Home : Blogs : Jay Allen - MovieVoice : Jay Allen's Blog

The Rich... Tax Them Before it's too Late

According to the results of a 20-year study published today at businessweek.com- achieving the "American Dream" is becoming less of a reality and more of just a dream. Children are less likely to do better than their parents and the poor are less likely to become affluent through hard work. The BusinessWeek article states that "the gap between rich and poor is getting bigger -- particularly in the United States -- as top earners' incomes soar while others' stagnate."

It seems to me that many people are too optimistic about their earnings potential. If someone imagines a different lifestyle than they are living, most people prefer to imagine themselves as richer, not poorer. Therefore, as a rich person you wouldn't want to pay any more in taxes. But let's be realistic, the vast majority of people are not rich and should not be concerned about someone with multiple homes and a private jet paying more taxes.

Raising taxes on the richest is necessary. Based on the nearly non-existant American Dream, how could you not agree with more taxes for the richest (many of whom achieved vast sums of money by underpaying employees and defrauding shareholders)?

Best regards,
Jay

Jay Allen
MovieVoice
jay@movievoice.net

Posted by Jay Allen - MovieVoice on 10/21/2008 11:33 AM

Comments (39)

Politics in the ActiveRain Channel

taxes, taxpayers, wealth, money, business week, american dream, jay allen, movievoice

Post is included in group: Almost Anything Goes
Post is included in group: Blatant Politics
Post is included in group: EXPRESS WITH WORDS AT ACTIVERAIN
Post is included in group: LA Connection
Post is included in group: Silent Majority

39 Comments on The Rich... Tax Them Before it's too Late

OCT

2008

Jay - Let's start with means testing for social security benefits. There is absolutely no reason to provide the truly rich with this monthly check.

John, that would be a great start.

The problem is Jay that these folks think it is o.k. to get a government check but heaven forbid someone that truly needs it just to survive is just lazy and needs a handout.

I keep saying that America being a country is expensive, and SOMEONE has to pay for it. Since the poor and middle calss just don't have enough money, who does that leave? We can either collect enough money, in some way, to run our country, or we can eventually go under.

Leslie, I agree with you. Here's a simple table to demonstrate more taxes...

Economic Class ---- Result of more taxes

Poor                ---- Starvation

Middle Class     ---- Loss of health care

Rich                 ---- Less caviar

If the rich eat less caviar to help the poor not starve and the middle class to not die from lack of health care, then so be it.

As I asked in one of several posts in Missy's blog at this link:

10/21/2008 05:40 AM

....why do soooo many here at activerain react to the wealth concentration crisis in the US, by embracing "solutions" that do nothing to attempt to ease the crisis, but guarantee that there will be less customers for the services the members here offer? The elite have spent a lot of money drumming it in that those with the least are to blame for wealth inequity, that they are "lazy" and or "abusers of "the system", when these scapegoats have absolutely no power, and the elite have it all.

You would think that the fact that nothing has changed in 71 years,

Thirteen Families - TIME

except that wealth distribution became more equal between the late 1930's and late 1970's, due largely to high progressive tax brackets on the highest incomes and because of the success of unionization and what it achieved via collective bargaining, only to recede since, with the advent of the "Reagan revolution" and it's attack on unions and on faith in government that works....

http://www.oberlin.edu/stupub/ocrevi...Krugman_O.html
Times’ Paul Krugman Opens Convocation Series

By Adam C. Khatib

"Oberlin’s 2006-7 Convocation Series opened this Tuesday with a lecture by award winning economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, delivered to a capacity crowd in Finney Chapel.

His lecture, titled “The Great Unraveling,” dealt with the increasing income disparity in America and its relation to the rising polarity found in American politics. “If I had to sum up very quickly what I’ve been working on,” he said, “the quick statement would be, ‘What the hell happened to us? How did our society become so bitterly divided?’”

Krugman focused most of his talk on what he noted as his first love: history.

Speaking briefly of the myth of American society as beginning with humble “yeomen farmers,” Krugman noted that, though America has always had some amount of wealth inequality, it has now reached unprecedented levels.

Krugman saw a large narrowing of the income gap between the top and bottom of our society between the late 1920s and the post-World War II period — a concept he referred to as “The Great Compression.” He said this less polarized society lasted for about 35 years after the end of World War II. At this point, according to Krugman, everything changed.

“Since around 1980 we’ve being living during the emergence of a New Guilded Age of enormous inequality,” he said.

Using General Motors and Wal-Mart as specific examples, Krugman compared the growth in the disparity of wages between CEOs and workers over the years. The average corporation in the late 1960s showed that the salary of a typical CEO was 30 to 40 times that of the average worker. Now, he said, CEOs are paid more on the order of 400 times the salary of an average worker for their company......"

NO, the majority here are worried about the THREAT posed by the powerless, against "the system", when the elite are screwing the folks here who carry water for them, by hollowing out the middle class:

Illegal Union Busting Wal-Mart Exec. Thomas Coughlin sentenced:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2005Apr8.html

http://www.allbusiness.com/government/elections-politics-politics-political-parties/11567011-1.html

POLICYMAKING UNDER THE BUSH II NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD: WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?
By Twomey, David P
Publication: Labor Law Journal
Date: Tuesday, July 1 2008

..."The current Bush Board, which has had a majority of Republican appointees since December 2002, overruled all of the above Clinton Board decisions.15 On December 12, 2007, a letter signed by 57 Labor Law

professors was sent to all members of Congress criticizing the actions of the Bush Board. It stated in part:..."

Metro Detroit union members protest NLRB and rally for Obama
DetNews.com, MI - Oct 19, 2008DETROIT -- Hundreds of union members from across Metro Detroit gathered Saturday at the federal building downtown to protest President Bush's administration and the National Labor Relations Board for what union members called an assault on workers' rights and the middle class.

If it wasn't key to reinforcing the trend toward more wealth in fewer hands, it would not have been a priority for Bush to turn the NLRB on it's head....to make it an advocated for management instead of for workers:

Bush Ideology Bleeds Workers

So, what we have here at activerain is a collective of political sentiment with misplaced priorities, acting against it's own best interests, clouded by a vision of an age of political and economic conditions in which a yeoman farmer was at his apex of influence. We are all in this together, and we have 90 percent of the voting power, and the folks owning 70 percent of the wealth have ten percent of the voting power. Thanks to taxpayer funded operations like this,

New details of unsavory secrets: CIA opens files

"The documents released Tuesday portray a CIA obsessed with news coverage that was either too negative or simply too accurate.

In one case, the agency conducted physical surveillance of muckraker Jack Anderson and his associates, including Brit Hume, now a Fox News anchor.

In Project Mockingbird, the agency in 1963 wiretapped the office and homes of two Washington-based syndicated news columnists, Paul Scott and Robert Allen, who had published articles that cited "top secret" classified information, according to an undated, unsigned memo."

....there is a too wide belief that voting our best interests would support SOCIALISM....so oligarchy is the result, by default...

From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs.

Karl Marx

We all want the same end result. I don't want poverty or people starving either. I just don't think that penalizing people who achieve is the way to do it.

What is rich? My father can afford a new Chevy Trailblazer and a flat screen, hd cable and to be able to go out to eat a couple times a week. He is frugal, yet no real money concerns. Someone living in a trailer working minimum wage would likely consider my Dad to be wealthy. I have a friend who makes around 400k a year. My Dad considers him to be wealthy. Yet my friend who makes 400k has a Doctor friend who is worth 5 million. My friend would consider the Doctor to be rich, and my father to be middle class. And the Doctor knows a construction guy who is worth $200 million. My dad would probably be considered, lower middle class by this guy. And my buddy who is making 400k is "doing OK"

So rich is all relative to somone who has more or less money than you do. So who determines what is rich? It's a $250,000 number right now, but really, does anyone need to make over $100k? Let's make that the rich number.

And the bottom line is, these people are achievers who went out and accomplished things and made money. It's their money. Who are you or the government to take it from them. It's theirs. They earned it (in most cases) . If all we need to do to end poverty is give people money, then why are African nations still poor after all the money we have given them?

And on healthcare Jay. In all seriousness. Is the problem that A) all people don't have health care insurance or B) that health care is too expensive

I'm in the B) camp. Why aren't we talking about better ways to reduce the cost of health care? Create more competition etc. It works in every other area of your life, why not health care. The conversation is always on how to get everyone health insurance. I think that's just putting a band aid on the real problem. High health care costs.

Look at Lasik eye surgery. People have to pay for that out of pocket and what has happend? The prices have come down and the technology has gotten better. Competition works. The free market works, if you let it.

Carl, I agree with a lot of what you wrote.

From most people's perspective $250k is "rich" because it is 5 times the national median household income. However, there are some markets in this country where "most people" would not say that $250k is rich.

Jay - you know if you want socialism just say so out loud for all to hear. When I saw the headline I actually thought you'd seen the light. Tax them now before they don't have any money left because socialism is going to take it away!!!! You want to save money? Let's start with a pee test for welfare and move on from there.

Jay,

Talk to the LEGAL immigrants about this Non-Existant American Dream you talk about. I am sure they will disagree. Many Americans have become lazy! Plain and simple.

Then, talk to all these poor people and ask them how much they spend on cable, cell phone service, their big screen tv, car payments, eating out, smoking, drinking, clothing, etc... A lot of people spend more than they make on nonsense. They buy things to impress people who really don't care anyway!

Increase taxes on the EMPLOYERS and see what happens to the EMPLOYEES and CONSUMERS. It is simple! Any business owner knows if they want to make a certain amount of money and something changes, like higher wages paid out, higher taxes paid out, higher costs of doing business, etc..., they have some choices. Cut costs or raise prices! Remember, costs include wages.

John - speaking as a legal immigrant and a wealth maker, I agree entirely. I started my first business here and employed a lot of people. I then sold it three years later. Nothing to a hefty six figure sum of money - and then the Government took a great big chunk of it. Obama would take even more of it. The I started my second business - employed loads more people. Made a success out of it and paid huge numbers of dollars to the Government. Obama wants more of MY MONEY that MY INGENUITY and HARD WORK created. I am thinking about starting another business right now, but that will wait until after I know the result on november 4. I can promise you that if Obama is elected then that business will not be started. That's jobs that will not be created by me. That's taxes that will not be sent to the Treasury by me. That's my hard work not going to take place. I will be looking for every single Government hand out that is available. I will scale back my existing business. I will fire some of the people I currently employ because I know there will be a tax on jobs coming down the pipe. I know there will be a fine coming at me if I don't provide health care. I know there will be huge amounts of Government red tape for me to deal with because that is the socialist model. I know. I lived it in England!! And you think I'm alone in thinking like this? If you do, then dream on.

John, illegal immigration is on the decline due to severely decreased opportunities in the United States. Some Americans were, are, and always will be lazy. That doesn't mean that every other non-rich, hard working American should be given the proverbial shaft.

Simon, socialism isn't the best answer. However, this decade's brand of capitalism has been a disaster.

That's a great topic right there. "What has been wrong with this decade's brand of capitalism." We do have a disaster on our hands. I for one don't even think we have seen the bad part yet.

That could start some good conversation. The Dems seem to think it's a lack of regulation. The Republicans seem to think we have too much regulation. I'd like to hear the candidates talk about this in a serious fashion. Not the typical political talk we get in these boring debates. But what are their thoughts on the role of government in a a capitalist society.

Any thoughts Jay?

OCT

2008

Jay,

I would love to see some source for the decline in illegals. Although it should go down! How about the number of LEGALS? That is a more important number for my comment.

The non-rich, hard working Americans need to be smarter with their money, also. How many have never been taught how to handle their money, how to live on less than they make? It sounds like something the govt. should learn as well!

From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs.

Karl Marx

This post is a study in class warfare and socialism.

Jay:

I've been in the mortgage business for over 20 years, and have been fortunate to meet some great people from all over the world. Somewhere around 1988 I met a couple who had immigrated from what was then Romania: Nick and Millie Stasuc.

Nick and Millie were both professionals: one was a veterinarian and the other was an accountant. However, when they immigrated, they were not able to work in their chosen careers. Instead they were working selling produce at a farmers market called Denios here in the Sacramento area.

Nick and Millie were buying a home in Lincoln, which, at the time, was considered the outskirts of Sacramento. Nick and Millie bought a home for $250,000, and put down 20% - this in 1988 when those kind of numbers were huge. At the time, the lender, Great Western Savings, didn't believe the income stated, so they made the Stasuc's come in for an interview.

The lender asked the Stasuc's how they were able to make $6,000 per month, and save 20% down. The Stasuc's answer was a classic example of what makes America great. Millie Stasuc answered that "it's easy to make money in this country. Where we came from we had no such opportunities".

I don't think that the opportunities are less prevalent here in America, but I think they are jeopardized by plans to tax people more. We thrive here in America, because risk is rewarded. The bigger the risk, the bigger the reward. I get that you want to help those less fortunate, but handing people more deprives people of the opportunity to taste the satisfaction of starting a business. Even more, what you espouse deprives many of the chance to taste the true benefits of capitalism: profits. I believe your intentions are good, but I respectfully disagree with your methodology.

By the way, Nick and Millie are still working at Denios 20 years later. Nick and Millie are a testimony to hard work, and the ability of people to amass wealth through hard work - not welfare. By the way, I would guess that the 5 acres in Lincoln, even in today's market is worth well over $1,000,000 - even in today's market! In short, real estate and hard work can lead to wealth accumulation: income redistribution doesn't.

Jay .. we live in a REPUBLIC form of government, not a SOCIALISM. Just because you and I do not have the "stuff" to be one of those rich people does not mean we need to steal from them by over taxing them. Let us take this to the global economy level. You and I would be over taxed, since we make more than people in other countries. Are you willing to pay an additional tax for them.

Suggest you look down the road of not spending above your ability to pay. OOPS! The last couple weeks suggest we did not go down that road. We better raise taxes ... maybe to a flat 50% of what we earn.

Andy ~ Too much truth for this group to handle in one day of a socialist.

Tom,

I met a similar couple. Both were doctors but could not be doctors here with out more schooling or something so they basically had to start over. So, why would they not just go back and "HAVE IT MADE"? We know why!

Tom, 1988 was near the beginning of the study that I referenced in this blog. In 1988, there was a more of a correlation between hard work and the American Dream. It would be much more difficult for Nick and Millie to duplicate, in 2008, what they did in 1988.

Andy, "Are you willing to pay an additional tax for them"... no one has suggested or implied that.

Jay my friend - you ignored my entire post about how wealth is created and about what will happen to the wealth creators under socialism. You also ignored my pee test for welfare comment. Not like you buddy!! :)

Hi Jay:

With all due respect, I believe Nick and Millie would disagree with you. I would have to ask, but they would probably also say that many Americans really don't know about hard work since much of what they have is handed to them. In having things handed to them, people become dependant on others: not themselves. Nick and Millie would probably still tell you that they believe many Americans don't realize how "easy it is" to make money.

Since I can't speak for Nick and Millie, I won't: I can only speculate. Should you want to verify my speculation, go out to Denios and ask them: they are probably still working as we speak.

Planet earth calling Jay Allen!!! I know you saw this buddy, so how about you actually reply to it??

Simon,

You have to say something like...

Yeah, tax the rich! It's only fair!

Then we might hear from Jay.

OCT

2008

Jay - Very good post and I think it would help if it was easy to do. I am not considered rich at this moment, but the possibilities seem to be getting closer and closer. The problem with trying to tax the rich is they have big shot Attorneys that know how to move their money around in such a way the find a way for them to pay very little taxes compared to what they should be paying. I myself have 4 corporations and 2 LLCs. When some of them make money and some of them don't, my CPA finds a way to make it so my taxes are very little. It's all legal and this is one of the ways that Rich people get out of paying very little taxes.

Yep, tax the rich before it's too late and there are no rich anymore. With all this dollar envy that you have, what else are you envious of?

Simon, anyone reading this knows that both McCain and Obama make generalized promises/sound bites (which in short, summarize their beliefs) to appeal to voters. Although $250k is 5 times the median household income in this country, there are many markets especially in Florida, California and New York where $250k is not substantial.

By my perception of the American Dream, $250k is not rich - and therefore, probably shouldn't be taxed as such. "Rich" should apply to Fortune 500 CEOs. The increasing or decreasing of personal income taxes of the individuals listed below would have no impact on the number of people their companies employee.
Dennis Kozloski (Tyco), the late Kenneth Lay (Enron), Bernard Ebbers (WorldCom), Daniel Mudd (Fannie Mae), James Cayne (Bear Stearns), Richard Syron (Freddie Mac), Martin Sullivan (AIG), Richard Fuld Jr. (Lehman Brothers), John Mack (Morgan Stanley), Charles Prince (CITIGROUP)
If the government increases taxes on these people, what will happen? Fewer $100k rounds of poker, fewer cases of caviar, fewer exotic automobiles... OR would there be more money to spend on things like sex education and assistance to poor parents to help prevent abortions. More taxes on the rich = Fewer abortions.

A couple of points you made...
"I know there will be a fine coming at me if I don't provide health care." Your fine will be zero dollars.

"I can promise you that if Obama is elected then that business will not be started..." That is guninely bad news, but people like Nick and Millie will start a business in its place.

My opinion - Let's eliminate the income tax for everyone...
Simon, I believe that the most logical, efficient means of collecting taxes is through sales/consumption tax. The federal government should eliminate income taxes entirely and replace them with a flat national sales tax.

Jay,

You can not say, "The increasing or decreasing of personal income taxes of the individuals listed below would have no impact on the number of people their companies employee."

You have no proof of this. Just like I wrote above, if someone wants there bottom line to stay the same, they have options. IF these people don't want to give up their poker, caviar and exotic cars, then they could do something else. There is a funny thing about the power some of these people have within the company and decision making.

Are you telling me poor people can't educate their kids on how NOT to become pregnant? You have got to be kidding me! They need money from the rich to do that?

I agree, there has to be a better tax system.

John, obviously a CEO of any company has the authority to hire/fire/layoff employees. However, do you believe that if James Cayne paid more in personal income taxes that he would have hired fewer people?

Education isn't free - therefore, it does require money to educate people, even poor people.

Jay,

For starters, he could MAKE less. To make less his company could DO less. His company could do less with less PEOPLE. Sounds simple. Either way you look at it, the "rich" already pay MOST of all taxes now as it is! To penalize people for doing better is beyond me.

SEX education is free. Do I need to pay someone for that? I don't think so!

Jay - WE AGREE ON SOMETHING!!!!

I am 100% in favor of the abolition of income tax to be replaced by a national sales tax. Apart from anything else, it removes the possibility of tax avoidance.

We could also get rid of the IRS - a $12 billion saving. We should also be looking to LOWER corporation taxes so that our companies can employ more people who will then have more money to spend which will generate more tax!!

I'm a bit busy right now, so I'll read the rest of what you said later and respond - but I thought you'd like to know we agree on something! :)

Simon, that is almost scary!

OCT

2008

The implications of inequitable wealth distribution in the US are the unresolved problem of the last century. Overlooked is the larger problem that the divide over how the ones with the votes to do something about wealth inquity, using the power of the ballot instead of giving it up under the influence of the wealthiest with the power to shape American foreign and domestic policy agenda, is what this elite class had donw with the power the concentration of wealth into their few hands, has been able to buy for them.

Jay, pardon this intrusion, but, since my research strongly impresses me that what is coming from the right today, is "fascism as usual", consistant with what it was 74 years ago....and since I can thoroughly document everything I post, I hope you will have the patience to permit me to do it here. We can see the contrast between the sentiment of the republican leadership in the time of TR & Taft, circa 1906 to 1913, vs. what it was in 1934, and the similiarities of wealthy right leaning political leaders 25 years after Taft, with those voiced (screamed) today. I can document in further posts, that this agenda and sentiments have carried on by these few elite families, through subsequent generations, all with the same agenda, message and methods, through to the present time. The negacive effects of eight years of Bush 43, are consistant with the history. It is, "how they roll"... The Time article in the lower part of this post, relating who was on that July 31, 1939, passenger ship, as well as the makeup of the American Liberty League, supports the idea that the recent $700 billion bailout vote, accomplished almost completely without popular support of the constituents of the representatives who voted to pass it, that the non-partisan "money party", fascism embraced by the American elite in the 1930's is alive and well today, even as they complain to us:

"Jan. 31, 2008 07:33 EST

Enemies everywhere

Permalink

Writing about last night's GOP debate, John Hinderaker of Powerline, Time's 2004 Blog of the Year, shared this observation:

Businessmen, in my experience, are generally more idealistic than politicians. Businessmen really do make deals with a handshake. No one would dream of doing that with Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi or the Clintons. . . .
I don't view this as an argument in Romney's favor. As President, he wouldn't be dealing with honorable, law-abiding businesspeople. He would be going up against the Vladimir Putins, Osama bin Ladens and Harry Reids of the world.

That passage was then promptly quoted by National Review's Mark Steyn, who said that Hinderaker "might be on to something."

Why don't Democrats become more bipartisan? Why are liberal bloggers and The Angry Left so hateful? Why does Bush Derangement Syndrome cause people to say such mean things, make such extreme accusations, about the Commander-in-Chief? After all, the right-wing of the Republican Party is so reasonable and sober and so eager to work cooperatively with Democrats for what's best for the country that it's just inexcusable for liberals to view politics as warfare and refuse to shed their hostility in order to get things done.

And besides, the nation's poor War Cheerleaders of the Right are always so besieged by vicious Enemies lurking on every corner -- people who are ruthless, without scruples, and who are even willing to break the law. Like Vladimir Putin, Osama bin Laden, and Harry Reid.

They're treated very unfairly everywhere -- by the press, by colleges, by political elites, by other countries, by the U.N., by minorities. There is no more besieged and victimized group anywhere on the planet than white, Christian, American conservative males (except, perhaps, right-wing Jews, the only worthy competitor for the glorious mantle of Most Persecuted). Among other things, they must battle "the unholy alliance of leftists, Islamists and multiculturalist racial pressure groups."

Every institution treats them unfairly; every sector poses a threat to their Goodness; they are surrounded by soul-less Enemies who wish to do them harm. Nobody deserves the slightest sympathy -- nobody's plight merits the slightest concern -- except for theirs. They are the best people on Earth -- actually, the best people ever in all of human history. And everyone is against them. Everyone is waging war on them. Enemies everywhere work together to threaten and harm them. It's all deeply unfair. And they must wage vicious war -- against all the Enemies, Everywhere -- if they have any hope of being protected.

* * * * *

For a sense of just how very much the Honorable, Besieged Right hates law-breaking -- just absolutely cannot abide it -- my earlier post on yesterday's testimony of Attorney General Michael Mukasey is here."

Wait !!! What's this? The actual history is "different", than the way the right and the media it owns, have described it all to us?

William H. Taft, republican US president, 1909 - 1913, said in 1907 (Center Column, of .pdf file, pg. 2)

TAFT'S STAND ON THE ISSUES; Opens His Campaign in Ohio with Praise ...

"Evil of Swollen Fortunes"

"One of the results of the condition and evils I have been describing is the concentration of enormous wealth in the hands of few men..."

Here is Sen. Birch Bayh. democrat, campaigning for president in 1976

http://www.4president.org/brochures/...76brochure.htm

Birch Bayh for President 1976 Campaign Brochure

...Our economy is at a crucial turning point. The problems of skyrocketing energy and food costs and the inability of the free market to function effectively have led me to conclude that recent policy failures are the result of an outdated view of the American economy. Therefore, I am proposing the establishment of a Temporary National Economic Committee -- similar to the Committee established by President Roosevelt in 1938 -- to publicly investigate the concentration of economic power in America today....

This is reporting about the findings of TNEC, "the committee" Bayh was referring to:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...764913,00.html

Thirteen Families
Monday, Oct. 28, 1940

...He wrote an erudite bombshell of questionable accuracy titled America's 60 Families, watched his subjects squirm while Secretary Ickes and then Assistant Attorney General Jackson quoted it with gusto. Within less than a year the families were sprawled under more powerful microscopes as the Temporary National Economic Committee made a study of corporate practices and controls....

...Last week the Securities and Exchange Commission published its report to null a 121-page study of "The Distribution of Ownership in the 200 Largest Non-Financial* Corporations." Based on 1937 figures, it whittled the Lundberg roster to 13 families, was considerably less personal than his census of Du Pont bathrooms, considerably more dogged in tracking down actual shareholdings (Lundberg had estimated fortunes by 1924 tax returns). It found:

» Of an estimated 8,500,000 U. S. stockholders, less than 75,000 (.06% of the population) own fully one-half of all corporate stock held by individuals. The majority of the voting power in the average large corporation is in the hands of not much over 1% of the shareholders. But some of the biggest and best-known corporations are exceptions (i.e., widely held, without visible centralized control): A. T. & T., Anaconda, Bethlehem Steel, Eastman Kodak, General Electric, Goodyear, R. C. A., U. S. Steel, Pennsylvania Railroad, etc....

....» The 13 most potent family groups' holdings were worth $2,700,000,000, comprised over 8% of the stock of the 200 corporations: Fords, $624,975,000; Du Fonts, $573,690,000; Rockefellers, $396,583,000; Mellons, $390,943,000; McCormicks (International Harvester), $111,102,000; Hartfords (A. & P.), $105,702,000; Harknesses (Standard Oil), $104,891,000; Dukes (tobacco, power), $89,459,000; Pews (Sun Oil), $75,628,000; Pitcairns (Pittsburgh Plate Glass), $65,576,000; Clarks (Singer), $57,215,000; Reynolds (tobacco), $54,766,000; Kresses (S. H. Kress), $50,044,000.

» Three groups—Du Fonts, Mellons, Rockefellers—have shareholdings valued at nearly $1,400,000,000, control, directly or indirectly, 15 of the 200 corporations."

The dark history of Sterling Clark - The Boston Globe

May 2, 2007 ... It is true that I have an unhealthy obsession with Sterling Clark, the meta-rich , right-wing maniac

To this day....67 years later....the SEC records are still sealed:

http://www.archives.gov/research/gui...roups/144.html
Records of the Temporary National Economic Committee [TNEC]
Search ARC for Entries from this Record Group..."

So....how did we come to today's political climate...conditions where the right goes ballistic in reaction to Obama stating that he favors "spreading the wealth around"?

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/08/02/2933/
Published on Thursday, August 2, 2007 by CommonDreams.org
The Threat of U.S. Fascism: An Historical Precedent
by Alan Nasser....

Well....there was the coup attempt, in 1934, financed and supported by Duponts and Clarks, mentioned above in the 1940 Time magazine, excerpt.....

[PDF]

Chapter 1

File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat
Wesleyan University. The Honors College. The Forgotten Treason: The Plot to Overthrow FDR. by. Emily Lacy Marshall. Class of 2008. A thesis submitted to the ...
wesscholar.wesleyan.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1058&context=etd_hon_theses

In the same Feb., 25, 1935 Time Magazine issue, editors at Time continued to mock USMC Major Gen. Smedely D. Butler, the fascist coup whistleblower, even as they reported his vindication, in just one sentence:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...754551,00.html Monday, Feb. 25, 1935 "Names make news." Last week these names made this news: ...To Pittsburgh one morning went eagle-nosed Major-General Smedley Darlington ("Old Gimlet Eye") Butler, to speak at a banquet.* That same day Jimmy ("Schnozzle") Durante was appearing at a Pittsburgh theatre. Stepping off his train, General Butler thrust his head forward in characteristic pose, stomped down the platform. Loiterers, mistaking him for the well-publicized Durante, began to cheer. That evening nosey Comedian Durante turned up at the banquet where nosey General Butler was speaking. A cameraman snapped them nose to nose.....

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...4551-3,00.html ....Also last week the House Committee on Un-American Activities purported to report that a two-month investigation had convinced it that General Butler's story of a Fascist march on Washington was alarmingly true.

The Plot to Seize the White House: The Shocking True Story of the ... - Google Books Result

by Jules Archer - 2007 - History - 256 pages
... in the background. t BUTLER: . . . and in about two weeks the American Liberty League appeared, which was just about what he described it to be. ...

The "American Liberty League": It's president was former democratic party chairman,

Mr. Shouse was an executive in the democratric party. I'd enjoy reading your opinions about why the NY Times had no interest in seriously reporting on Gen. Smedley butler's testimony in Washington, yet it was in the midst of publishing this flurry of articles about the "new organization" Mr. Shouse was fronting for, backed financially by the same men who Butler testified had attempted to persuade him to take their money for the work of mobilizing a veterans' army to serve as the muscle for their fascist coup:

Quote: CLICK THE FOLLOWING LINK TO READ THE NUMEROUS NY TIMES REPORTS ABOUT the American Liberty League:

http://query.nytimes.com/search/quer...eague&srchst=p

#
Article available with Home Delivery/Times Reader subscription or for purchase. LEAGUE IS FORMED TO SCAN NEW DEAL, 'PROTECT RIGHTS'; Smith, Davis, Wadsworth and I. du Pont Among F... [PDF]

WASHINGTON, Aug. 22. -- A group of prominent Democrats joined a few Republicans today to incorporate the American Liberty League, intended, according to its incorporators, to combat radicalism, preserve property rights, uphold and preserve the Constitutio...View free preview
August 23, 1934 - Special to THE NEW YORK TIMES. - Front Page

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...929494,00.html
Monday, Dec. 12, 1932
Married. Jouett Shouse, new president of "the Association Against the Prohibition Amendment"

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...787825,00.html
Monday, May. 07, 1934

Unsuccessful last fortnight were a group of Senate silverites who tried to to enlist the support of President Roosevelt for legislation to up the metal's price from 45¢ to $1.29 per oz. by huge treasury purchases....

...Not a silver Congressman was found on the list. Democrat Joseph Tumulty and the wife of Democrat Jouett Shouse made small headlines as silver owners but neither the onetime secretary to Woodrow Wilson nor the wife of the onetime party manager could be called insiders with the silver bloc. Notable catches were Errett Lobban Cord, member of the Committee for the Nation, owning 1,651,000 oz.; Frank A. Vanderlip Jr., son of another member, owning 300,000 oz.; Amy Collins, treasurer of the Radio League of the Little Flower, mouthpiece for ardent Silverite Father Coughlin, 500,000 oz.; A. Atwater Kent, radio tycoon, 675,000 oz.; Everett Sanders, chairman of the Republican National Committee, 75,000 oz."....

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...787940,00.html
Monday, Jan. 21, 1935

"The League is in no sense a political party," insisted the American Liberty League's President Jouett Shouse last week. "It has no intention of placing its own candidates in the field for any public office." Just to be on the safe side, however, President Shouse filed with the clerk of the U. S. House the League's annual financial report required of all political organizations under the Federal Corrupt Practices Act. Some League investors:

Irénée du Pont $5,000 Lammot du Pont 5,000 Edward F. Hutton (General Foods) 5,000 Sewell Lee Avery (Montgomery Ward) 5,000 George Monroe Moffett (Corn Products) 5,000 Rufus Lenoir Patterson 2nd (American Machine & Foundry) 5,000 Samuel Bayard Colgate (Colgate-Palmolive-Peet) 5,000 Robert Sterling Clark (broker) . . 4,900 Archibald M. L. du Pont 2,500 Hal Roach (cinema comedies) . . 2,500 William Lockhart Clayton (cotton broker) 1,000 Renée W. Baruch (daughter) . . . 100 Mrs. Clarence Mackay 100

Nothing but their names gave the League's well-to-do founders John W. Davis, James W. Wadsworth and Alfred E. Smith. Founder-President Shouse received a salary of $12,000 for Sept. 15-Dec, 29, plus $6,000 traveling expenses."

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...5432-2,00.html
Helpful Harold
Monday, Dec. 16, 1935

...."Liberty League—A term of unconscious humor applied to itself by a group of multimillionaires and their worshipful hangers-on who indignantly insist that the Federal Constitution is an instrument written by Alexander Hamilton for the exclusive protection of large aggregations of property, howsoever acquired."

http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,755611,00.html
Monday, Jan. 13, 1936
League's Lenders

All it takes to start a political organization are two members and one slogan. But to keep a political organization alive requires real money. Very much alive, therefore, was the American Liberty League according to its year-end financial report filed with the Clerk of the House of Representatives last week. The League had taken in $483,175.46 in 1935, still had more than $93,000 in the bank.

Biggest single outlay: $36,750 salary and $18,000 expenses for cold-eyed President Jouett Shouse. Biggest single item of income: a $79,750 "loan" from Irenee du Pont. League lenders in the $10,000 class included Lammot, Pierre, S. Hallock and William du Pont, John J. Raskob, Alfred P. Sloan Jr., Ernest T. Weir, Joseph E. Widener, all good haters of the New Deal. In the $5,000 class were Phillips Petroleum Co. and Edward F. ("Let's Gang Up") Hutton.

http://books.google.com/books?q=scri...G=Search+Books
The Scripps-Howard press and its United Press wire service, an exception to the
... a story headlined: "Liberty League Controlled by Owners of $37,000,000,000.

"A clique of U.S. industrialists is hell-bent to bring a fascist state to supplant our democratic government and is working closely with the fascist regime in Germany and Italy. I have had plenty of opportunity in my post in Berlin to witness how close some of our American ruling families are to the Nazi regime. . . .

"Certain American industrialists had a great deal to do with bringing fascist regimes into being in both Germany and Italy. They extended aid to help Fascism occupy the seat of power, and they are helping to keep it there."

-- William E. Dodd, U.S. Ambassador to Germany, 1937.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...761800,00.html
Monday, Jul. 31, 1939

Hearing that Democratic Chairman James Aloysius Farley, GOP Chairman John D. M. Hamilton, Liberty Leaguer Jouett Shouse, Stiff-necked Democratic Senator Joseph O'Mahoney, Republican Congressman Ham Fish and John and Anna Roosevelt were all sailing for Europe on the same ship, Franklin D. Roosevelt remarked : "That will be a great boatload," observed that if someone didn't get thrown overboard before the ship reached Southampton he would miss a guess. It would not, he predicted, be Jim Farley....

"Ham Fish", NY congressman, was on that ship with the other non-partisan fascists of that time. If they were not facists, what was the coup about, and the formation of the American Liberty League, financed by the wealthy men named in the Dickstein-McCormack hearings as the backers of the coup?

...and what do you make of this?

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstra...8AD85F468485F9
JURY IS SELECTED FOR TRIAL OF HILL; All-Male Panel Will Hear Perjury Evidence Against Fish's Secretary

Special to THE NEW YORK TIMES.

January 8, 1942, Thursday

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstra...8AD85F468485F9
SENATORS ARE NAMED AT THE TRIAL OF HILL; Grand Jury Secretary Identifies Speeches Taken From Mailbags

January 9, 1942, Friday

Page 9, 263 words

WASHINGTON, Jan. 8 (AP) -- The names of Senators Nye, Reynolds and Clark of Idaho, and Representative Stratton of Illinois were brought into the perjury trial of George Hill, second secretary to Representative Fish of New York, when eighteen mailbags containing franked Congressional speeches were opened in court today.

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstra...8AD85F468485F9

WITNESS SAYS HILL USED LUNDEEN FRANK; Mrs. Spielman Testifies Viereck Wrote Speeches for Senator

January 10, 1942, Saturday

Section: BUSINESS FINANCIAL, Page 32, 233 words

WASHINGTON, Jan. 9 (U.P.) -- Mrs. Gordon Spielman of New York City testified in District Court today that George D. Hill, secretary to Representative Fish of New York, used the frank of Senator Lundeen of Minnesota to mail speeches which the government alleges were written by George Sylvester Viereck, German propagandist. The witness was a clerk for Senator Lundeen from July, 1939, to December, 1940.

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstra...89D85F468485F9
HILL LINKS FISH WITH VIERECK ACTS; Convicted Secretary Reverses Testimony in Telling of His Introduction to Nazi Agent MAILED SPEECH ON 'FRANK' Witness Says 125,000 Copies Were Sent Out and He Got 'Tip' of $100 From Defendant

February 20, 1942, Friday

Page 11, 554 words

WASHINGTON, Feb. 19 (AP) -- A story of how George Sylvester Viereck, German propaganda agent, visited Capitol Hill in 1940 and arranged for wholesale distribution of Congressional speeches attacking the Administration's foreign policy was told in Federal Court today by George Hill, former assistant secretary of Representative Hamilton Fish.

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstra...89D85F468485F9
SAYS MRS. LUNDEEN TOOK VIERECK DATA; Former Secretary to Senator Testifies That Widow "Stripped' Files of Records TELLS OF SPEECH-WRITING Witness Asserts Joint Effort Produced Anti-British Attack -- Viereck Paid by Nazi

February 25, 1942, Wednesday

Page 10, 341 words

WASHINGTON, Feb. 24 (AP) -Mrs. Gordon Spielman, former confidential secretary to the late Senator Lundeen, testified in District Court today that his widow stripped his files of all information relating to George Sylvester Viereck, pro-German publicist....

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...773070,00.html
The Memory of Fish
Monday, Mar. 02, 1942

Ham Fish's memory went dead. The gangling, trumpet-tongued Congressman was on the witness stand in Washington, called there to explain his relations with George Sylvester Viereck, veteran Nazi propaganda agent. Viereck was on trial, charged with failing to tell the State Department all about his activities. One Government witness was George Hill, World War I buddy and for some 20 years office clerk to Ham Fish. Because he had once denied knowing Agent Viereck, Hill himself was tried for perjury a few weeks ago, had been sentenced to two-to-six years in jail. He took it like a man who was loyally suppressing a big secret. But in court last week, Hill admitted that:

¶He had served as handy man of a propaganda ring managed by Viereck and Prescott Dennett, Washington publicist.

¶ Ham Fish had introduced him to Viereck, after Fish had held a long conference with the Nazi agent in Fish's private office.

¶ Viereck then instructed him to mail out, under frank of Minnesota's late Senator Ernest Lundeen, copies of an isolationist speech Lundeen made in the Senate.

¶Fish provided Viereck with a mailing list of some 100,000 names.

Ham Fish strode in with majestic dignity. But his memory was in bad shape. He could not be sure whether he had introduced Viereck to his secretary, George Hill. All such details had faded into a fog. Prosecutor William Power Maloney asked suavely whether it was a coincidence that Viereck's views as a Nazi propagandist "coincide so closely with your views as a Congressman at this time." Mr. Fish could still shout. He leaned forward, shouted: "The man who made that statement lies." Maloney asked him whether he referred to Viereck. Fish replied: "I am referring to you. ... I didn't come here to be insulted."

Said Maloney: "I think the American people have been insulted."

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstra...8ED85F428585F9

Nazi Data Link Republican To 1940 Propaganda Drive; A Congressman Tried to Get Convention to Back Isolationism, Records State-- Hamilton Fish Denies German Aid

The New York Times

May 27, 1956, Sunday

Page 1, 2145 words

WASHINGTON, May 26-- Long-secret documents made public today recounted that Nazi propagandists had collaborated with "a well-known Republican Congressman" in trying to get the 1940 Republican National Convention to adopt an "isolationist" platform."

http://books.google.com/books?id=HqN...vUEjTWny__HC0A

...The outbreak of hostilities between Germany and the United States in December, 1941, did not affect this pact.... IG Farben supplied Du pont with information....in the greatest detail....until January/February 1945...

Damn Ed. Your comments are longer than the freaking posts they are put on.

Jason, It's no wonder he stays anonymous

Hey! Will someone interpret for me what Ed LeFevre just posted. It looked important but I fell asleep half way through. Just the short version please.

OCT

2008

Titanium, on the assumption you are serious, and it is probably a slim assumption, the point is that there is no left of center political faction in the US, and since it political orientation is all skewed to the right of center, the "money party".....a bi-partisan alliance of the wealthiest and those who front for them - Bushes come to mind.... have practiced an agenda that has gotten us to the said state we find ourselves in, today.... I'm tilting this post, "How right you are". It's an appeal to beg you to read and think, instead of posting the responses that are so typical of those who have not put the time in to study where we've been so we can better grasp where we are, and plan, with our children's futures in mind, where we, as a nation, are going. I admit many of the opinions posted on these blogs, scare me.

Old Hickory's Weblog: The American Liberty League and coup plotting

..."The most dramatic event involving the Liberty League, at least indirectly, was a charge made by antiwar retired Gen. Smedley Butler, who was a popular figure at the Bonus Army protest during the Hoover Administration which had been put down by troops under the command of Dwight Eisenhower and Douglas MacArthur. He testified before a Congressional Committee about being approached by a representative of wealthy plotters wanting him to front a military coup against the federal government. He claimed that it was the some of the same people who went on to form the Liberty League that were behind the plotting...."

McCormack-Dickstein Committee - Wikisource

McCormack-Dickstein Committee

[edit] Page 20

."..as long as there was a lot of money stirring around—and I had noticed some of them with money to whom I have talked were dissatisfied and talking about having dictators—I thought that perhaps they might be tempted to put up money.

Now there is one point that I have forgotten which I think is the most important of all. I said, "What are you going to call this organization?"

He said, “Well, I do not know."

I said, “Is there anything stirring about it yet." "Yes," he says; "you watch; in 2 or 3 weeks you will see it come out in the paper. There will be big fellows in it. This is to be the background of it. These are to be the villagers in the opera. The papers will come out with it." He did not give me the name of it, but he said that it would all be made public; a society to maintain the Constitution, and so forth. and in about two weeks the American Liberty League appeared, which was just about what he described it to be. We might have an assistant President, somebody to take the blame; and if things do not work out, he can drop him. He said, "That is what he was building up Hugh Johnson for. Hugh Johnson talked too damn much and got him into a hole, and he is going to fire him in the next three or four weeks."

I said, "How do you know all this?" "Oh," he said, "we are in with him all the time. We know what is going to happen."[deleted] They had a lot of talk this time about maintaining the constitution. I said, "I do not see that the Constitution is in any danger," and I ask him again, why are you in this thing?" He said, "I am a business man. I have got a wife and children."

In other words, he had had a nice trip to Europe with his family, for 9 months, and he said that that cost plenty, too.

The CHAIRMAN. Did you have any further talks with him?

General BUTLER. NO. The only other time I saw or heard from him was when I wanted Paul to uncover him. He talked to me and he telephoned Paul, saying he wanted to see him. He called me up and asked if Paul was a reputable person, and I said he was. That is the last thing I heard from him.

The Chairman. The last talk you had with MacGuire was in the Bellevue in August of this year?

General BUTLER. August 22; yes. The date can be identified,...

Deleted Text

^ ^ Text in BOLD is deleted excerpts.

"Suppression by the House Un-American Activities Committee took the form of deleting extensive excerpts relating to Wall Street financiers including Guaranty Trust director Grayson Murphy, J.P. Morgan, the Du Pont interests, Remington Arms, and others allegedly involved in the plot attempt. Even today, in 1975, a full transcript of the hearings cannot be traced."[1]

"Journalist John L. Spivak, researching Nazism and anti-Semitism for New Masses magazine, got permission from Dickstein to examine HUAC's public documents and was (it seems unwittingly) given the unexpurgated testimony amid stacks of other papers",[2] which he printed."

- TIME

Monday, Apr. 01, 1935

Died. Gerald Charles MacGuire, 38, bond salesman (Grayson M.P. Murphy & Co.) whom Major General Smedley D. Butler last November charged had approached him with an offer to lead a Fascist march on Washington (TIME, Dec. 3); of uremia and pneumonia; in New Haven, Conn. His brother, William J. MacGuire, declared that his death was the result of the "unjust charges."

Responses to the Great Depression 1929-1939 History Department at the University of San Diego, n.d. includes this brief description of the League:

The "Old Right" emerged in the 1930's in opposition to Roosevelt and the New Deal. The American Liberty League founded in August, 1934, as a bipartisan anti-FDR coalition of the rich and corporate oligarchy, led by the duPonts as the leading contributors - organizers were John J. Raskob, John Davis, Nathan Miller, Irenee duPont, James Wadsworth - supported by Al Smith who opposed the New Deal and declared in Nov. 1935 that he was going to "take a walk" - spent $1m 1934-36 to defeat FDR, especially with propaganda sent to newspapers - Postmaster General Jim Farley called it the "American Cellophane League" because it was a DuPont product you could see right through - but Liberty League financed lawsuits against the New Deal, especially the 1935 Wagner Act that required collective bargaining (my emphasis)

Click links below, To magnify, click on News Clipping image after it loads in your browser window:

http://home.comcast.net/~qvc/hfishfrt.JPG

May 27, 1958 - Captured German Papers Claim U.S. Congressman Aided Nazi Propaganda

http://home.comcast.net/~qvc/hfishpg4.JPG

Page 2 image of article described above.

http://home.comcast.net/~qvc/viereck.JPG

March 26, 1946 Court Hears of Nazi Propaganda

Germans spent million in this country before Pearl Harbor

http://home.comcast.net/~qvc/pearsonsm.JPG

July 18, 1946 - Nazis' Pre-Pearl Harbor Trap.

Senator Wheeler Defends Nazi Agent

Lewis Anti-Roosevelt Speech

Pryor purchased Jupiter Island in Hobe Sound, FL, about 1930, and sold lots to the wealthiest and most influential families in the US. He sold Remington in 1934 to his Jupiter Island neighbor, Walter S. Carpenter, the first non-Du Pont to be president of that company. The Du Pont brothers were named as financiers of Smedley Butler's 1934 coup. Dupont corp. and Standard Oil of NJ were found to be trading with the enemy through most, if not all of WWII. William S. Farish, president of ESSO NJ, conceded to this charge, in hearings held in 1942 by US Asst. Atty. Gen. Thurmond Arnold. DuPont Corp. traded technical info with IG Farben until "January, 1945", according to this source: "so that in this regard, no secrets would exist between the United States and Germany".

Pryor's son, Sam Pryor Jr., was 1940 republican presidential candidate, Wendell Willkie's eastern campaign manager. Young Pryor flew, in his private plane, a US oilman who he knew to be a Nazi agent, to meet Willkie in his Indiana hometown to discuss contributing large sums to Willkie's campaign.

http://home.comcast.net/~qvc/mchildssm.JPG

Marquis Childs 1946 - More About Nazi Intrigue in U.S.

http://home.comcast.net/~QVC/dyestuff.JPG

May 14, 1942 Eight Makers of Dyestuffs Are Indicted- Lamont Du Pont Among Individuals Named

...the last two firms formerly were controlled by I.G. Farben Industrie, huge German chemical and dye trust, but now under control of the alien property custodian

http://home.comcast.net/~QVC/dyestuff2.JPG

Image of page 2 of above article on Du Pont "trading with the enemy".

COHORT OF THE AMERICAN CENTURY - New York Times

"THERE are two things America is not supposed to have: an empire and a ruling class....

.....'It's certainly not good to have an elite that is dictating what America's role in the world should be,'' Mr. Isaacson said. But the subjects of the book, Mr. Thomas points out, also brought with them an enviable sense of principle and bipartisanship."

The power and influence was purchased with the extremely large fortunes of the elite described above. The fortunes shaped their extreme right, blindly aggressive politics. Despite what all the following presidents wanted , this "bi-partisan" globalist, dominant right wing power base still has a stranglehold on US foreign and domestic policy"

No Worries? - TIME

Monday, Sep. 25, 1950

......In two years as head of the Justice Department's antitrust division, Bergson had filed 135 suits, including those against Aluminum Co. of America, E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. and the Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. (TIME, Sept. 26 et seq.). He has won 80 of his cases, lost only seven. The rest, including the big ones, are still pending. But lately there have been hints that Bergson would have less & less to do. One hint: When the Government decided to build the hydrogen bomb, it handed the big job to Du Pont. Washington no longer seemed to be worried that Du Pont, which the trustbusters had said was too big, would have to grow much bigger to build the bomb.

Farewell Address January 17, 1961 Military Industrial Complex

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial ...
www.eisenhower.archives.gov/speeches/farewell_address.html

Brothers: The Hidden History of the Kennedy Years - Page 206

by David Talbot - History - 2007 - 478 pages

At a "Recollecting JFK" forum at the Kennedy Library in October 2003, Robert
McNamara grew euphoric when the speech was evoked. ...

Brothers: The Hidden History of the Kennedy Years - Page 207

by David Talbot - History - 2007 - 478 pages

Ever since World War II, America had been dominated by "a permanent war
establishment," in the words of maverick sociologist C. Wright Mills. ...

Brothers: The Hidden History of the Kennedy Years - Page 208

by David Talbot - History - 2007

"....One of the ironic things about the entire situation is that Mr. Krushchev and I occupy approximately the same political positions insied our governments," the president observed. "he would like to prevent a nuclear war but is under severe pressure from his hard-line crowd, which interprets every move in that direction as appeasement. I've got similar problems...."

Exactly one month after JFK's assassination, Harry Truman wrote:

Limit CIA Role To Intelligence
Pay-Per-View - Washington Post - ProQuest Archiver - Dec 22, 1963

"I think it has become necessary to take another look at the purpose and operations of our Central Intelligence Agency – CIA….

For some time I have been disturbed by the way the CIA has been diverted from its original assignment. It has become an operational and at times policy-making arm of the government. This has led to trouble and may have compounded our difficulties in several explosive areas.

We have grown up as a nation, respected for our free institutions and for our ability to maintain a free and open society. There is something about the way the CIA has been functioning that is casting a shadow over our historic position and I feel that we need to correct it.

Harry S. Truman, December 22, 1963

Off the Record: The Private Papers of Harry S. Truman - Google Books Result

June 10, 1964

....the CIA was set up by me for the sole purpose of getting all the available information to the president. It was not intended to operate as an international agency engage in strange activities.

Sincerely yours,

Harr S. Truman

After you've read pages 206 through 208, above, read the following, It should make the entire premise of my posts in this discussion, much clearer:

CARTER TAKES HIS LUMPS - TIME

Monday, Jan. 31, 1977

....In the Senate Caucus Room, both sides were poised for battle. At stake was the confirmation of Jimmy Carter's nominee as CIA director: Theodore Sorensen, 48. Ready to bear witness against him were representatives of assorted conservative and right-wing groups, including the Liberty Lobby and the John Birch Society. Prepared to defend him were some of the ornaments of the Eastern liberal Establishment such as Averell Harriman and Clark Clifford.

After Senator Pat Moynihan introduced his fellow New Yorker as a man by whom the CIA "will be well served," the slender, bespectacled Sorensen took over. Looking grim and even more somber than usual, he read a vigorous ten-page rebuttal of what he called "scurrilous and personal attacks." When he had finished, he picked up another piece of paper and began reading from it. "It is now clear," he said, "that a substantial portion of the U.S. Senate and the intelligence community is not yet ready to accept as director of Central Intelligence an outsider who believes as I believe." As the 15 members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence visibly stiffened, Sorensen went on to announce that he was withdrawing his nomination. The battle was over before it had really been joined.

.....gallows wit, Sorensen remarked: "Well, Gary Gilmore and I..." He told TIME New York Bureau Chief Laurence Barrett: "As someone said to me this morning, a lot of dirty little streams flowed together to make this flood. There was the extreme right, the Kennedy haters, the Carter haters. The smokescreen reasons—outright lies and falsehoods—masked the real opposition. To boil it down to one sentence, people felt that an outsider with my beliefs should not head that agency."....

....The withdrawal was a rebuke not only to Sorensen but to Carter. Only eight presidential Cabinet appointees have been rejected by the Senate in U.S. history. It is even rarer for a nominee to be turned down by a Congress controlled by the President's own party. The last time that happened was in 1925, when Charles Warren, Calvin Coolidge's choice for Attorney General, was rejected because he was too closely identified with the Sugar Trust."

After Jimmy Carter became president, in Jan., 1977, he decided not to keep GWH Bush on as CIA Director, instead choosing JFK's close advisor and speech writer, Ted Sorenson. My point is that the history of the far right in the US is so extreme, highlighted as we see now in the protests that progressive income taxation is SOCIALISM, that it has forced the country to waste so much money, talent, opportunity, and the potential for bettter relations with the rest of the world. All driven by a wealth obsessed, far right bi-partisan oligarchy. Here are links to backgrounds of the rightist groups and "leaders" who came after the "American Liberty League":

America First Committee

Robert E. Wood

American Security Council (ASC)

Leave a response…

Name:

Email:
(optional)

Comment:

What does the graphic say?