"Oh, How Revenge Is Sweet. However, Oh... How bitter it is to eat, [it digestively repeats], if reciprocity compels it to retaliate."
The Philosopher
Our Nation's reconstruction cannot occur. For who proceeds forward - ONWARD TOGETHER - looking backward? All so blinded descend into The Pit of Despair.
Who can forget Injustice's victimization of them? Who can erase bitter memories of past wrongs? On the other hand, no new doors open, if old evil ways are not cast-away.
All are equal in the capacity to forgive. To let go the anger, to reconcile, so all may better live. A new home cannot be built, if the laborers war. Looking to past, The Carpenter is nailed, the new structure cannot be framed to last. Better... To leave retaliation for another day. From memory it will, in time, pass away.
The Philosopher, The Theologian, The Mystic, ?the prophet? et al
END
LEGAL AND ILLEGAL CORRUPTION
LEGAL CORRUPTION
IS LEGAL
BUT
INSIDIOUSLY IMMORAL.
OUR NATION IS MIRED
IN A CESSPOOL
No house constructed over a cesspool is habitable. The stench drives the residents elsewhere. America is the Prodigal Son. Guilty of squandering its abundant birthright - wasting its heritage. We must COME TO OUR SENSES. Each must assist the other in cleansing. Whether they be conservative or liberal. Wash the filth from our robes. Then proceed on the Way BACK TO THE FATHER; and, return to our Founding Fathers' intent, ideals, principles, morality, honor and integrity. Who is at fault? All of us bear degrees of culpability. However, we are A FAMILY, never perfect in all our dealings. And, as our forefathers did, in times of crisis, we MUST BE STRONG, COURAGEOUS - COME TOGETHER AS ONE. Each looking after and caring for the other, in what ever talent The Father gifted us. We can rebuild a New 21th. Century AMERICA. Let us be about the Nation's Business.
GIDDINS!!!
TOGETHER!!!
THE PHILOSOPHER, THE THEOLOGIAN
KICKBAKERY
CONTRACTERY
JUST A LITTLE SPENDING MONEY.OK, KID. NOW YOU UNDERSTAND - THE RULES OF CONGRESS. SO, DON'T JOIN THE NAVY, AND MAKE ANY WAVES. You know THE SCORE. Listen, Kid. One more thing. If things go bad just blame THE LIBERALS.Who is that guy, Haldemann? Put him on The List. Get Edgar ...
HOW MUCH WILL WE GET SELLING RHODE ISLAND? IT'S SMALL, NO ONE WILL NOTICE. OK. IT'S A DEAL. I'LL TELL DEAD-EYE-DICK TO SCARE THE HELL OUT OF 'EMALOT. LONG AS, EVERYONE GETS THEIR USUSAL CUT. AND WE DO IT IN SECRET COMMITTEE . TOP SECRET, FOR THE NATIONAL SECURITY. AND CHENEY WHIPS UP THE MOB, FRIGHTENING THEM WITH HIS FEAR-MONGERING. Like the "Commies invaded it. And, have NUKES there, now. Tell 'em it's Armageddon. Maybe? You know..."
The Cynic:
"We still got the best corruption in the world."
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
"Just one more thing Kid. The Congress Rule is: Once you're bought, ya gotta stay bought. Otherwise, The Boys will $%#@!&^* you. Once you're in, there's no gettin out - no goin back. It's like a virgin who lost her virginity, Son. It's life - politics."
IF OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS
WILL NOT REFORM
OBVIOUS GOVERNMENT CORRUPTION;
THE NATION
IS LOST!
NO OTHER PROGRESSIVE
ECONOMIC REFORM IS POSSIBLE.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
THE WHOLE
TERRIBLE TRUTH IS
ALMOST THE ENTIRE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS
LEGALLY
CORRUPT
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
LOBBYIST REFORM - NOW
DO NOT GO SLOW!
We are concerned with recent GOP statements "We should go slow on lobbyist reform." WE DISAGREE. Now is the time for reform, or reform will never be realized. All honorable conservatives to speak up demanding both parties "Bite the Bullet;' and, GIDDINS = Get It Done; Do it Now With Ethics." All of US
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
LEGAL CORRUPTION?
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Latest Example:
CNN reported illegal immigrants our being intentionally transported in vast number to provide cheap labor for the New Orleans Clean-Up and Reconstruction. If true, the time is pregnant for: The Immigration Service, The Justice Department and Federal Marshals etc to abandon all other duties, and to descend upon New Orleans, to enforce THE LAW. As for "Labor Contractors" providing such labor, it is a federal crime to commit fraud in federal contracts. HELLO?
Latest Horrific Legal Corruption Example:
CNN reported FEMA is paying $3,300 per "month" [this is, an incredible $39,6000.00 annually] for "each" - "yes, each" New Orleans Katrina mobile home for victims. HELLO? IT IS LEGAL, but another flagrant illustration of federal legal corruption. Among millions of examples.
*** Where are the William Proxmire republicans? May he R.I.P. ***
IMMEDIATE
CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATION(S)
MANDATED
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
SOUNDS LIKE:
Mr. 10% from Kickback City is back in town.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
KICKBACKERY
EQUALS
KICKBACKISM
Kickbackery works like this. Mr. 10% who resides in Kickback City, approaches his partner-to be with a smile. Here's the deal, Pal. I sell you xyz product or service, and you overpay me its value by at least 50%. Then, I secretly kickback to you 10% or more of the extra purchase price. Now, that's either in outright cash, which lacks class, and sometimes may be illegal. Better yet ,I kick back to you In-Kind. Like I arrange a very cheap price on an expensive imported car, or anything else you want. Or, I give your wife, family or friends a job. Let's say consultng. Where they don't have to show up every day. There are millions of ways, as there are dreams. And 99.99% are absolutely LEGAL. So what'da ya say, Pal. Are we friends; or not?
THE SCORE IS:
CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS
OK Kid. Ya See. It all comes down to campaign contributions. BLUNTLY- MONEY! This is how it works. We give you the campaign contributions, to run for office. The campaign contributions come from the profits we make when people buy our products made in China , you know. YOU DON'T THINK WE'RE STUPID AND WOULD SPEND OUR OWN MONEY. NO WAY. The little people pay. They just don't realize it. Your opponent has no money, because he won't play ball. You buy all the advertising. Get elected. And, then you're our boy in Congress. So, the people are against PUBLIC FINANCING OF ELECTIONS. Caus they hate politicians. Great! But, it is their money we use to elect our agreeable candidates.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Remember. You're only a crook,
if ya get caught.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ ALWAYS BLAME THE DO-GOODER LIBERALS
OK, KID. NOW YOU UNDERSTAND - THE RULES OF CONGRESS. SO, DON'T JOIN THE NAVY, AND MAKE ANY WAVES. You know THE SCORE. Listen, Kid. One more thing. If things go bad just blame THE LIBERALS. WE ALMOST GOT THE PUBLIC CONVINCED THEY'RE LIKE COMMIES. YOU KNOW, THE PINK MENACE WITH THEIR GAY FRIENDS ETC. WE GOT EM ON THE SIDE OF SIN. AINT NOBODY GONNA VOTE FOR SIN.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
NEVER APOLOGIZE.
NEVER SAY YOU'RE SORRY
Why? Because it shows weakness, Kid. Show weakness, and that's when the sharks move in for the kill - the feeding frenzy. Ya never see guys in maximum security - real - prisons apologize. They know what that means to their masculinity, if ya get my meaning. So, be a Tammy Wynette, stand by your lie, till the day ya die.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
EVERDAY IS CHRISTMAS ON K STREET
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Hey, Kid. Here's a great one. When you retire. We give you a big job as a LOBBYIST - just like me. Or, how about a beautiful office at corporate headquarters.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
After a jug of vhite lightenink Uncle Bubba fell into one of his Divine Revelation states. Everybody gathered around to hear his pronouncements. Rabbi Moe excitedly screamed, "Baba, vhat do jou be seeink? Vhat ist it? Tell-it me Baba?"
This is vhat Uncle Bubba saw.... People vearing Handcuffs..
WARNING!
WARNING! WARNING!
VACATIONING CONGRESS AND SENATE
N
UMBER TWO
CONGRESS AND SENATE MUST WORK FULL WEEK JUST LIKE ALL OTHER CITIZENS.
UPDATE
MEMBERS OF:
THE UNITED STATES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
AND
THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
Representing US [part-time 97 days a year]
when they are not on vacation.
Oh, Our Poor Congress and Senate.
They are overworked to exhaustion. They need long vacations every month. Then, the poor public servants, will be fresh to labor from Late Tuesday through departure Early Thursday. For another long weekend. We should pay them more, they bear great burderns for us.
Do you know where your Congressmen and Senators are vacationing this month? They could have nervous breakdowns. Maybe they need another salary increase?
LOBBYIST
AND
LEGAL CORRUPTION REFORM
DOOMED! UNTIL NOW!!!
BOTH PARTIES IN HOUSE AND SENATE RESPONSIBLE FOR INACTION!
ATTEMPT TO KEEP THE GRAVY-TRAIN ROLLING ON TO NATIONAL CATASTROPHE!
WE AIN'T GONNA
REFORM NOTHIN'
WE GOT IT MADE FOR LIFE. OUR DISTRICTS ARE REDISTRICTED [GERRYMANDERED] SO WE CAN NEVER LOSE. WE are RE-ELECTION PROOF - meaning it is almost impossible to remove us from office. AND, there is nothing the voter [republican or democrat] can do about it. We are here to stay, so get used to it!
So, WHY SHOULD WE GIVE UP THE GOOD LIFE? Why REFORM; or change anything? Lobbyist and corruption reform is something we demand during reelection campaigning, but it is never something we will ever do. We are not crazy. BESIDES, we like the rides LAVISH TRIPS on those luxury corporate jet. The free meals. Jobs where we only work from late Tuesday and hurry to leave DC early Thursday afternoon. What a job - we call it the Tuesday to Thursday Club. THEN, thanks to the voters, we go on virtual eternal vacations - which we call RECESSES. Like a 10 day vacation [recess] for St. Patty's Day. A week's vacation for President's Day. It never ends... The public just better get used to it. We got it made, and we are not reforming anything. IF THEY DON'T LIKE IT THEY SHOULD RUN FOR GUARANTEED OFFICE THEMSELVES.
WHAT DO THE IDIOTS WANT US TO DO;
GET REAL JOBS - like them?!&$?!#.
TIME TO
CONTINUALLY DUMP
CONGRESS AND SENATE MEMBERS WHO DO NOT COOPERATE SAVING THE MIDDLE-CLAAS
Any elected federal official who was silent or refused to vigorously - vociferously - oppose the Dubai purchase of the US military component parts plant, must be removed from office. Does anyone believe a foreign government or corporation should be directly involved in production of critical fans necessary for our TANKS to operate. They have placed a gun to the heads of our children serving in the military. As for Dubai getting angry, or denying us its ports facilities for our Military - that is absolute nonsense! Very, Very Devious - manipulative PR! Someone with a hidden agenda? MALICIOUS!
INITIAL
LOBBYIST REFORM
PROPOSALS
[REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRATIC]
INSULT TO PUBLIC'S INTELLIGENCE
INSTEAD
Now, is the time for lobbyist reform. The train awaits at the station. The Train To Greatness. BITE THE BULLET.
Do SEVEN [7] THINGS:
1. Ban all items of value from lobbyists to legislators, staff and bureaucracy.
2. Slam Shut The Revolving Door for 5 - FIVE- YEARS for ALL FORMER FEDERAL EMPLOYEES. [Including former Generals in the Military Industrial Complex]
3. Pledge to honestly debate and pass a Constitutional Amendment for PUBLIC FINANCING OF ALL CAMPAIGNS.
4. Pass a Constitutional Amendment for TERM LIMITS (4 Terms in The Senate - 12 Terms in The House). Let the States decide.
5. Prohibit all earmarking.
6. Criminalize all ethics violations on a sliding scale from misdemeanor to third degree felonies.
7. Create new federal court to oversee all legality offederal employmenmt elected and appointive.
Do Less, and you invite Political Disaster into your next campaigns.
ALL of US
Saving The World; One Corporate Prisoner At A Time." The Satirist
STOP FEDERAL CORRUPTION
BY IMMEDIATE PASSAGE OF:
1. FIRST, THE REASONABLE LOBBYIST REFORM PROPOSAL BY "COMMON CAUSE": The only reasonable way to FAIRLY REGULATE CORRUPT AND NON-CORRUPT LOBBYING. Also See: The work of The Honorable Mr. Fred Wertheimer.
2. THE SECOND MANDATORY LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL IS:
SLAMMING SHUT THE REVOLVING DOOR
THE LAW MUST BE [WITHOUT EXCEPTION] APPLICABLE TO "ALL" PRESENT, PAST AND FUTURE FEDERAL EMPLOYEES; AFTER LEAVING FEDERAL EMPLOYMENT. FOR FULL 5 YEARS, THEY MAY NOT HAVE "ANY" FINANCIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH "ANY" ENTITY OR INDIVIDUAL WHICH DID BUSINESS WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. MEANING:
For a period of 5 [five] years after leaving federal employment. All present and future federal employees [their families and goverment subordinates]would be prohibited from: accepting employment with; performing financial duties for; or, being involved in "ANY" financial relationship; or, receiving anything of monetary value from "ANY" industry, corporation, business, or other entity WHICH HAS DONE ANY BUSINESS WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
VIOLATION OF THIS LAW: Would be a federal felony. Mandating a sentence of 10 [ten] years to be served without parole. [Again, the law must be applicable to "ALL" federal employees elected or non-elected; especially, the bureaucracy. Since legal and illegal corruption is pervasive
It was hardly the end of an era, but the opening of the 108th Congress on January 07, 2003, brought the curtain down on the short tenure of Minnesota Senator Dean Barkley, a longtime ally of now-former Governor Jesse Ventura who obtained his Senate post two months ago upon the death of Paul Wellstone. Barkley's service was brief and undistinguished, yet that did not prevent him from offering some valedictory remarks on what he considered the root of evil in Washington--money.
In an exit interview with the Associated Press, Barkley took some parting shots at his Senate colleagues:
``I highly doubt I'll ever get back to this position the old-fashioned way,'' said Barkley, who came in third in his 1994 and 1996 Senate campaigns which were won by Republican Rod Grams and Wellstone, respectively. ``The trend in this town is all about money. Over half of the new members are millionaires.''
``This is the only place in America where bribery is legal and sanctified, because it's political,'' he added, referring to campaign contributions. His solution is the same as Wellstone's: publicly financed elections.
Barkley is not the first to complain about the presence of multiple millionaires among the new (and current) senators. A number of leftist "public interest" groups complain that there are too many wealthy senators who don't understand the needs of "average" people. It's a criticism that predates the republic itself--the rich dominate governance to the detriment of the commoners.
But wealth is not the cause of corruption in government. If anything, it's a symptom. Campaign contributions are not just about obtaining favors; for many businessmen, they're a means of self-defense against populists who seek to destroy private property rights. Consider the pharmaceutical company that donates to a Senate candidate in the hopes that the next Congress won't further erode valid patent protections for new drugs. Some folks--such as Democrats--look at this and cry "bribery"; but to a rational man, this is an ethically justified action. It is the populists who seek to abolish patent protections who are in the wrong, not the pharmaceutical company. This same example can be applied to literally hundreds of industries that are under daily assault from Capitol Hill.
Corruption arises when a government exceeds its constitutional and moral boundaries. The advent of special-interest dominance in Washington has to do with the expansion of government, not the presence of millionaires in the Senate. A man's personal wealth does not always reveal his true character. Senator Jon Corzine, New Jersey Democrat, is one of the wealthiest senators, yet he proudly opposes individual rights and capitalism as adamantly as any Communist. Wealth clearly doesn't interfere with his concept of the "public interest."
For his part, Barkley's support for publicly financed elections comes from his experience running Jesse Ventura's campaign in Minnesota, where the candidate relied largely on state matching funds. But Ventura didn't win the election because of public money. If public financing equaled popularity, then PBS would win the Nielsen ratings every week. He won because the voters of Minnesota--or at least a third of them--saw through the total ethical vacuum of the two major-party candidates. While Ventura is hardly a great thinker, he did present a vision for government that easily outclassed the two-party emphasis on anti-ideological consensus.
It is this opposition to ideology that fuels corruption. Neither major party presents ideological arguments on a consistent basis. Indeed, both parties work to eliminate ideology from public debate, as they resort to distortions and negative advertising the moment somebody works up the nerve to present an original thought. Both parties cater to interest groups that reject ideology in favor of special privileges for well-connected interest groups. Neither has an interest in genuine debate.
The answer to this problem is not more "democracy." Indeed, it was the expansion of democracy that contributed to the present situation. Direct election of senators, which came in the 1920s, was hailed as a great achievement over the previous system of election by state legislatures. In fact, it was the abolition of this check on federal power that contributed to the rise in interest-group control of the Senate. After all, it was nearly impossible for interest groups to dominate dozens of state legislatures simultaneously; it proved far easier to manipulate direct popular elections.
Under the old system, there were no campaign finance problems, because Senate candidates did not have to campaign directly. They were statesmen and legislators, not professional fundraisers. As democracy took hold, money became indispensable to winning election. Candidates promised more special favors to interest groups for short-term support, and individual rights suffered the consequences. Public campaign financing would only be another step in this devolution. It would remove ideological control of the debate from individuals and hand it to the state, which in turn would squelch what true debate remains in favor of payouts to favored candidates and parties.
If there's any interim solution to the corruption of political debate, it would be to remove the artificial levers used to maintain the two-party duopoly. Repealing restrictive ballot access laws, for example, would permit more parties and candidates to appear on the ballot without resorting to the extreme step of state financing. Eliminating state-run party primary elections would also help, since it would allow parties to nominate candidates that stand for something, rather than reward candidates who most effectively pander to the lowest common denominator. America's great presidents--Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln--never spent their winters campaigning in Iowa or New Hampshire. They were nominated by party leaders committed to ideas, and America reaped the benefits.
Democracy for democracy's sake is not a virtue when it means repealing individual rights in favor of rule-by-special-interest mobs. Few veteran politicians ever learn that lesson. Even Dean Barkley, who was only in town a couple of months, failed to understand the problem. Perhaps some of his millionaire successors can figure it out.
The views expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of Capitalism Magazine. Excerpts are limited to 250 words, so long as the source and link are provided to the original article. Reproduction in whole or in part is prohibited. See our terms of use for details.
Political & Government Corruption. Political Donations & Control
True Conspiracies
Political & Government Corruption. Political Donations & Control
Some of the ways governments are corrupted are:
* 1. Policies are often suggested by corrupt bureaucrats who could have links and interests in the powerful who control them.
* 2. Newly elected members of parliament are lectured that they must vote as the party dictates and forget about serving their electorate (10).
* 3. Banks and multinationals are donating large sums of money to the major parties to keep them on their side (11). They finance who they want to be leader, so the people on their side will win (11.5a ).
Candidates are chosen by the corrupt political parties in power, and not by the people. The public votes for corrupt political parties because there is not a better alternative. Politicians and highly paid public servants are increasing their own salaries, while cutting the benefits to the poor.
The public votes for corrupt political parties because they are deceived that smaller parties or independents will not have any influence. Large corrupt parties have more money to advertise with to deceive people into believing that there is no better alternative. Quality independents and new parties would have a chance and be able to influence the balance of power if people voted for them. Many people are dissatisfied with the government but they still vote for them.
You can also navigate to individual pages below but it is much better to start here instead.
SourceWatch is an encyclopedia of people, issues and groups shaping the public agenda. It is a project of the Center for Media & Democracy; email bob AT sourcewatch.org
Antispam note: To avoid attracting spam email robots, email addresses on the SourceWatch are written with AT in place of the usual symbol, and we have removed "mail to" links. Replace AT with the correct symbol to get a valid address. We regret the inconvenience this entails. Lobby your government for more effective antispam regulations.
function printit() { if (window.print) { window.print(); } else { var WebBrowser = '
'; document.body.insertAdjacentHTML('beforeEnd', WebBrowser); WebBrowser1.ExecWB(6, 2);//Use a 1 vs. a 2 for a prompting dialog box WebBrowser1.outerHTML = ""; } } Email StoryPrint Story
Flouting the Rule on Lobbyist-Paid Travel
Review finds at least 90 apparent ethics violations
WASHINGTON, June 12, 2006 — It's a cardinal rule in Congress: Lawmakers and their staffers may not take travel paid by registered lobbyists or lobbying firms. The intention is to keep professional influence-peddlers from gaining special access to lawmakers.
However, a review of travel disclosure forms by the Center for Public Integrity found that dozens of congressional travelers appear to have violated this ethics rule in recent years.
Filings for travel from January 2000 through June 2005 show that lawmakers and aides accepted at least 90 trips for which the original reported sponsors or co-sponsors match the names of firms registered with the Senate Office of Public Records to lobby the federal government. The total cost of the travel listed on the original forms was roughly $145,000.
As of April 21, the Center found that about 20 percent of those forms had been amended to indicate that a different set of sponsors paid for the trips.
"After the Abramoff scandal, you would think that every member of Congress or staff who took a trip would go back and look at their forms to see if they also took a trip from a lobbyist," said Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank. "[Not doing so] shows a real insensitivity to the implications of the rules and laws."
Ornstein was referring to trips lobbyist Jack Abramoff reportedly financed for former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, and Rep. Bob Ney, R-Ohio. DeLay, who traveled with Abramoff to Scotland in 2000, resigned from Congress on June 9. Ney, who traveled to Scotland with Abramoff in 2002, is under investigation by federal authorities for alleged favors he performed for Abramoff and his colleagues.
While members or staffers can get waivers to take lobbyist-paid trips from the Senate Select Committee on Ethics or the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, those forms are not publicly available, and officials with both committees either failed to return calls or refused to comment on individual trips.
Although most of the trips identified by the Center's review hardly resemble the lavish excursions associated with Abramoff and DeLay, they suggest a disregard for the ethics standard by the travelers and weak oversight and enforcement by the ethics committees.
A break from the rules
In early January 2000, Angela Ellard, staff director for the House Ways and Means Committee, flew to New York City to speak to business executives at the Chinese consulate.
"After the Abramoff scandal, you would think that every member of Congress or staff who took a trip would go back and look at their forms to see if they also took a trip from a lobbyist. [Not doing so] shows a real insensitivity to the implications of the rules and laws."
— Norman Ornstein, American Enterprise Institute
From the limited information available on Ellard's travel disclosure form, on which she wrote that the trip was to educate the executives "about Chinese accession to WTO [World Trade Organization]," the trip seems fairly routine. Maintaining normal trade relations with China was among the committee's top priorities, and Ellard's form was signed by Bill Archer, the Texas Republican who was its chairman at the time.
While the itinerary seemed ordinary, the sponsor of the trip was not: Ellard listed Powell, Goldstein, Frazer and Murphy, a Washington law firm [clarification] and lobby shop.
At the time of the trip, the firm also was registered as a foreign agent for the Embassy of the People's Republic of China, representing its commercial office on "Chinese accession to the WTO" and other issues, according to its filings with the Justice Department. Like lobbyists, foreign agents are prohibited from financing trips for members or staffers.
Don Carlson, Archer's former chief of staff, said he could not recall the specifics of Ellard's trip, but, "It would be unusual for a trip to be sponsored by a lobbying firm. We normally only traveled on behalf of trade associations."
Mike Daniels, a former partner with the firm, confirmed that it paid for the trip, but dismissed any suggestion of impropriety.
"This was not a lobbying effort." Daniels said. "We did business development for the law firm and for public service. It's not like we were playing golf in Scotland."
Powell Goldstein's foreign agent disclosure form for that period indicates that the firm spent no money on "entertainment or travel" for public officials. Daniels said that although the China Chamber of Commerce in USA organized the symposium, Ellard's role there was not part of his former firm's efforts on behalf of China. Rather, he said, her involvement was intended to promote Powell Goldstein's business.
"We helped arrange the seminar and we paid for Ellard," Daniels said.
House travel rules state that it is "advisable" for a member or aide who is invited on a trip to inquire about the source of funds used to pay for the travel. However, Kenneth Gross, an attorney who has worked extensively on Foreign Agents Registration Act compliance issues, said the congressional ethics rules seem to be stating, "If you screw up, proceed at your own risk."
Ianthe Jackson, spokeswoman for the House Ways and Means Committee, said Ellard would have no comment on the trip.
Ways and Means trips
Firms registered to lobby the federal government also appear to have subsidized some travel of the current Ways and Means chairman, Rep. Bill Thomas, R-Calif., and his staffers. According to disclosure documents, from 2000 through 2004 Thomas signed forms authorizing seven of these trips — more than any member of Congress. All told, disclosure forms indicated that lobbying firms subsidized more than $6,200 worth of travel for the congressman and his aides.
Rep. Bill Archer,
R-Texas
Four of the trips, including one taken by Thomas in April 2002, were reported as having been financed by sponsors named either Clark Consulting or Clark/Bardes Consulting. The firms are one and the same. In addition to managing compensation and company benefit programs, Clark Consulting — formerly known as Clark/Bardes Consulting — is a registered lobbying firm.
Clark's lobbying arm, the Federal Policy Group, hosts a client retreat in Naples, Fla., that has been attended by Ways and Means Committee members and their top aides. The 2003 conference was held at the Ritz Carlton, described in a Clark Consulting invitation letter as a "spectacular resort with a variety of wonderful facilities, including a great spa."
In one case, receipts filed with the travel disclosure form of former subcommittee staff director Jeffrey McMillen indicate that the $1,175 bill for the Naples conference was paid by Clark Consulting. McMillen's invitation letter was signed by Kenneth J. Kies, managing director of the Federal Policy Group.
Thomas' office deferred all calls on the subject to the Ways and Means Committee press office. Jackson, the committee spokeswoman, did not respond to several requests for comment about the Thomas office trips.
Former Republican Sen. Don Nickles of Oklahoma also reported attending the 2003 conference and that his $2,579 in expenses was paid by sponsor Clark Consulting. Nickles, who now runs his own lobbying firm, did not return several calls for comment.
Rep. Bill Thomas,
R-California
Receipts indicate that a lobbyist also appears to have paid for the travel of Jennifer Dunn while the now-retired Republican congresswoman from Washington state was in office.
On April 2, 2001, Dunn traveled to New York City from Washington, D.C., for a gala dinner honoring companies with programs that advance women in business, an event that was attended by 1,800 corporate leaders. During her overnight trip, Dunn spent nearly $900, including airfare.
Ethics filings indicate that the bill for Dunn's trip was paid by Ernst & Young. In addition to its multibillion accounting and auditing operation, the company also is the nation's ninth-largest lobbying firm, according to federal lobbying records for 1998 through 2004 examined by the Center for Public Integrity.
Receipts filed for her night in New York show that Dunn and her business colleagues dined at an exclusive Italian restaurant, was chauffeured in a private limousine, and had a room at the Waldorf-Astoria that cost more than $300 for the night.
The bill for the limousine was signed by Mary Frances Pearson, an Ernst & Young lobbyist and a principal in its Government Relations division. The American Express card used to pay the limousine company was also billed for Dunn's airline ticket, hotel room and lunch, receipts show.
Former Rep. Jennifer Dunn,
R-Washington
Dunn, who now serves as a senior adviser in the Government Affairs group of the firm DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary, did not return several calls seeking comment on the trip.
Questionable Senate trips
While data show that members of the House have committed the majority of the apparent ethics violations, their Senate counterparts also have filed disclosure forms listing questionable sponsors.
In February 2000, then-Sen. Frank Murkowski, R-Alaska, and his wife Nancy flew to Utah to visit the proposed nuclear disposal site on Goshute Indian reservation land at Skull Valley. Murkowski, now his state's governor, indicated on his disclosure form that the roughly $2,800 in expenses was to be reimbursed by sponsor MGN Inc. That is also the name of a Washington lobbying firm.
Skull Valley is the planned site for a storage facility for up to 40,000 metric tons of commercially produced radioactive waste, though the state of Utah is fighting in court to block it. The project is spearheaded by Private Fuel Storage, a group of eight electric utility companies, which paid MGN nearly $1.2 million to lobby on its behalf from 1998 to 2004, according to a Center analysis of lobbying records.
Murkowski's office did not respond to requests for comment on his trip.
The Center's review already has prompted at least one senator to seek the Senate ethics committee's guidance on the funding of a trip.
In April 2000, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, flew to Arizona to speak at a seminar for the female partners of the law firm Vinson & Elkins. The firm, which was founded in Houston and has expanded into an operation with offices in 11 cities worldwide, is also registered to lobby the federal government. Hutchison's husband, Ray, is an attorney with the firm.
Former Sen. Frank Murkowski,
R-Alaska
Dick Ribbentrop, Hutchison's chief of staff, said the senator received an invitation to the conference from a Vinson & Elkins partner who was not registered to lobby. The invitation, he said, did not make it clear that the law firm was under the same umbrella organization as the firm's lobbying arm — the situation that created the violation.
After Hutchison's office was notified of the Center's findings, the senator disclosed the information in a letter to the ethics committee, according to Ribbentrop. Hutchison's office declined to provide the Center with a copy of the letter.
Ribbentrop said the ethics committee directed Hutchison to reimburse Vinson & Elkins for her $2,746 in sponsored expenses from the three-day trip, plus interest. Hutchison complied, he said, adding that her office plans to publicly disclose a copy of the cancelled check.
Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., who in March backed a failed measure to create an independent office to investigate allegations of ethics violations involving lawmakers and lobbyists, called on the ethics panels of both houses to investigate any violations.
"The Ethics Committees have specific rules against lobbyists paying for private travel," Obama said in an e-mailed statement to the Center. "If these rules were violated, then the committees should investigate the trips and determine the appropriate punishment."
Confusion over sponsorship
Twenty of the disclosure forms the Center identified as listing a sponsor with a name matching that of a registered lobbying firm subsequently were amended by the travelers — in some cases years later — to indicate that a different sponsor paid for the trips. Staffers from several congressional offices also indicated in interviews that they had filed or were planning to file amendments.
"The Ethics Committees have specific rules against lobbyists paying for private travel. If these rules were violated, then the committees should investigate the trips and determine the appropriate punishment."
— Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill.
The amended sponsor commonly was the lobbying firm's client or parent company. Such sponsorship of trips follows the letter of the ethic rules, if not the spirit, experts say. The difference between lobbying firms and their corporate clients are often so muddied that even members of Congress are unable to make the distinction.
In January 2000, for example, Matt Hill, an aide to Sen. Gordon Smith, R-Ore., traveled to New York for a two-day conference on what his filing described as the "financial perspectives of electricity transmissions." On his disclosure form, Hill reported $1,348 in expenses paid for by the lobbying firm of Balch & Bingham.
When contacted by a reporter from the newspaper The Hill more than five years later, Smith's office amended the form, naming as the sponsors a half-dozen energy companies. One of them, First Energy Corp., has paid Balch & Bingham more than $1.7 million in lobbying fees from 1998 to 2004, according to lobbying records.
Smith's spokesman Chris Matthews said the original form was filled out incorrectly by a staffer. He produced a 1999 letter from the Senate Ethics Committee that backed the claim that the energy companies paid the bill.
"It was a simple paperwork mistake," Matthews said. Matthews acknowledged that Balch & Bingham was a contact for the trip, but said he did not know whether the firm had any other part in the travel.
Sen. Gordon Smith,
R-Oregon
On some disclosure forms, members of Congress or staffers appear to have confused the sponsor with the lobbying firm organizing the trip — even when the firm states explicitly in its correspondence that it is not the sponsor. This seems to be the case with filings for more than two dozen excursions that listed the sponsor or co-sponsor as the Dutko Group.
Dutko, a Washington-based lobbying firm, coordinates an annual technology conference at the Nemacolin Woodlands Resort in southwestern Pennsylvania. The conference appears to be underwritten each year by a host of firms, including Microsoft, Alcatel and AT&T.
This reimbursement structure is outlined in e-mails and other correspondence Dutko executives sent to congressional officials attending the conferences. One staffer included an attachment, indicating that Dutko's role was limited to coordinating the conference. Nonetheless, on almost 30 occasions, members or staffers reported Dutko as the trip's primary or co-sponsor. The Center found that at least five of these forms were later amended to remove Dutko from the sponsor field.
In other cases, members walk a fine line between accepting trips from lobbying firms and their parent companies.
In August 2003, five Republicans and several of their wives traveled to Ireland's Ashford Castle resort for an international trade seminar. On each of their disclosure forms, representatives Clay Shaw of Florida, Howard Coble of North Carolina and Harold Rogers of Kentucky, and senators Smith and Nickles listed the lobbying firm of Kessler and Associates as the sponsor or co-sponsor.
Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison,
R-Texas
The five lawmakers then traveled to a conference in London sponsored by the Ripon Educational Fund. Kessler and Associates founder Richard Kessler was on the board of the Ripon Educational Fund and is president of the formerly affiliated Ripon Society.
More than a year and a half later, after they were contacted by a reporter for The Hill, the five members amended their forms, changing the sponsor for the Ireland part of the trip to Kessler and Associates' parent company, Century Business Services.
Matthews attributed the mistake, once again, to a paperwork error.
Pressure to change
Despite strict guidelines that prohibit congressional travelers from taking lobbyist-financed travel, they are not asked to provide any proof that would verify the legitimacy of a trip. Disclosure forms ask only for bare-bones information and relatively few travelers provide receipts. As a result, in many cases it's nearly impossible to prove who, in fact, has paid for the travel.
"The House ethics committee remains an abundant joke. Everyone knows there is no ethics process. Nobody will hold [members] accountable."
— Norman Ornstein, American Enterprise Institute
Even when members amend their disclosure forms, they don't have to supply additional documentation or proof, said Pam Gavin, superintendent of the Senate Office of Public Records, which manages the Senate's travel documents.
But the honor system that long has dictated the rules associated with private travel could be coming to an end.
In late March, the Senate passed a reform bill mandating greater transparency from both lobbyists and lawmakers. Among other measures, the bill would require members to receive advance approval from the Senate Select Committee on Ethics before accepting privately funded travel.
Lobbyists, meanwhile, for the first time would be forced to disclose any travel arrangements they made for a member of Congress, and would be unable to lavish lawmakers with meals and tickets to sporting events — currently permissible under the rules.
The Senate bill would not, however, create an Office of Public Integrity to investigate claims of misconduct.
The House, meanwhile, passed a bill on May 3 sponsored by Rep. David Dreier, R-Calif., chairman of the Rules Committee, which would require the ethics committee to recommend changes to the travel rules by June 15. In the interim, members can voluntarily submit information on forthcoming trips to the ethics committee for pre-approval.
Rules Committee spokeswoman Jo Maney said the bill "is an acknowledgement that a problem does exist. It directs the ethics committee to review the rules so that the problems that you discovered do not happen in the future."
The House and Senate now must reconcile their reform bills in a conference committee. Experts argue, however, that the only way to remove the cloud of suspicion hanging over privately financed travel is to adopt a stronger enforcement process.
"The House ethics committee remains an abundant joke," said the American Enterprise Institute's Ornstein. "Everyone knows there is no ethics process. Nobody will hold [members] accountable."
When first posted, a photo of Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones, D-Ohio, was inadvertently included with this report, although reference to her had been cut from it in editing. However, disclosure documents she filed are included in a related chart of 90 instances of travel in which the original form listed a sponsor with a name matching that of a firm registered to lobby the federal government.
Clarification: When first posted, this article stated that Powell, Goldstein, Frazer and Murphy is a Washington lobby shop. It is also a law firm.
Corruption is a general concept describing any organized, interdependent system in which part of the system is either not performing duties it was originally intended to, or performing them in an improper way, to the detriment of the system's original purpose.
Specific types of corruption include:
Political corruption, corruption of a political system through bribery, intimidation, extortion, vote buying, destabilization, or influence peddling
Official corruption, the misuse of an official position for private advantage
Corporate crime, crimes either committed by a corporation or by individuals that may be identified with a corporation or other business entity
Data corruption, the receiving of data which is different from that which was transmitted or otherwise intended
Corruption (grammar) of language or a text into a broken form or a different meaning
This is a disambiguation page: a list of articles associated with the same title. If an internal link referred you to this page, you may wish to change the link to point directly to the intended article.
What constitutes illegal corruption differs depending on the country or jurisdiction. Certain political funding practices that are legal in one place may be illegal in another. In some countries, police and prosecutors have broad discretion over who to arrest and charge, and the line between discretion and corruption can be difficult to draw, as in racial profiling. In countries with strong interest group politics, practices that could easily constitute corruption elsewhere are sometimes sanctified as official group preferences.
Effects on politics, administration, and institutions
Corruption poses a serious development challenge. In the political realm, it undermines democracy and good governance by flouting or even subverting formal processes. Corruption in elections and in legislative bodies reduces accountability and distorts representation in policymaking; corruption in the judiciary compromises the rule of law; and corruption in public administration results in the unfair provision of services. More generally, corruption erodes the institutional capacity of government as procedures are disregarded, resources are siphoned off, and public offices are bought and sold. At the same time, corruption undermines the legitimacy of government and such democratic values as trust and tolerance. See also: Good governance
Corruption also undermines economic development by generating considerable distortions and inefficiency. In the private sector, corruption increases the cost of business through the price of illicit payments themselves, the management cost of negotiating with officials, and the risk of breached agreements or detection. Although some claim corruption reduces costs by cutting red tape, the availability of bribes can also induce officials to contrive new rules and delays. Where corruption inflates the cost of business, it also distorts the playing field, shielding firms with connections from competition and thereby sustaining inefficient firms.
Corruption also generates economic distortions in the public sector by diverting public investment into capital projects where bribes and kickbacks are more plentiful. Officials may increase the technical complexity of public sector projects to conceal or pave way for such dealings, thus further distorting investment. Corruption also lowers compliance with construction, environmental, or other regulations, reduces the quality of government services and infrastructure, and increases budgetary pressures on government.
Economists argue that one of the factors behind the differing economic development in Africa and Asia is that in the former, corruption has primarily taken the form of rent extraction with the resulting financial capital moved overseas rather invested at home (hence the stereotypical, but sadly often accurate, image of African dictators having Swiss bank accounts). Corrupt administrations in Asia like Suharto's have often taken a cut on everything (requiring bribes), but otherwise provided more of the conditions for development, through infrastructure investment, law and order, etc. University of Massachusetts researchers estimated that from 1970 to 1996, capital flight from 30 sub-Saharan countries totalled $187bn, exceeding those nations' external debts.[1] (The results, expressed in retarded or suppressed development, have been modelled in theory by economist Mancur Olson.) In the case of Africa, one of the factors for this behaviour was political instability, and the fact that new governments often confiscated previous government's corruptly-obtained assets. This encouraged officials to stash their wealth abroad, out of reach of any future expropriation.
It takes two to create corruption: giving and taking bribes. In some countries the culture of corruption extends to every aspect of public life, making it extremely difficult to stay in business without resorting to bribes.
Graft is the act of a politician personally benefitting from public funds in a way other than prescribed by law. New York's Senator George Washington Plunkitt once famously claimed that there was a difference between "honest" and "dishonest" graft. The classical example of graft is a politician using his knowledge of zoning and decision making to purchase land which he knows his political organization is interested in developing on, and then selling it at a significant profit to that organization. Large gifts from parties within the government also qualify as graft, and most countries have laws against it. (For example, any gift over $200 value made to the President of the United States is considered to be a gift to the Office of the Presidency and not to the President himself. The outgoing President must buy it if he wants to take it with him.)
In the political arena, it is difficult to prove corruption, but impossible to prove its absence. For this reason, there are often rumors about many politicians.
Politicians are placed in apparently compromising positions because of their need to solicit financial contributions for their campaigns. Often, they then appear to be acting in the interests of those parties that fund them, giving rise to talk of political corruption.
Supporters of politicians assert that it is entirely coincidental that many politicians appear to be acting in the interests of those who fund them. Cynics wonder why these organizations fund politicians at all, if they get nothing for their money. In the United States many companies, especially larger ones, fund both the Democratic and Republican parties.
Because of the implications of corporations funding politicians, such as the perceived threat that these corporations are simply buying the votes of elected officials, certain countries, such as France, ban altogether the corporate funding of political parties. Because of the possible circumvention of this ban with respect to the funding of political campaigns, France also imposes maximum spending caps on campaigning; candidates that have exceeded those limits, or that have handed misleading accounting reports, risk having their candidacy ruled invalid, or even be prevented from running in future elections. In addition, the government funds political parties according to their successes in elections. In some countries, political parties are run solely off subscriptions (membership fees).
Even legal measures such as these have been argued to be legalised corruption, in that they often favor the political status quo. Minor parties and independents often argue that efforts to rein in the influence of contributions do little more than protect the major parties with guaranteed public funding while constraining the possibility of private funding by outsiders. In these instances, officials are legally taking money from the public coffers for their election campaigns to guarantee that they will continue to hold their influenctial and often well-paid positions.
Illiterate, apathetic or ignorant populace, with inadequate public discernment of political choices. See bounded rationality and rational ignorance.
In societies where personal integrity is rated as less important than other characteristics (by contrast, in societies such as 18th and 19th Century England, 20th Century Japan and post-war western Germany, where society showed almost obsessive regard for "honour" and personal integrity, corruption was less frequently seen)
Measuring corruption - in the statistical sense - is naturally not a straight-forward matter, since the participants are generally not forthcoming about it. Transparency International, the leading anti-corruption NGO, provides three measures, updated annually: a Corruption Perceptions Index (based on experts' opinions of how corrupt different countries are); a Global Corruption Barometer (based on a survey of general public attitudes toward and experience of corruption); and a Bribe Payers Survey, looking at the willingness of foreign firms to pay bribes. Transparency International also publishes the Global Corruption Report. The World Bank collects a range of data on corruption, including a set of Governance Indicators.
However, the value of that survey is disputed, as it is based on subjective perceptions. Sophisticated technology may be available to those countries considered by the public as "least corrupt" to conceal corruption from public view or disguise it as legitimate dealings.
According to the perception survey Mississippi, North Dakota and Louisiana are the three most corrupt states within the USA. New Hampshire, Oregon and Nebraska have the least amount of corruption. The largest states, California and Texas, are ranked in the middle, California ranking 25th and Texas in 29th.
[Expressions of their spoken and unspoken collective wisdom, to a new congressman.]
RICHARD MILHAUS NIXON
AND
RICHARD BRUCE CHENEY
"Like two heads, two Dicks are better than one". The Satirist
"Like two heads, two Dicks are better than one." The Satirist
LISTING SOME EXAMPLES OF LEGAL CORRUPTION
1. CNN reported FEMA is paying $3,300 per "month" [this is, an incredible $39,6000.00 annually] for "each" - "yes, each" New Orlean's Katrina mobile home for victims.
2. 50% FORMER Member OF CONGRESS become lobbyists. Have access to their former fellow public servants. Are permitted access to the House floor and gymnasium.
3. Friends, family and former staffers of Congress receive high-payong jobs either during or after they or the member retires.
4. Defense Department officials and employees retiring into lucrative jobs within the companies in the Military Industrial Complex.
5. Legalized Bribery known as Campaign Contributions.
6. ...
Like Dick says you can always know a man by his corporation he keeps. Today, a man's corporation is his country.
ANOTHER EVIL LIBERAL LIE. WE ARE NOT SPYING ON ANYONE. IF THEY ARE A REPUBLICAN.
ASK NOT WHAT YOU CAN DO FOR YOUR COUNTRY, BUT RATHER WHAT YOUR COUNTRY CAN DO FOR YOU, AND YOUR CORPORATION!
LISTEN, KID. THERE'S JUST ONE "KING" - AND THAT'S ME! Yes, Mr. Prsident. OK, THEN, NOW GO OUT AND GET THOSE DRUG-CRAZED LIBERAL COMMIE PINKO PROTESTERS! Yes, Mr. President.
When I resurrect, I don't want to be king, I want to be EMPEROR!
"It's like they says, ya better Richard RICHARD BRUCE CHENEY and RICHARD MILHAUS NIXON before they Richard you. I never did get that joke. I think it's because Nixon, when he hated someone, told them, 'Hi. My name is Dick Nixon, but you can call me Richard. " The Satirist
The Two Dicks
REMEMBER, KID.
EVERYBODY'S CORRUPT. THAT'S WHY THEY RE-ELECT CROOKED POLITICIANS.
"Remember, Kid."
"Legal corruption ain't no crime."
THE TWO DICKS answer the really big questions of life. When I was a young lobbyist, just starting out, they pulled me aside and said:
"Listen, Kid, It's all about .....
Money is KING!
But, WEALTH is God!
THOSE TWO THINGS, MONEY AND WEALTH, GIVE YA THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IN THE WORLD, AND THAT IS .....
POWER. The ability to force people to your will; against their own interest.
YA SEE. KID, LOOK AT HISTORY. PEOPLE WITHOUT MONEY - WEALTH - GET SCREWED. TAKE A CLOSE LOOK AT A Crucifix, IN CHURCH. JESUS WAS POOR; NO MONEY, NO WEALTH - THEREFORE - NO POWER. SO, NOBODY LISTENED TO HIM. INSTEAD, THEY NAILED HIM GOOD, RIGHT TO THE CROSS.
Listen, Kid, to your lobbyist friend. In Congress, ya always gotta make it look like God is on your side. Caus that means the devil's on the liberals side. Get it? Nobody is gonna vote for sin. Understand?
"SOMETHING MAY BE LEGAL, BUT MAY ALSO BE IMMORAL, A SIN OR EVEN EVIL" THE THEOLOGIAN
"SOMETHING MAY BE LEGAL, BUT MAY ALSO BE IMMORAL, A SIN OR EVEN EVIL" THE THEOLOGIAN
NOW LET'S TALK CONTRACTS.
CONTRACTS IS = BUSINESS. AND, BUSINESS IS MAKING MONEY. GREED, KID. RUNS THE WORLD.
NOW, LET'S SAY WE GIVE YOU THOUSANDS IN RE-ELECTION CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS; AND YOU GET US BILLIONS UPON BILLIONS IN CONTRACTS. WELL, THAT'S HOW YOU BECOME A WINNER! CANDIDATES WHO DON'T TAKE THE MONEY, BECOME WHATTHEY DESERVE - LOSERS!
BUT FOR YOU THAT'S ONLY THE BEGINNING. THERE ARE LITTLE THING LIKE MEALS TRIPS AND GIFTS. YOU KNOW, LIKE CHRISTMAS, BUT EVERY DAY OF THE YEAR. JOBS FOR FAMILY STAFFERS AND FRIENDS. CLOSE ASSOCIATES WE CALL EM.
WHEN YOU RETIRE ITS INTO CORPORATE HEAVEN, SON. YOU SEE HOW I LIVE. WELL, SO CAN YOU. WHO PAYS? ALL THE LITTLE PEOPLE, WHO DON'T GET IT. WE JUST LIE, CHEAT AND STEAL [BUT WE NEVER BREAK THE LAW] JUST LIKE THEY WOULD IF THEY WERE IN OUR SHOES.
Remember Kid, the Business of America is BUSINESS. That's wht those dumb liberals don't understand. That's why people vote Republican. It's good for business - their business.
That's why all these staffer come to Congress - government. Not to serve, but to get contacts for future contracts, for their careers. You know, their own big money.
When they're talking national security, they don't mean protecting the public, they mean defense contracts. It's the money, not patriotism- Stupid!
Reassessment of a Presidency
THE GREATEST GIFT
BY ANY PRESIDENT
TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
A WARNING REGARDING
THE MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX
A THREAT TO
U.S. DEMOCRACY AND ECONOMY
DEFENSE SPENDING SKYROCKETS
In 2005 US Defense Spending skyrocketed to $450 Billion - Not Counting $300 Billion Iraq-Afghanistan During 2003. World military spending reached $956 billion; 2.7% of world GDP.
Here the USA is in first place, spending 47% percent of world's total. [$450 Billion followed by Japan 5%, Britain 4%, France 4% and China 4%. While, during the Cold War, Defense Spending approximated the $300 Billion level.]
The 2006 Budget Beneficiaries Include:
... (2) corporate monopolies and the US domestic Military Industrial Complex receives massive contracts for their campaign contributions. ... (4) significant increases for military and international spending. [Defense Spending reaches $419.3 billion, DOD Rumsfeld up extra +$20 Billion. ... (6) separate supplemental expenditures not included in 2006 budget: Extra 80 Billion for wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, ...
Excerpts From: 1961 FAREWELL ADDRESS
By President Dwight D. Eisenhower,
Re Military-Industrial Complex
My fellow Americans:
... This evening I come with a message of leave-taking and farewell, and to share a few ... thoughts ... , ... I pray ... the coming years will be blessed with peace and prosperity ... ... the Congress and the Administration ... cooperated ... to serve the national good rather than ... partisanship, ... that ...the Nation should go forward.
II. ... America's leadership and prestige depend, not merely upon our unmatched material progress, ... and military strength, but on how we use our power in ... peace and human betterment.
III. Throughout America's ... free government, our basic purposes have been to keep the peace; to foster ... human achievement, and to enhance liberty, dignity and integrity ... among nations. ... Any failure traceable to arrogance, or our lack of comprehension or readiness to sacrifice would inflict upon us grievous hurt both at home and abroad.
... persistently threatened by the conflict now engulfing the world. It commands our whole attention, ... . We face a hostile ideology -- ... . Unhappily the danger is ... of indefinite duration. To meet it successfully, ... the ... complex struggle -- [is] with liberty the stake.
Crises ... will continue to be. In meeting them, .... , there is a recurring temptation to feel ... some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution ... to ... difficulties. A huge increase in .... our defense; development of unrealistic programs to cure every ill ... ; a dramatic expansion in ... research -- ... many ... possibilities, each possibly promising .. , may be suggested as the only way ... to travel. But each proposal must be weighed in ... a broader consideration: ... to maintain balance [between]: ... national programs -- the private and the public economy, ... between cost and ... advantage -- between the ... necessary and the ... desirable; ... our essential requirements ... ; ... between actions of the moment and ... welfare of the future. Good judgment seeks balance ... ; lack of it ... finds ... frustration.
... threats, new in kind or degree, constantly arise. I mention two only.
IV. A vital element in... peace is our military establishment. Our arms... mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk ... destruction.
Our military organization today bears little relation to that ... of my predecessors in peacetime, ... Until the latest ... world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, ... , make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; ... compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. ... in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all ... corporations.
This conjunction of an immense military establishment ... is new... . The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. ... Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our ... resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of ... society. In ... government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, ... , by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let ... this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. ... Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery .. with our peaceful ... goals, so ... security and liberty may prosper together.
Akin to... our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution ... . ... research has become central; it ... becomes more ... complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted ... at the direction of, the Federal government.
Today, the ... inventor,... has been overshadowed by ... scientists in laboratories ... . ... the free university, ... , has experienced a revolution in ... research. ... [B]ecause of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes ... a substitute for intellectual curiosity. ... The ... domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, ... and the power of money is ever present and is grave... . ... we must ... be alert to the ... danger ... [P]ublic policy could ... become the captive of a scientific technological elite. It is the task of statesmanship ... to integrate these ... forces, ... within the principles of our democratic system --... of our free society.
V. Another factor in ... society's future,... and our government -- must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering, ... the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss ... of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations... not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.
VI. ... this world of ours, ... , must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, ... [I]nstead, a ... confederation of mutual trust and respect. Such a confederation must be one of equals. The weakest must come to the conference table with the same confidence as do we, ... . That table... cannot be abandoned for ... agony of the battlefield. Disarmament, ... is a continuing imperative. ... -- I wish I could say ... lasting peace is in sight. ...
VII. ... You and I -- ... -- need to be strong in our faith that all nations, ... , will reach ... peace with justice. May we be ... in ... principle, ... humble with power, diligent in ... the Nation's ... goals. To all the peoples of the world, ... We pray ... all ... , may have their great human needs satisfied; ... [T]hose who have freedom will understand.. its heavy responsibilities; that all .. insensitive to the needs of others will learn charity; that the scourges of poverty, disease and ignorance ... disappear from the earth, and that, ... all peoples will come ... together in a peace ... mutual respect and love.
CORRUPTION, JUST LIKE GREED, IS GOOD. WHERE ARE ALL THE GREEDHEADS OF THE 80s? So, a couple months in a powder-puff federal country club, then is freedom to spend the balane of the solen money not paid in fines. It's the two America's, Kid.
FROM THE HOME PAGE
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
LEGAL CORRUPTION
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Latest Horrific Legal Corruption Example:
CNN reported FEMA is paying $3,300 per "month" [this is, an incredible $39,6000.00 annually] for "each" - "yes, each" New Orlean's Katrina mobile home for victims.
HELLO?
IT IS LEGAL,
but another flagrant illustration of federal legal corruption. Among millions of examples.
Where are the William Proxmire republicans.
May he R.I.P.
IMMEDIATE
CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATION(S)
MANDATED
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
JUST A LITTLE SPENDING MONEY.
OK, KID. NOW YOU UNDERSTAND - THE RULES OF CONGRESS. SO, DON'T JOIN THE NAVY, AND MAKE ANY WAVES. You know THE SCORE. Listen, Kid. One more thing. If things go bad just blame THE LIBERALS.
Who is that guy, Haldemann? Put him on The List. Get Edgar ...
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Remember. You're only a crook, if ya get caught.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
ALWAYS BLAME THE DO-GOODER LIBERALS
OK, KID. NOW YOU UNDERSTAND - THE RULES OF CONGRESS. SO, DON'T JOIN THE NAVY, AND MAKE ANY WAVES. You know THE SCORE. Listen, Kid. One more thing. If things go bad just blame THE LIBERALS. WE ALMOST GOT THE PUBLIC CONVINCED THEY'RE LIKE COMMIES. YOU KNOW, THE PINK MENACE WITH THEIR GAY FRIENDS ETC. WE GOT EM ON THE SIDE OF SIN. AINT NOBODY GONNA VOTE FOR SIN.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
NEVER APOLOGIZE.
NEVER SAY YOU'RE SORRY
Why? Because it shows weakness, Kid. Show weakness, and that's when the sharks move in for the kill - the feeding frenzy. Ya never see guys in maximum security - real - prisons apologize. They know what that means to their masculinity, if ya get my meaning. So, be a Tammy Wynette, stand by your lie, till the day ya die.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
EVERDAY IS CHRISTMAS ON K STREET
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Hey, Kid. Here's a great one. When you retire. We give you a big job as a LOBBYIST - just like me. Or, how about a beautiful office at corporate headquarters.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
After a jug of vhite lightenink Uncle Bubba fell into one of his Divine Revelation states. Everybody gathered around to hear his pronouncements. Rabbi Moe excitedly screamed, "Baba, vhat do jou be seeink? Vhat ist it? Tell-it me Baba?"
Email Story
Print Story
Send Us Your Comments
