Op Ed: 'Legal Fiction' Futilizes Voting, Damages Democracy

(EUGENE, Ore.) - Corporate “campaign contributions” now count for constant power-seeking impacts to control government everywhere, at every level from precinct to Congress. Even the Presidency is policy-affected, not only in “choice via election” but on every action-shaping decisionthen following.

Congress itself is irredeemably surrounded -- and too often then prevailed-upon-- by overwhelming troops of lobbyist-tribesmen, by recent count 100-to-ONE. They carry, not shields bearing visible corporate logos, but many carefully-wrapped forms of rapid elected-representative support.

But somehow --you can count on it-- no matter how wrapped, that support never arrives except for sure-and-solid action, always ostensibly taken solely for commonweal interests. K Street in D.C. is pulsing and heavily profiting from what has become the Capital City’s leading industry by far.

Private/profit-motivated sorting, shaping and securing selective steps and public-law statements -- precisely as corporate PR demands-- has long ago overtaken any otherwise-directed concentration in our Congress.

“All politics is local”, a famous D.C. voice stated long ago. Proof of that now/too-aromatic pudding is found in this same overwhelming shift to similar situations in every State capital, every large-city political-machine organization for both parties, and, notoriously, in every voting precinct, too.

“Ubiquitous” is the only truthful characterization for this deplorable, deteriorating, extremely dangerous situation in our once/sincerely-democratic nation, now. Not only does corporate power overwhelm our democracy via legislative-shaping, it steals millions every day in wages-withheld, workers-manipulated and abused, and avoidance of oversight and regulation providing the only safeguards the public and the workers ever had.

Ironically those were first won by painful union conflict, reducing corporate power to forced cooperation during bearlier days prior to Reagan deregulation impacts. That unrelenting attack on unionism continues to this day, supplementing and extending damages to the middle class and working families across this nation.

Those confluent costs run far, far-more than the natural losses otherwise to be expected in any complex modern society --a drain probably far more, in the long run of decades-in-being, than even our “wasting wars”. HOW could this ever be allowed to happen?

WHO worked, in what ways, to saddle on us, not so suddenly, any such sure and symbolic pattern for such profound perversion of what was once an imperfect but functioning --and world/acclaimed-- “experiment in democracy”?

The story is simple, seductive and seriously documented. It starts --as does so much else-- in determined, long-continued business-group actions seeking to still further advance and guarantee the private-profits driving philosophy.

Now so obviously become one of democracy’s worst assailants, for decades during our early development that was the motivating muscle for what our nation could become. “American exceptionalism” became the world-wide recognized chief characteristic for us --reflecting our demonstrated determination to achieve, qualitatively AND quantitatively, beyond the levels reached by other nations.

Among most important, essential rapid development of transport across, around and everywhere within the emerging nation, heavy-duty railroad was the major requirement. That was heavily-capitalized via enormous land grants to emerging corporations from both national andstate sources.

For anyone with experience in such relationships, what happened is no surprise: That demanded heavy-duty control of our emerging national political patterns, mechanisms and protocol. Quite naturally --for business-driven Americans-- that meant corporate control of any combination of our governance-management patterns.

Naturally that included state and national-level legislative functions, as well as the local level; action was already well underway there, ever since ‘76. The “Chicago pattern”, so familiar there much later, actually started long, long prior to Chicago-times --in early Colonial days, as familiar carry-over from English experience.

In turn --again quite naturally for all business dominated interests-- the chosen weapon rapidly became the dollar --by far the most available and powerful. For corporate contingents, it was simply the well worn tool always at hand and ready, already recognized for potent impacts and effectiveness where and when used.

Main driving force for special dispensation of these human-persona “rights” was --surprise!-- the great economic power of the railroad expansion so essential to national development.

Many efforts --via legal/suit and sometimes other means far less legal but immediately effective-- were put into train in succeeding decades, but none managed the demanded manipulation clearly and completely.

Until “Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railroad”, in 1888. That case has been the reef around which this entire controversy has continued ever since. Recent research has now uncovered correspondence between Supreme Court Chief Justice Morrison R. Waite and court reporter J.C. Bancroft Davis which many see as proof of conspiracy by railroad corporations to create misrepresentation by Davis in his case report, on which the long-held “precedent” was based. (See Internet sources for full details of this very complex past history, too involved for space here.) So now --in dawning years of the 21st Century-- we find ourselves forced to cope with a carryover consequence from the politics of the 19th Century.

Perhaps essential and acceptable pattern and protocol then, it is far from that now. “Corporate campaign contributions” represent perhaps the strongest, most influential, and most dangerous threat to our American democracy we have ever faced.

That is plain and simple English-language factual description of the “unforeseen consequence” involved here: The carefully/arranged and surely paid/for “error” by the court clerk, penning a pattern of very-partial statement by his judge, which has since been promoted to the royal routine of “legal precedent”.

I find it ironic in the extreme that his hand guiding a quill pen or equivalent then, set forth a powerful “unforeseen consequence”, precisely as predicted by Adam Smith and others even earlier in economic history. That’s what now guides, shapes, and controls the massive amounts of corporate-power monies thrown constantly, rapidly and continually at every one of our elected representatives, at every level of governance.

Civil law now provides a full measure of protections and provisions for corporate needs. We no longer need to pretend that a business persona is other than the “legal fiction” it has been designated ever since pre-Colonial days.

The basic learning-principle stated, stressed and amplified by Adam Smith et al over the past century, is that “man creates these situations by commonplace accident” --usually as result of complex “unforeseen consequences” brought on by further forward progress. What then follows --”as the day does the night”, to cite one expert-- is that “man can change, deny, adapt, even perfect what was done previously.” NOW we need to clear away and completely clarify this dangerous false-persona for corporate interests claiming the political free-speech rights our Founders clearly meant to provide ONLY for Real Human Beings.

There are practical tests simple to apply, allowing Congress now to clear away this violent money-power attack on our democracy.

Humans ARE “human” -- with essential and unmistakable human-physical characteristics! Sterling-quality Congressional public-protection action should be among the most essential undertaken in this surely “transformative administration.” Let the human voices arise from human throats, rather than from piles of pelf and profits seeking stillmore-of-same.

========================= Reader’s Note:
For comprehensive summary of the complex history involved in this long-continued controversy, see the Internet’s Wikipedia; space here precludes details. More than twenty sources and references were consulted for this Op Ed, including writer’s files. Quotes are partial, summarized, shortened for space needs. Verbatim quotes and source list available on request to Editor with ID.

Henry Clay Ruark is the one of, if not the most experienced, working reporter in the state of Oregon, and possibly the entire Northwest. Hank has been at it since the 1930's, working as a newspaper staff writer, reporter and photographer for organizations on the east coast like the Bangor Maine Daily News.
Today he writes Op-Ed's for Salem-News.com with words that deliver his message with much consideration for the youngest, underprivileged and otherwise unrepresented people.

Salem-News.com Top Stories

2025: Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Worst

Two Wars with No Way Out

No One Owns the Future

The Ugly Origins of Trump's America First Policy

A One-State Solution Could Transform the World

Comments Leave a comment on this story.

All comments and messages are approved by people and self promotional links or unacceptable comments are denied.

PS December 18, 2008 9:51 am (Pacific time)

HR-respectively, I simply linked Korten's (a valued author to you) assessment of George Soros. I encourage all readers who desire transparency from our elected leaders to go to this site (link at 12:43 PM post) to how money impacts our democratic system (a brief and informative read) and see how utterly scary this Soros guy is "as per Korten." He has considerable influence and that will become a major issue this spring when confirmation hearings are held. Hardball coming up.

Henry Ruark December 17, 2008 6:44 pm (Pacific time)

PS et al: You wrote:"...free of insulting ridicule that some radicals use as a distraction tactic." I Do love ironic statement, and will surely add this to my already-bursting file. Meanwhile, per yours previous, please state where any insult was passed. You mistake simple challenge for personal attack, which is also propaganda-tool to offset any direct answer. As for "Did you read...", with titles, ISBN's, et al. Also direct civil query-why PS if name really Percy... SO perhaps you see why adding to "Ironic-Ha Ha !" file.\

Henry Ruark December 17, 2008 4:57 pm (Pacific time)

PS et al: Have printed out Korten review re Soros. Will now review-review and then be ready for your ID to Editor for direct dialog. YOU ready ? IF so, rip off mask and ID to Editor and we can GO !!

Henry Ruark December 17, 2008 4:41 pm (Pacific time)

PS et al: No doubt many have viewppoint similar to yours, perhaps for variety of reasons. Per favorite strip-character, "I yam what I yam, and thass all I yam !" and never pretend otherwise. Re your opinions, you are the one stuck with them. If dialog here too rough, spend your nicel elsewhere. Meanwhile provide something further than personal interpretations, and beginning insults such as "paste-up" remarks in initial Comment. IF you visit someone's home, do you immediately smass glass table ? Might work with mask, but bit tougher when known and thus accountable and responsible. Re Obama regime, if it doth fail as have many others, it will be for same ineluctable reasons induced by precisely those attitudes some display here (always from behind the mask or the tree). WHY is that, if nothing to hide re intentions and good faith ? Keep your nickel, friend PS, and I'll return to more solid work than false-face parley with you. Meanwhile best wishes of the season, too !! D0n't forget, though, Christ was considered radical in his time, which was why he made it up there...then there was old canny Ben, he who stated that all property was at the call of the society which made it possible to own it. moreofsame later...

PS December 17, 2008 12:43 pm (Pacific time)

HR I also appreciate the viewpoints of Mr. Korten, at least he provides an opinion that allows his readers to critique his writings free of insulting ridicule that some radicals use as a distraction tactic. Below is a link to his analysis of moneyman and convicted felon George Soros. As most prudent people realize, when these people provide big money for political purposes they do not do it for altruistic reasons, the money usually has some strings attached. Korten's analysis of Soros (dangerous man?) is a must read for those who are concerned about the rich setting policy for America, by using their money to influence legislation. Soros also has dual citizenship with Israel, and I wonder what influence he may have in regards to our policy in the middle-east, especially with Iran. He is the single largest financial supporter of Obama and the democratic party (including many other Soros family members as per the FEC). Tensions increased again between Iran and Israel today, so we need some transparency with this incoming administration, which we certainly are not getting from the area I call Little Mexico, i.e. , the culture of corruption found in Chicago. http://www.feasta.org/documents/feastareview/sorosreview.htm

Henry Ruark December 17, 2008 12:15 pm (Pacific time)

n2s et al: Yr insights run close to same targets as mine. Happens I held same Mayer-writing, with somewhat parallel feeling uou display. Unfortunately I can only state "that's the world -but we CAN change it" --with too little space here to document that. BUT your own observation, from before New Deal onwards, will give you strong clues for what can be done, by whom, when, and with what weapons. What WE must do for our own progeny is pick up the weapons and never fail to use them, on those whose continuing actions make them unfailing targets for first, attack: Then, for remedial democratic return to Constitutional principles we inherit from our Founding Fathers, prescience long ago fully proven in depth and detail. For me, and I do believe for a massive growing revolt-group, "keeping on keeping on" is the only possible human action left to us. Dunno if that is helpful, but your chosen teacher-resource may fill you in with much more from undistorted history. Then, too, there is this open, honest, democratic dialog S-N channel, ready and willing to share what ANYone has learned and wishes to bring here for good faith "wisdom of the crowd" to prevail. I can hardly wait-for-more we can each do "until the wheels fall off."

Henry Ruark December 16, 2008 9:38 am (Pacific time)

To all:
Op Ed contains this line:
"Humans ARE “human” -- with essential and unmistakable human-physical characteristics!"

For most that will suggest some very practical ways to evaluate whether or not any corporation is really at the human level of judgment and relation to others.

No "legal fiction" has ever been known to breath, defecate or urinate, although many have been accused of the latter two functions, on occasion.

SO until nature alters this reality, the Founders vision of human persons deserving free-speech right should surely prevail.

Which is point of the Op Ed, bolstered by checkable tests just outlined.

SO: Standard query for those questioning this reality:
WHO, among corporate creatures continuing this farce, do you wish to appoint to prove up those corporate/human functions ??
and WHO to receive such corporate benedictions ??

new2site December 17, 2008 5:56 am (Pacific time)

Your kindness and understanding has been much appreciated Henry. Your last suggestion made much sense. You are a good guy Henry, and I take heed of your suggestion. If not much bother, please let me leave you with something I just read. This is an exerpt of an article at Information Clearning House, by Milton Mayer: Germany around 1940. "You see," my colleague went on, "one doesn’t see exactly where or how to move. Believe me, this is true. Each act, each occasion, is worse than the last, but only a little worse. You wait for the next and the next. You wait for one great shocking occasion, thinking that others, when such a shock comes, will join with you in resisting somehow. You don’t want to act, or even talk, alone; you don’t want to ‘go out of your way to make trouble.’ Why not?—Well, you are not in the habit of doing it. And it is not just fear, fear of standing alone, that restrains you; it is also genuine uncertainty. "Uncertainty is a very important factor, and, instead of decreasing as time goes on, it grows. Outside, in the streets, in the general community, ‘everyone’ is happy. One hears no protest, and certainly sees none. You know, in France or Italy there would be slogans against the government painted on walls and fences; in Germany, outside the great cities, perhaps, there is not even this. In the university community, in your own community, you speak privately to your colleagues, some of whom certainly feel as you do; but what do they say? They say, ‘It’s not so bad’ or ‘You’re seeing things’ or ‘You’re an alarmist.’ "And you are an alarmist. You are saying that this must lead to this, and you can’t prove it. These are the beginnings, yes; but how do you know for sure when you don’t know the end, and how do you know, or even surmise, the end? On the one hand, your enemies, the law, the regime, the Party, intimidate you. On the other, your colleagues pooh-pooh you as pessimistic or even neurotic. You are left with your close friends, who are, naturally, people who have always thought as you have. "But your friends are fewer now. Some have drifted off somewhere or submerged themselves in their work. You no longer see as many as you did at meetings or gatherings. Informal groups become smaller; attendance drops off in little organizations, and the organizations themselves wither. Now, in small gatherings of your oldest friends, you feel that you are talking to yourselves, that you are isolated from the reality of things. This weakens your confidence still further and serves as a further deterrent to—to what? It is clearer all the time that, if you are going to do anything, you must make an occasion to do it, and then you are obviously a troublemaker. So you wait, and you wait. "But the one great shocking occasion, when tens or hundreds or thousands will join with you, never comes. That’s the difficulty. If the last and worst act of the whole regime had come immediately after the first and smallest, thousands, yes, millions would have been sufficiently shocked—if, let us say, the gassing of the Jews in ’43 had come immediately after the ‘German Firm’ stickers on the windows of non-Jewish shops in ’33. But of course this isn’t the way it happens. In between come all the hundreds of little steps, some of them imperceptible, each of them preparing you not to be shocked by the next. Step C is not so much worse than Step B, and, if you did not make a stand at Step B, why should you at Step C? And so on to Step D. Best to all this season.

Henry Ruark December 16, 2008 7:36 pm (Pacific time)

N2S et al: Your concerns appreciated, friend, but basic facts and patterns you describe fall far from fitting closely. Impossible to clarify in tight time/space continuum here, and may necessitate some radical personal reviews, too. Suggest you seek out your own choice of trusted educator who knows history intimately and dialog with that person. Season's best wishes to you...

new2site December 16, 2008 5:21 pm (Pacific time)

while you all are fighting over whatever... Henry did not answer my request in regards to the "huge mandate" Instead, its fighting over politics, which is exactly what the NWO wants, and you are all right in line with it. Democratic/Republican fights were born and birthed by the rockefellers/rothchilds, so that while you are fighting they can rob you blind and enslave you. The posts in this article are all the proof I need to see this as reality.

new2site December 16, 2008 3:02 pm (Pacific time)

What if: the rothchilds/rockefellers planned this economic crisis? What if,they control oil barrel prices? What if: after almost 200 years, they have finally come to the endgame of their agenda? What if: they control who will be president? What if: During this financial crisis that was orchestrated by them, they use the mainstream media (which they own), to tell the masses we are here to fix it. Just do what we tell you. How many times will history be repeated until people wake up? The "elite" knew that America would be a hard country to control. So, they were patient. Infiltrate the public education system, buy off politicians, put poisons in the water and in the vaccinations, buy up the media etc. What do you think these people have been doing over the last century? Playing pool and enjoying their money? NO! They dont care about money, they have more money than God, they want POWER. They want world domination, with slaves, and depopulation, by killing billions. In fact, it is these people who birthed the democratic/republic parties, so they could rob you blind while the republicans and democrats were so busy fighting no one noticed. Well, let me tell ya, by summer 2009, you will friggin notice. Ya better wake up.

Henry Ruark December 16, 2008 10:59 am (Pacific time)

PS.: Korten is source I sometimes use, proved reliable via ref. from others I trust. Re NYorker, will ck backfile here for your ref. when/if time ever allows, to see with own eyes what was actually printed. Don't distrust YOU, simple edit/ck from painful experience in interpretation by others, mostly p'pander types,sometimes paid flacks. (Two civil suits remind me !) Do appreciate your current signal re fact of many levels, labels, differences within groups, leading to cultural conservatives also economic realists within same persona; and facts now recognized of many types of "intelligence" - count over 20 my last check. Allathat why politics key to modern progress, intrigues many, most failing to see or appreciate complexities. Which is why open, honest, democratic dialog here so valuable, as ours has begun to prove. We both share, you reluctantly and me "verbosely", but net effect is we both learn, and hopefully so do others tuned to our exchanges. What more could Founders hope for --except true democracy ? Which is what we all seek now.

PS December 16, 2008 10:12 am (Pacific time)

HR are you a fan of David Korten, that is you find his analyses agreeable? Can't remember if you did or not. As usual your below posts are absolutely fascinating. Thanks for your "consistent" perspectives, though I do disagree that Obama has a huge mandate, but he did win so he has the power for now. Our country is culturally conservative so that will possibly hamper his agenda and by 2010 he will have a negoiation-type administration, which will be good for America. Please note that he got slightly over 40% of the caucasian vote (who make up approx. 70% of the entire vote), thus the majority of the majority voted against him [This diminishes the aspect of a huge mandate]. Also 70% of blacks in California demonstrated quite clearly that they are culturally conservative with their 70/30 vote against prop 8. Say you ever wonder why the protesters did not go protest outside of black church's? Oh, regarding democratic campaigning see below article by one of your peers: "Rahm Emanuel, a congressman from Chicago and a friend of Obama's, told me that he, Obama, David Wilhelm, who was Blagojevich's campaign co-chair, and another Blagojevich aide were the top strategists of Blagojevich's victory. He and Obama "participated in a small group that met weekly when Rod was running for governor," Emanuel said. "We basically laid out the general election, Barack and I and these two." A spokesman for Blagojevich confirmed Emanuel's account. -- from Making It: How Chicago Shaped Obama, by Ryan Lizza, the New Yorker, July 21, 2008." INSIGHTFUL. FOLLOW THE MONEY. Rahm Emanuel, a congressman from Chicago and a friend of Obama's, told me that he, Obama, David Wilhelm, who was Blagojevich's campaign co-chair, and another Blagojevich aide were the top strategists of Blagojevich's victory. He and Obama "participated in a small group that met weekly when Rod was running for governor," Emanuel said. "We basically laid out the general election, Barack and I and these two." A spokesman for Blagojevich confirmed Emanuel's account, although David Wilhelm, who now works for Obama, said that Emanuel had overstated Obama's role. -- from Making It: How Chicago Shaped Obama, by Ryan Lizza, the New Yorker, July 21, 2008.

Henry Ruark December 16, 2008 9:12 am (Pacific time)

H-hump: With proof, yu might have Op Ed there... First, any summary of election fraud requires book-space. Second, evidence starts with early Colonial days. Third, attention now on plain distressing fact of corporate corrupt practice made possible by this paid-for error, both initiating and continuing highly destructive practices now threatening democracy due to size, impact and violent consequences. Fourth, we cannot change our history --but we sure as h... can learn from it. At least, that's true for some of us. For the rest, the only course left after continuing apathy, leading to errors in judgment and lost integrity, is to get fully informed, learn, and possibly grow into mature and improved attention leading to responsible citizen behavior. Tha's purpose of Op Eds and S-N open, honest, democratic channel, sir. It seems to motive some to cogitation otherwise never achieved. Thanks for your participation, richly appreciated.

Harumph December 15, 2008 10:48 pm (Pacific time)

Obama raised millions from donors who are unidentified, from outside the country, and people who broke the law by exceeding legal limits, and in patterns which scream "fraud", including donations from people who reported fraudulent use of their credit cards. But not a word about this massive fraud in this article? I wonder why? Why is there no mention of the near 1 trillion dollars spent by the Obama campaign + supporting organizations to buy the presidency?

Henry Ruark December 15, 2008 8:15 pm (Pacific time)

PS et al: For your edification and as direct challenge, "see with own eyes" at MOTHER JONES Magazine "The Seven Deadly Deficits" by Joseph Stiglitz. The challenge is to rebut any one or any number of his points with reference to dead dogmas you have been using. IF yours still hold water at all, this should be easy way for you to prove up what you have been claiming. Will await your response, and if ID to Editor will send you rapid copy of PDF to ease any access problem to the major source-cited: MOTHER JONES, 12/15/08. By the way, have you yet set out to find-and-read the two refs. already cited: Klein and Robert R. Reich ? IF you are serious about serious dialog in public, I advise you to do so without fail.

new2site December 15, 2008 5:25 pm (Pacific time)

I agree with Henry's last post, except for the O' part. My deepest apologies that I probably missed, or not aware of the "huge mandate" you speak of. I am willing to research this subject if you have a moment to lead me in the right direction. But, keep in mind Henry, with obamas lack of history, supporting the bailout, and his transition team, I will be a difficult believer. I have not even seen a birth certificate yet. My wife was born in Oahu just 2 months before Obama, so I know what a birth certificate looks like. Your "inside info" is not impressive to me. He is the candidate that the NWO has birthed. I know one thing for sure, only time tells the truth. So, guess we will see. I sure like debating with you tho, you are a good and intelligent person Henry..I like ya. The only huge mandate I see, is recruiting millions the same way hitler did.

Henry Ruark December 15, 2008 4:52 pm (Pacific time)

n2s et al: You wrote: "...your emotional response of hope in Obama is clouding your intelligent judgement." I appreciate yr assessment, and hope to continue to earn it. Your own insights remaining sharp, friend n2s; but there is still another possibility: May be I have some additional sources and perhaps even some differing insights, which give me more foundation for hope than may appear. This NOT to denigrate yours and your continuance of sharp and probing personal exploration, but simply to emphasize that constant work in communications sometimes builds a bit different view, which may surely be erroneous and distorted, but sometimes remains less-so than your ordinary joe, too. SO tell Joe not to give up and run for his cave, just yet. MANY of the "biggest boys" (and girls !) are fully aware, and you will be surprised at the changes now forced by O's huge mandate. AND by a rising tide of revolt --which, by the way, is the inside-content of Sirota's new book...and was reported here early this year, re election then coming up... Previous Op Eds happened to fall into same vein, and some to come may help illuminate this possible light-on-horizon a bit more...but, even given the developments you cite, we have much more opportunity now than we had prior to "transformative election" which is WHY big guys are now seeing to their best bets with odds changing in our favor. Can cite documentation but this is not the place for it, yet...

Henry Ruark December 15, 2008 4:39 pm (Pacific time)

PS: Here's "see with own eyes"just for you, since it is from one of hardest-skulled neocons ever, now willing to learn and grow with Obama: www.Newsmax.com Haig on Obama: 'Reason to be Optimistic' Sunday, December 14, 2008 By Jim Meyers "Retired four-star general and former Secretary of State Alexander Haig tells Newsmax that Americans “have reason to be optimistic” about the incoming Barack Obama administration despite the “horrendous problems” he has inherited. "In a wide-ranging exclusive Newsmax interview, Haig also said leaving Saddam Hussein in power after the first Gulf War was “insanity, declared that President Richard Nixon did more to win the Cold War than did Ronald Reagan, and called Nixon’s normalization of relations with China “the most important foreign policy event of the century.” "And he quipped that after Reagan was shot, his health deteriorated and “his wife’s hairdresser” had more to do with running the country than the president". -------------- SO where does your judgment now reside, sir ? OR are you perhaps even more unregenerate than appears so far ?? That's wellknown proclivity for some retired nationalist/militarists, which some psychiatic friends have assured me comes from their mixed heritage of ideals and ideas and dogma and duty.

new2site December 15, 2008 4:15 pm (Pacific time)

In regards to David Sirota. It is not that I disagree with him, its just that from my research into him, tells me, that he knows nothing more than I and many alternative news sources already knew, long before he brought it out. I am not questioning his integrity. I will not continue to research him, but I do have a question. If you know it off the top of your head, please answer, if you dont, please dont take the time to look it up. What does he say about his experience working with AIPAC? On another note: those that are not talking about, what I believe is coming, something much worse than the great depression, do not get my attention whatsoever. 1. 20,000 military troops on U.S. soil, many foreign troops. violation of posse commatatus (sp)? 2. Almost a billion dollars to KBR Halliburtion to build detention camps all over the U.S., many to be run by Blackwater. 3. HR1955 4. PD51 5. Hyperinflation and other countries abandoning their lending to U.S. 6. billions spent on "non-lethal" weapons for civil dissent 7. etc. "THEY" including obama, know exactly what is going on. 8. The words in the Sept 2008 legislation give more power to the Federal Reserve Bank than Congress has. And obama supported it fully. 9. I will say it again, your emotional response of hope in obama is clouding your intelligent judgement. This is why he scares me. If someone as intelligent as you will follow him off a cliff, what is the average Joe going to do?

Henry Ruark December 15, 2008 2:26 pm (Pacific time)

To all:
I wrote (to PS): "You continue to deny Obama's huge mandate. You continue to insist on outmoded, long-dead economic dogmas proven deadly to our whole economy by trial-run of over 40 years. SO why should we now trust your judgment on this one, or any other ? " Re "...outmoded, long-dead dogmas", you are UNinformed and MIS-informed unless and until you have read these two international best-sellers, invulnerable to biased attack since nationally lauded by better pundits than either of us: 1. Supercapitalism: Transformation of Business, Democracy,, and Everday Life; Robert B. Reich;Knopf; 2007. ISBN 978-0-307-26561-6. 2. The Shock Doctrine: Rise of Disaster Capitalism; Naomi Klein; Metropolitan;2007. ISBN-10: 0-8050-7983-1. Have you read either ? When you have, then we can continue sensible dialog on solid basis of modern realities you do not now understand,very obviously from public comments here. Re yr bugbear re "Obama mandate", AP today carries headline (R/G, Eugene): "Presidential election attracted largest voter turnout in 40 years." Story details:"the most ever (voter turnout) for a presidential election"; "highest turnout rate since 1968";"restored the levels of civic engagement" (surely "transformative" !);"voter turnout increased substantially in newly competitive states such as Virgina, Indiana, and North Carolina, which all went for Obama after decades of favoring Republican presidential candidates". Surely that spells MANDATE, and in CAPITAL LETTERS, too, despite your desperate denigration via distortions. Which also perverts any reliance on your judgment, sir. To others than PS, please see this as simple, sensible,solid and civil straight-reporting in our honest, open, democratic channel at S-N, to set straight any reliance on judgments from this one via virus contracted from obvious distortion/perversion for the purposes of obvious political pandering. Also have 5 other similar "honest reporter" national-source references but dispensing with same here, since this should be more than enough to prove up who is reliable, honest, thorough, and open to sharing and learning --my view changed by both key books cited.

Henry Ruark December 15, 2008 1:35 pm (Pacific time)

n2s et al: You are wise to check out any writer, including this one; and especially any non-ID' commenteer, too. Re Sirota, he's among most experiened political writers, noted for intense work and his professional integrity. Many awards, citations, and his ongoing assignments show tough evaluation of his stuff. His new book (I'm halfway in it in one day !") is deep in detail re major political situations...moresoon on it. He and I do not agree on some major issues. But don't let any uncounscious biases keep you from access to his painfully gathered and honestly reported facts, in both features and books.

Henry Ruark December 15, 2008 1:26 pm (Pacific time)

P.S.: You wrote:"In my opinion Judgment is the most important attribute for a president." Knock off last three words, and we have full agreement. BUT that judgment must be evaluated via actual experience with it, too. For example: You continue to deny Obama's huge mandate. You continue to insist on outmoded, long-dead economic dogmas proven deadly to our whole economy by trial-run of over 40 years. SO why should we now trust your judgment on this one, or any other ? You insist on hiding behind tree,rather than civilized act of simple ID and detail enough to tell us your reality of background, from which ALL judgment doth flow... SO, sir, why the mask and the massive mass of minutiae and messy other-stuff, for what turns always into even more silly-to-continue political pandering ? Why spend your nickel so recklessly simply to get some small attention here from the more reasonable of us ? Are you so deprived of all other civil associations ? Might try volunteer work with Boy Scouts, helpful for prime learnings of dissociated persons too, I'm told.

new2site December 15, 2008 1:02 pm (Pacific time)

Before reading any article, I look into the author. David does not impress me one bit. If I take the essence of the article correctly, he is saying that corruption in congress/politics runs rampid on all sides. If I am correct in my assumption, I have only one word for my response. DUH! by the way: Another great article written by Henry. My compliments.

Henry Ruark December 15, 2008 12:34 pm (Pacific time)

To all: Nothing "civil" about this politically pandering attempt to change point of discussion. Political corruption has been supreme on both sides for too long to consider that the main problem here. What corporate confluence of money-flow via "contributions" now does is multiply the power held over the individual citizen, making worthless and ineffective any possible kind of political reform until this cancerous error is chopped out of the body politic and we can return to what the Founders clearly intended --surely NOT the same corporate abuse to which the Revolution itself was directed, starting with that tea party vs the great English tea-monopoly monster corporation. Anyone zealous on Internet can compile many pages precisely as offered by PS; to coin a phrase: "BOOKS have been written...!!--as he surely knows. Last time anyone even bothered to count, the balance was not far from even... SO once more distortion, even perversion, is perpetrated here, obviously intential this time and in no way via simple "supposition" minus "mental effort" for Op Ed statement. See my Comment 11:38 a.m.;then note from whence cometh any such "stuff" as this one...still from "behind the tree", too, which tells you something more re intention. We must be doing something right in Op Eds to win such attention from subversive forces who hate honest report and cannot abide honest dialog either.

Henry Ruark December 15, 2008 11:38 am (Pacific time)

To all: Here's "see with own eyes" report from political writer experienced nationally at every level: www.ourfuture.org What's the Difference Between Corruption and Fundraising? By David Sirota Created 12/15/2008 With the scandal around Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich still raging, some may be asking a simple question: What's the difference between corruption and fundraising? It's a question I had when I saw the front page of the Denver Post's business section on Sunday: ================== Check link to see TWO key stories in POST making very clear how corporate contingent works two-sided technique. Then evaluate Op Ed "with own mind", better informed via his insights. This is effort involved in Op Eds beyond mere acquisition of information; we then leave to YOU the evaluation on which real understandings must hang. That's crucial to effective democracy, which itself must hang on "the wisdom of crowds" which is another way of saying "the consent of the governed."

PS December 15, 2008 11:14 am (Pacific time)

HR am in total agreement with you that "campaign contributions" need to be scrutinized (see below link). It appears that some ethical clouds are developing over some of Obama's staff members, e.g. , Emanuel and Axlerod (writer of "Race" speech), and others also? Currently it was reported that New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, tapped for Sec. of Commerce is under a Grand Jury criminal investigation, please see this link: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchiveandsid=aL0GGUluJeT8 This Illinois investigation on Gov. Blagojevich is growing daily. It should be pointed out that Obama and Emanuel were part of Blagojevich's 2002 election staff and that sitting senator Obama endorsed his 2006 re-election campaign, even though the media was reporting that he was under criminal investigation. Axlerod was his campaign manager when he was in congress. Convicted felon Rezko has had business relationships with all the above people for many years, except Richardson. In fact he sold a parcel of divided property on his lot (next to Obama's property) that in effect made his lot unbuildable as per Chicago building code. In my opinion Judgment is the most important attribute for a president followed closely by Experience. Obama's current AG pick Eric Holder will promulgate a stroll down memory lane regarding past "pardons", so expect cloudy weather for a while. Maybe even a storm or two.

[Return to Top]

Op Ed: 'Legal Fiction'
Futilizes Voting,
Damages Democracy

Quick Links

DINING

MUST SEE SALEM

AUCTIONS - APPRAISALS

CONSTRUCTION SERVICES

ONLINE SHOPPING

Advertise with Salem-News