For decades, white voters have tended to lean Republican while non-whites have been strongly Democratic, so the swiftly falling ratio of the former to the latter has become a source of major concern, even alarm, within the top ranks of the GOP, which received a sharp wake-up call when gigantic California, traditionally one of the most reliably Republican states, suddenly became one of the most reliably Democratic.

In 2009 I wrote a piece about how at some foreseeable future, the right of the people to rule could be dismantled by other forms of power, simply due to a shift in perception over what constitutes legitimate authority. We will recall that the Catholic Church exercised control over many countries. For centuries, the only thing that maintained the Church’s authority over these different countries was its moral authority.

Kings paid loyalty to the Church and obeyed the Church for little other reason than because it was seen as the moral authority. The Church’s place in society was eventually displaced by two important shifts.

First there was revolution in thinking that the civil government, and not the church, had the right to govern. Secondly, there was a shift in power in that sovereign governments eventually became militarily and economically powerful enough to no longer need the blessing of the Church.

I bring this up to give some frame of reference for the rest of my argument. If the Church controlled a large section of the world simply because it had the moral authority to do so, and if its power was displaced by a force that had simply become more powerful, it may be possible to displace democracy with the same formula, a formula which already exists in many ways.

When I wrote the piece originally in 2009 my point was that about ten years earlier corporations had already began disregarding certain laws enacted by the people. In 1998, Citigroup and Traveler’s, for example, announced that they were merging, contrary to existing laws. The companies made the announcement, expecting that they could change the laws quickly enough to accommodate their merger. They were right. The Glass-Steagall Act was repealed the following year, which, by the way, was the first step toward our current financial crisis.

Since then, however, there have been more troubling developments. The Supreme Court Decision in Citizens United v F.E.C. decided that corporations had the same right to political speech as any human being, and that they could use an unlimited amount of money to produce political propaganda.

The threat to the country’s power, even militarily, has become clearer since then, as reports and even popular Hollywood movies continue to expose the point that private military contractors have relatively similar or superior tactical combat capabilities as the US. Their private mercenaries are better paid than even US military personnel. Today, private space tourism is a reality as NASA is being defunded.

In the United States the same formula that led to the decline of the Church’s authority is already in place. This time, however, democracy’s, not the Church’s, unquestionable moral authority is in a vulnerable place. I do not believe that in our lifetime we will see a cabal of CEOs formally seize power and occupy the White House.

Instead, I believe that the formula is in place in which a democratic government might just become less relevant and may simply, albeit slowly, be surpassed in power and influence. It is foreseeable that one day, a corporation whose interest is threatened, need not appeal to Congress for an invasion of a foreign power, but may simply send its own private army. Democratic government will continue to exist, just as the Holy Church exists. It may become optional, something to do on Sundays, something to ask others if it’s something that they believe in. The people and Democracy may still even be influential in elections, just as the Church is.

I don’t believe that there is a conspiracy by corporate America to formally seize governmental power, even though corporate America has been very vocal about diminishing it. I do believe, though, that the conditions to diminish Democracy in favor of corporate rule are increasingly being developed. A shift in relevancy and power has already occurred. The only force that can reverse the trend is the will of the people.

From early 1942, when Germans began deporting Polish Jews to killing centers, the situation of Judenrat leaders became morally unbearable. There were incidents where Judenräte were forced to prepare lists of deportees, while the Jewish ghetto police, which by this time usually operated directly under German command, was forced to assist in the actual evictions

I guess they were just enforcing the law? I wonder if stuff like this still happens today.

If the mainstream media can easily dismiss the ideas of a Congressman that do not suit them, I submit that we would be well-served to stop looking for the answers on mainstream media.

Jon Stewart touches on the issue in a humorous way.

Trick 66: Vote For The Lesser Of Two Evils

Elections decide a winner and a loser. But for people without a candidate, elections are always losing propositions.

The masses are extolled to vote for Mr. X because he’s better than Mr. Y. Soon enough in the campaign, Mr. X and Mr. Y are indistinguishable in their rhetoric, promises and bad deeds. The masses are told to vote for Mr. X — he’s the lesser of two evils.

What a choice! Vote for an unfit candidate because the other choice is unfit . What happened to to voting for a good candidate of the people?

Stop Voting For The Lesser Of Two Evils. 

Join The Progresista Voter Union.

Vote Progresista Voter Union.

The concept of a union is vivid in the minds of many people. As an individual, it is difficult to bargain with the company. As a group, they are forced to listen, or you strike.

It is a very similar concept with this new group. Instead of walking off the job, we have a “vote strike” by withholding votes in certain races. Of course, there are many more strategies, just as in union organizing. Come check out our small group, and share your ideas.

Anyway, we are having a meeting this Saturday (tomorrow). Sorry for the late notice, but we are working on communication, and we can use your help on this. 3-5 at Tejas, and all progresistas are welcome.

(CNN) — A lawsuit against the United States brought by the parents of a 15-year-old boy who was fatally shot by a border patrol agent has been dismissed, a U.S. district judge ruled. He also gave the parents a chance to amend their complaint.

The ruling, which came down August 11, was first reported by the El Paso Times on Thursday.

Sergio Adrian Hernandez Guereca of Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, was fatally shot June 7, 2010.

Authorities said at the time that Hernandez was throwing rocks at the agent from the Mexican side of the border before the agent opened fire….
The incident in question was partly caught on video.

The video showed part of the buildup before the incident, with several individuals running underneath the Puente Negro, a railroad span that connects the two countries.

In the distance, a U.S. Border Patrol officer on a bicycle can be seen making his way toward the area. Seconds later, the officer can be seen getting off the bicycle and approaching two of the four suspected Mexican nationals who had just crossed through an opening in the fence. One of the people is detained by the officer but never handcuffed and is dragged a short distance. This happened on the U.S. side of the border.

Moments later, the officer points what appears to be his firearm in the direction of a second person, standing about 60 feet away on the Mexican side of the border. The video shows the person running away.

Seconds later, two gunshots can be heard on the video. A third gunshot is heard in a different sequence of the tape. After the shooting, another person is seen running in the upper left side of screen, away from the incident….

and the court found that it did not have jurisdiction to carry the case forward because the harm happened on the Mexican side of the border.

What would they say if the bullets had come in the opposite direction. Mark my words, this will happen, and this case must set precedent.

But still left to be considered are an actual definition of “serious,” which seems to include low-level offenses that even a “legal” immigrant could not get deported for, or if due process is still out the window for accused, eligible to bond out of jail and without deportation orders, kind of folks. That’s just to name a couple of scenarios.

Chris Matthews

For those who know me, it is simply too expected to say that the war undesirable. It is an easy position to take, now that the majority of the country is beginning to see the cost of war. Perhaps, though, therein lays the heart of the issue.

When a country wages aggressive war at any cost, except any cost to itself, that country is an aggressor country. When that country begins to have success at these efforts, it becomes an imperialist country. When these efforts begin to finally bore the country, that country finally becomes an empire.

It was first in 2005 when I heard a columnist from a major publication call the United States an empire. Writing in Newsweek, Anna Quindlen wrote, “The most unattractive trait of the American empire is American arrogance, which the president embodies and which this war elevated.”

I’ll admit that finding relevant material for this column is more difficult than I expected. Under the world section of popular news sites, there is mention of seven US and NATO soldiers who died. On the “Top” news sections, however, there is no mention of it. There are, instead, stories on teen-star Miranda Cosgrove and Tiger Woods’ defeat.

All empires throughout history have failed…all of them. While the results of the US economic crisis will require that the US pull out of the Middle East, it is the attitude and the reason behind the inevitable pull out that should be most telling.

Spain pulled out of Mexico because it was no longer lucrative to maintain control. Britain pulled out of the US because keeping a colony was no longer lucrative. France pulled out of Asia for generally the same reasons. They all swam out in a pool of their own blood.

At the time that these empires were forced out of their victims’ countries, they were among the most powerful countries on the planet. It was their greed which led to their downfall. Their citizens cared little about the destruction that their troops caused abroad. They cared little about the fact that their victims were treated and classified as animals. They were simply too busy and well-fed. Perhaps, a little like us.

This country had its roots in aggression. In the beginning, it stole most of what it counted among its assets. It became imperialistic as it took more and more land, and now finally, as its people become too bored to worry about the destruction its troops cause abroad, it is an empire.

This war has cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of people on the other side of the world. These are people who had nothing to do with the events of September 11^{th or the non-existent nuclear weapons in Iraq. Even so, the US refuses to be bothered with counting certain civilian deaths that it causes, such as those caused by remote-controlled planes.}

The eventual reason that this country will pull out of the Middle East is not because people like you and I sympathize with the mothers and fathers halfway around the world. Instead, the US will stop bombing because the rich are growing more and more hesitant of spending tax dollars abroad, while the economy is in such a crisis.

While history teaches us that the United States has had a historic tendency toward imperialism, it is periods like today, when the people begin to awaken. Our souls begin to search for something more basic, something more human. As many of us begin to settle into our new post-crisis life, it is my hope that the human values which we are forming, will begin to project on the policies that govern the country.

To the extent that that is true, to the degree that Black America remains more concerned about how Obama is doing as he seeks another term in office, rather than how the African American people are doing under Obama’s center-right, Wall Street- and war-loving regime – Blacks are doomed to a period of suffering unprecedented in the modern age.

Presumably to protect the dignity of First Black President – her highest priority – Jackson-Lee joined the 95 House Democrats that voted for the certainty of losing trillions of dollars for tens of millions of needy citizens, rather than risk the possibility of unknown financial dislocations. The same number of Democrats said “No” to the president and his GOP interlocutors. Among the 40 full-voting, Democratic members of the Congressional Black Caucus, the split was 15 “Yes,” 24 “No” and one Non-Voting (NV).