocarbons, Dow.

• Andrew David Wells, Chairman and Managing Director, ExxonMobil Egypt.

• Edwin D. Fuller, President and Managing Director, International Lodging, Marriott International, Inc.

• Nabil Habayeb, President & CEO, MENAT (Middle East, North Africa & Turkey), General Electric Company.[6]

Globalist Affiliations

Anything that McCain is involved with should prompt suspicion. He is one of the heralds of the “world democratic revolution” in the service of American, and ultimately plutocratic hegemony. He has also recently visited Myanmar,[7] one of the states on the globalist hit-list. McCain is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the pre-eminent globalist think tank and father of them all. Other CFR members on the delegation were: C David Welch, Bechtel Ltd.[8]; Senator John Kerry, and Sen. Joe Lieberman. That is to say, all the Senatorial leaders of the delegation are CFR members.[9]

Of the corporations represented in the delegation, the following are “corporate sponsors” of the CFR: Boeing, Coca Cola, ExxonMobil (a “founding” corporate member), General Electric.[10]

One of the more interesting aspects of John Kerry is his being an initiate of the Yale-based crypto-Masonic society, Lodge 322. It is significant that Lodge 322 does not “tap” those they select for initiation at Yale until their senior year, and once having graduated they become “patriarchs.” Hence the basis of Lodge 322 is to recruit members according to what they the might become after they leave Yale. It is therefore something more than simply a college frat. Interestingly, in the presidential race between Bush and Kerry, both were Lodge initiates, the Bush family having inter-generational connections.[11]

Of McCain, he is up to his neck in globalist proselytising. As Chairman of the International Republican Institute (IRI), he heads an organization whose avowed aim is to reshape states around the world in accordance with “American” (i.e. plutocratic) concepts of “democracy. As has been documented by this writer and others in Foreign Policy Journal, IRI is not only involved with instigating revolts and “regime change” but in formulating the precise course desired for newly “liberated” states, which includes formulating the programs of political parties, and virtually creating party-systems. As I have documented previously, the IRI “Republicans” work in tandem” with the post-Trotskyite “Democrats” of the National Endowment for Democracy, and an array of other think tanks and NGOs in promoting the “world democratic revolution.”[12]

As for the presence of Zionist luminary Joe Lieberman in Tunisia and Egypt, will Egyptians and Tunisians now be questioning what they were revolting about and for what purposes? Probably not. Once the spectre of the atavistic mob is unleashed under the guise of “liberty, equality, fraternity,” as the revolutionaries of another era put it, it takes some time for the ramifications of their actions to be comprehended. The disquiet that was expressed regarding the toppling of regimes “friendly to the USA” and how their demise might impact negatively on Israel was smoke and mirrors. The likes of NED, IRI, Movements.org, etc are not going to back any movement that endangers the Zionist entity in Palestine. Lieberman had been among the most aggressive of Senators in urging military action in the Middle East.[13] The Arab “democrats” have sold their birthright for a mess of pottage, for nothing other than the nebulous glitter of the golden calf from far off America.

Notes[1] “Top US senators join business trip to Tunisia, Egypt,” Middle East Online, June 23 2011, http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=46901

[2] K R Bolton, “Tunisian Revolt: another Soros/NED Jack-Up?,” Foreign Policy Journal, January 18, 2011,http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/01/18/Tunisian-revolt-another-sorosned-jack-up

“What’s Behind the Tumult in Egypt?,” Foreign Policy Journal, February 1, 2011

http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/02/01/whats-behind-the-tumult-in-egypt

[3]“Delegation travels to Tunisia and Egypt,” US Senator John McCain, Press Releases, June 26, 2011, http://mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressOffice.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=cc33f776-09f9-2146-18b0-20aa1f3ca218

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid.

[7] McCain visited Myanmar on June 1, and urged the USA to maintain its economic sanctions, suggesting that Myanmar might face an “Arab-style revolution.” Wai Moe, “McCain: Burma Could Face Revolt, Sanctions Should Remain,” The Irrawaddy, June 3, 2011, http://www.irrawaddy.org/article.php?art_id=21427

In other words, McCain warned that the USA would continue applying the economic pressure, while the “Red Power” activists could expect US support in the event of a revolt.  See: K R Bolton, “Myanmar Targeted by Globalists,”Foreign Policy Journal, June 1 2011,http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/06/01/myanmar-targeted-by-globalists

[8] C David Welch, now a president of Bechtel Corp., has a long career as a US diplomat, served on the National Security Council, and was ambassador to Egypt. C David Welch, “Biography”, US State Department, March 25, 2005,http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/biog/43834.htm

[9] Council on Foreign Relations, “Membership Roster,”http://www.cfr.org/about/membership/roster.html?letter=I

[10] Council on Foreign Relations, “Corporate Membership,”http://www.cfr.org/about/corporate/roster.html

[11] A comprehensive article on Lodge 322 by mainstream media can be found at: R Leung, “Skull and Bones,” CBS 60 Minutes, February 11, 2009,http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/02/60minutes/main576332.shtml

[12] K R Bolton, “The Globalist Web of Subversion,” Foreign Policy Journal, February 7, 2011, http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/02/07/the-globalist-web-of-subversion/

Also: New Dawn (Australia) Special Issue No. 16, pp. 17-30.

[13] “Joseph Lieberman,” Source Watch,http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Joseph_Lieberman

[plutocracynow]

Stephen Colbert Takes On SUPER PACs

UPDATE: The FEC has unironically approved Colbert's Super PAC

WASHINGTON — Stephen Colbert delights in lampooning politicians on his Comedy Central show, but he plans to raise some serious issues about public disclosure of corporate campaign contributions before the Federal Election Commission on Thursday.

Colbert, who plays a conservative TV pundit on "The Colbert Report," wants to launch Colbert Super PAC, a type of political action committee that would allow him to raise unlimited amounts of money from corporations, unions and individuals to support or oppose candidates in the 2012 elections through independent expenditures such as TV ads.

Colbert is asking the commission on Thursday for a so-called media exemption to allow him to use his show's airtime, staff and other resources for his political action committee without having to publicly disclose them as in-kind contributions from Comedy Central's parent company, Viacom Inc.

Colbert has said those undisclosed contributions could include the use of his show's staff to create TV advertisements about candidates that would air as paid commercials on other shows and networks.

The Campaign Legal Center and Democracy 21 have urged the election commission to reject Colbert's request because they said it could open a "gaping loophole" in campaign disclosure laws.

"I would suspect that Mr. Colbert would not want his activities to serve as a vehicle for opening up major loopholes in the campaign finance laws that would allow companies to provide secret money to influence elections," said Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21.

The two campaign finance watchdog groups warned that a favorable ruling for Colbert could spur many more undisclosed contributions to political figures who are TV hosts or commentators and who could opt to create their own super PACs to take advantage of any new loopholes.

The groups cited politicians such Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum who already have traditional political action committees and are either working now, or have worked, as TV hosts or commentators.

"Many television show hosts who are serious politicians have political committees that could reap great financial benefit" if Colbert wins a favorable ruling, the groups wrote in a joint letter to the Federal Election Commission.

Trevor Potter, a prominent campaign finance attorney and a former Federal Election Commission chairman who is representing Colbert, declined to comment.

Potter heads The Campaign Legal Center but said he is acting solely as Colbert's attorney and has disqualified himself from having any role in the group's actions on the Colbert matter.

"The Colbert Report" has used satire to shine a light on campaign finance rules following the Citizens United ruling by the Supreme Court that helped pave the way for super PACs. Campaign finance reform advocates complained the ruling gave wealthy donors, particularly companies and unions, considerably more sway in politics.

Super PACs can accept unlimited contributions from corporations, labor unions or individuals, unlike candidates or traditional political action committees. Super PACs cannot contribute directly to candidates, however.

Asked if Colbert's effort to form a super PAC is serious or more of a stunt, Potter said Wednesday that the comic is raising important and complex questions that the Federal Election Commission is wrestling with.

"There are serious, legitimate, questions about what such a PAC has to report to the FEC," Potter said in an email response to The Associated Press. "Those questions are the subject of Mr. Colbert's advisory opinion request to the commission."

Colbert's campaign to create a political action committee is not without some comic jabs. His political action committee slogan is "Making a better tomorrow, tomorrow."

Colbert's comic flair surfaced in a recent letter to the Federal Election Commission.

"Colbert Super PAC will also pay usual and normal administrative expenses, including but not limited to luxury hotel stays, private jet travel and PAC mementos from Saks Fifth Avenue and Neiman Marcus," Colbert's lawyers wrote to the commissioners.

"This is not just about the cash," the comedian said during Wednesday night's episode of "The Colbert Report." "I will also accept credit cards."

In March, Colbert said he was forming a traditional political action committee. But that kind of committee has stricter rules on fundraising, so he announced plans to form his own super PAC instead.

Colbert has said any ads for Colbert Super PAC would not be coordinated with any candidate or party.

[plutocracynow]

Dems Say Supreme Court Too Pro-Business

WASHINGTON -- Senate Democrats at a partisan-tinged hearing say the Supreme Court's conservative majority is wrongly favoring businesses over consumers, employees and investors.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy opened a committee hearing Tuesday by criticizing what he called "the most business friendly Supreme Court in the last 75 years."

Among the witnesses was Betty Dukes, the Wal-Mart greeter who lent her name to the massive sex-discrimination lawsuit that the court blocked last week by a 5-4 vote. Dukes vowed to continue her individual lawsuit and said that perhaps smaller groups of female Wal-Mart employees still would band together to press claims of unfair pay and promotions.

Business interests won slightly more often at the court than they lost in the past year, including victories in their most important cases.

[plutocracynow]

“We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can’t have both.”

- Justice Louis D Brandeis

[plutocracynow]

AIG CEO Calls For Self-Regulation

In the aftermath of the financial crisis, American International Group was bailed out by the federal government. But evidently, that truth hasn't stopped their current CEO from arguing that the company should be allowed to regulate itself.

This week, when asked by CNN's Poppy Harlow for his opinion on financial reform, AIG CEO Robert Benmosche made his views clear. "Right now, the most important thing is that we've got to get companies to regulate themselves and to do the right thing," he told CNN viewers. The regulator's job, he continued, is "to figure out how to improve that system."

In 2008, AIG required a $180 billion bailout package in order to stay afloat after the company teetered close to collapse, according to CNN. Prior to the collapse, the company had insured $441 billion worth of mortgage-backed securities for Wall Street banks in the form of credit default swaps, reportsBloomberg. When the system imploded, AIG became the big insurer that couldn't keep up.

Still, in the CNN interview, Benmosche defebded investment banks, saying the practices employed were not criminal, simply the result of bad management.

"It could be just sloppy underwriting, it could be sloppy business," Benmosche said. "And that's just not illegal, unless you portray something one way and you knew it wasn't."

Before the financial crisis, self-regulation was the mantra of many on Wall Street, reports The New York Times. Former Federal Reserve Alan Greenspan, who during his tenure as Federal Reserve chair was a big proponent of the self-regulating philosophy, has since admitted that this philosophy was flawed. “Yes, I’ve found a flaw [with self-regulation]," he told lawmakers in October 2008. "I don’t know how significant or permanent it is. But I’ve been very distressed by that fact.”

Benmosche's call for self-regulation stands in contrast to stark criticism of the firm's actions in the wake of its bailout. In 2009, AIG faced criticism for paying more than $165 million in bonuses to executives in charge when the firm was brought to the brink of disaster.

Later that year, in a letter written by Representative Joe Courtney (D-CT) and co-signed by 78 other members of the House of Representatives, the Congressman was especially critical of AIG, according to Bloomberg.

“This company, more than any other single entity, is responsible for the crash of world credit markets,” he wrote. “AIG has shamelessly lined up for a $170 billion handout only to be used to cover up its own incompetence and irresponsible business practices.”

Benmosche, since taking over the firm in 2009, has had a bit of a rocky public profile, CNN reported in 2009. He reportedly told AIG employees that if Congress requested he testify before them, he would reply that they should "stick it where the sun don't shine." He also reportedly threatened to resign over government pay restrictions.

[plutocracynow]

Three Cheers for American Plutocracy!

As many of us were aware, back in the 2008 presidential campaign Barack Obama's biggest campaign contributor was the now infamous Wall Street giant Goldman Sachs who contributed, in total, to the Obama campaign nearly one million dollars, becoming Obama's second largest contributor of campaign funds being beaten by the University of California who topped the one million dollar mark with slightly over one and a half million dollars.

As many of us were aware, back in the 2008 presidential campaign Barack Obama's biggest campaign contributor was the now infamous Wall Street giant Goldman Sachs who contributed, in total, to the Obama campaign nearly one million dollars, becoming Obama's second largest contributor of campaign funds being beaten by the University of California who topped the one million dollar mark with slightly over one and a half million dollars. During his election Obama promised the American people many things, but what I'm sure most Americans remember most vividly was the promise of change; not merely the changing of the man sitting behind the big brown desk in the oval office, but structural change that would alter the very fabric of our society and tilt the balance of the nation's wealth back towards the middle class after three decades of industry slowly capturing government and tipping the scales in its favor creating a rigged game where not only do corporations lose, but resources of all sorts, even the resource of human labor, became commodities to be bought, sold, and exploited for corporate gain. The American people had awakened from a dream where in which they believed that by permitting the corporate world to gain unfettered access to the government the wealth that would be created would be unprecedented, and most importantly, that it would trickle down to the little fellow, who could then rejoice alongside the CEOs, popping champagne corks, and live in a never ending world of increasing wealth of prosperity.

But when the people woke from their dream and realized they had been hoodwinked into believing that which was impossible they turned to a man who promised them that the days of corporate America reaping all the rewards of the nation's hard work were over. Unfortunately, the American people found that they had been hoodwinked again, by a masterful liar and corporatist, our current President. After the election when the team of so called economic 'whiz kids' remained in place the logic was that only those responsible for the mess could adequately clean it up. The brilliant Nobel Prize winning economic minds of men such as Joseph Stiglitz, Paul Krugman,  and others were shunned away from the oval office so that the establishment figures could continue to plan the nation's future. But, of course, even President Obama won a Nobel Peace prize while waging three wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, so perhaps the award has lost some of its luster.

Here were are two years later waist deep in the worst economy since the depression of the 1930's, and not only has the government failed to improve the lives of the millions who are suffering what they have done was half-ass, conservative, and cowardly. Since the passage of the stimulus bill, one third of which was tax cuts that provided little stimulative effect to the general economy, the biggest pieces of legislation the government has passed was a two year extension of the George W. Bush tax cuts that overwhelmingly benefit the wealthy, and explode the deficit,  while unemployment insurance was extended for a paltry 13 months. And add that to the 2011 fiscal year budget the government passed that gut programs that benefit those most exposed to this terrible economy all the while the thieves and bandits who created this mess received bailouts. a slap on the wrist, like miniscule payments of fines adding up to a fraction of the money stolen and defrauded, for being naughty boys; and not only that the bankers responsible have essentially been guaranteed immunity from prosecution. (Though the NYC District Attorney is looking into the case, and might pursue a criminal investigation, but it is highly unlikely to result in much of anything.

Millions of Americans have lost their jobs, enormous amounts of wealth, their homes, their futures and on, and on. In light of all this, our ever so caring President has thought it wise to appoint Jeffrey Immelt, President of GE, to become the government's job tzar, despite having to have his company bailed out by the government when GE Capital, a derivatives trading component of GE threatened to bankrupt the entire company. Add to all of that that since Immelt took over GE has done nothing but shed jobs and starting in 2010 only 44% of its workforce was stationed in America, and therefore benefited the American economy. In global profits last year GE made approximately 14 billion dollars, and even had the nerve to ask 15,000 of its union employees to take cuts in pay and benefits this year. Oh, and also, GE paid zero dollars in federal income taxes last year as well, as do most of America's corporate giants seeing as how 57 percent of them who do business in the U.S. paid not a dime in federal income taxes through 1998 and 2005.

Now that it is time for President Obama to run for president again I am certain the rhetoric, the soaring populist rhetoric, that we hear throughout 2008 will be brought back with full force, but its effect on the populace I imagine will be far less persuasive. To see evidence of that one need only examine the 2010 midterm election results. Clearly those results stung the conservative President who displayed his frustration in the following days press conference addressing his party's defeat. And with that defeat came the now predictable corporatist Democrat triangulation. Obama will, as the always 'insightful' establishment media tells him, move to the 'center', exactly as Bill Clinton did in the 90's, and for the next two years the President will do all he can to prove his 'centrist' credentials, as Bill Clinton did in the 90's in his partnership with Newt Gingrich to destroy welfare. Barack Obama, much as Bill Clinton is truly being a Republican's wet dream. Using liberal language while hiding behind a liberal facade he will propose more right wing legislation, or capitulate as he has already done repeatedly with the GOP, to please the corporate ruling class of oligarchs and plutocrats to guarantee their dollars to fund his re-election. And so what we may very well have in 2012 are two corporate lackey's running for the coveted presidential office: Barack Obama, and Mitt Romney. No other candidate is going to pop up out of the crowd of nutcases, conspiracy loons, and brain-dead corporate lobbyists disguised as congresspeople in the Republican party to challenge Obama, and Romney certainly has the cash to bankroll a failed presidential run. It will be Bob Dole vs. Bill Clinton all over again. Three cheers for American plutocracy!