Rob Hager and James Marc Leas - The Problem With Citizens United Is Not Corporate Personhood

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and Florida Rep. Ted Deutch introduced a constitutional amendment [4]in December to overturn Citizens United [5], one of five decisions since 2006 by which a closely divided Supreme Court vastly increased the amount of corrupting corporate money in elections.

In an opinion piece critical of the decision in Citizens United, Senator Sanders wrote:

When the Supreme Court says that for purposes of the First Amendment, corporations are people, that writing checks from the company's bank account is constitutionally-protected speech and that attempts by the federal government and states to impose reasonable restrictions on campaign ads are unconstitutional, when that occurs, our democracy is in grave danger.

The joint Sanders-Deutch Resolution proposes an amendment to the constitution "to expressly exclude for-profit corporations from the rights given to natural persons." The first section of the amendment states:

Read More:

http://www.truth-out.org/problem-citizens-united-not-corporate-personhood/1326497162

Francis Boyle - Oil, Dollar Hegemony and Islam

Little has changed in the imperialist tendencies of American foreign policy since the founding of the United States of America in seventeen eighty-nine. The fledgling United States opened the nineteenth century by stealing the continent of North America from the Indians, while in the process ethnically cleansing them and then finally deporting the pitiful few survivors by means of death marches (a la Bataan) to Bantustans, which in America we call reservations, as in instance of America's manifest destiny to rule the world.

Then, the imperial government of the United States opened the twentieth century by stealing a colonial empire from Spain - in Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam and the Philippines, then inflicting a near-genocidal war against the Filipino people. While at the same time, purporting to annex, the kingdom of Hawaii and subjecting the native Hawaiian people to near-genocidal conditions from which they still suffer today- all in the name of securing America's so-called place in the sun.

And today at the dawn of the twenty first century, the world witnesses the effort by the imperial government of the United States of America to steal a hydrocarbon empire from the Moslem states and peoples, surrounding central Asia and the Persian Gulf under the pretext of fighting a war against international terrorism or eliminating weapons of mass destruction or promoting democracy which is total nonsense.

For the past two hundred and sixteen years, the imperialist foreign policy of the United States of America since its foundation, has been predicated upon racism, aggression, genocide, ethnic cleansing, crimes against humanity, war crimes and outright genocide. At the dawn of the third millennium of humankind's parlous existence, nothing has changed about the operational dynamics of American imperial policy. And we see this today in Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine and what appears to be an illegal attack upon Iran.

Read More:

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=28661

Paul Craig Roberts - The Next War on Washington's Agenda

Only the blind do not see that the US government is preparing to attack Iran. According to Professor Michel Chossudovsky, "Active war preparations directed against Iran (with the involvement of Israel and NATO) were initiated in May 2003."

Washington has deployed missiles directed at Iran in its oil emirate puppet states, Oman and the UAE, and little doubt in the other US puppet states in the Middle East. Washington has beefed up Saudi Arabia's jet fighter force. Most recently, Washington has deployed 9,000 US troops to Israel to participate in "war games" designed to test the US/Israeli air defense system. As Iran represents no threat unless attacked, Washington's war preparations signal Washington's intention to attack Iran.

Read More:

http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-Next-War-on-Washington-by-paul-craig-roberts-120112-987.html

Josh Harkinson - The Apostles of Ron Paul

At a gun show in San Francisco's Cow Palace, between a table of switchblades and a rack of Enfield rifles, David McBride sat glumly under a "Ron Paul for President" banner. The shy, 28-year-old software tester had driven in from Silicon Valley and wasn't sure how to chat up nra members chewing elk jerky—or, for that matter, the dozen-or-so Paul supporters he'd come to know via Meetup.com but had never met in the flesh. So he pulled out his iPhone and began searching for the latest Paul headlines. Instantly, the geeks gathered: Was the phone's camera 2.0 megapixels? Was Paul gaining in the Iowa Republican straw poll? "I'm waiting until they come out with the one that has ActiveSync," a ponytailed computer consultant said. The group nodded knowingly.

Their candidate, a 72-year-old obstetrician from Lake Jackson, Texas—land of duck hunters, ranchers, and oilmen—has improbably become an Internet sensation. He counts more Facebook and MySpace supporters than any Republican; more Google searches, YouTube subscribers, and website hits than any presidential candidate; and more Meetup members than the front-runners of both parties combined. In recent months he was sought out on the blog search engine Technorati more often than anyone except a Puerto Rican singer with a sex tape on the loose; his November 5 Internet "Money Bomb" event pulled in $4 million from more than 35,000 individual donors, a single-day online-fundraising record in a primary. (The previous best was $3 million, by John Kerry.) "The campaign calls itself the Ron Paul Revolution," notes Republican Internet consultant David All. "And I don't think that's a far stretch."

Read More:

http://motherjones.com/politics/2007/12/apostles-ron-paul

Jonathan Turley - Final Curtain: Obama Signs Indefinite Detention of Citizens Into Law As Final Act of 2011

President Barack Obama rang in the New Year by signing the NDAA law with its provision allowing him to indefinitely detain citizens. It was a symbolic moment to say the least. With Americans distracted with drinking and celebrating, Obama signed one of the greatest rollbacks of civil liberties in the history of our country . . . and citizens partied only blissfully into the New Year.

Ironically, in addition to breaking his promise not to sign the law, Obama broke his promise on signing statements and attached a statement that he really does not want to detain citizens indefinitely.

Obama insisted that he signed the bill simply to keep funding for the troops. It was a continuation of the dishonest treatment of the issue by the White House since the law first came to light. As discussed earlier, the White House told citizens that the President would not sign the NDAA because of the provision. That spin ended after sponsor Sen. Carl Levin (D., Mich.) went to the floor and disclosed that it was the White House and insisted that there be no exception for citizens in the indefinite detention provision.

Read More:

http://jonathanturley.org/2012/01/02/final-curtain-obama-signs-indefinite-detention-of-citizens-into-law-as-final-act-of-2011/

Will Potter - Factory Farms Can Be Prosecuted as Terrorists

The FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force has kept files on activists who expose animal welfare abuses on factory farms and recommended prosecuting them as terrorists, according to a new document uncovered through the Freedom of Information Act.

This new information comes as the Center for Constitutional Rights has filed a lawsuit challenging the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA) as unconstitutional because its vague wording has had a chilling effect on political activism. This document adds to the evidence demonstrating that the AETA goes far beyond property destruction, as its supporters claim.

The 2003 FBI file details the work of several animal rights activists who used undercover investigation to document repeated animal welfare violations. The FBI special agent who authored the report said they “illegally entered buildings owned by [redacted] Farm… and videotaped conditions of animals.”

Read More:

http://www.greenisthenewred.com/blog/fbi-undercover-investigators-animal-enterprise-terrorism-act/5440/

Russ Baker - Obama’s Only Friend Left?

Is it just me or does anyone else find it poignant how isolated the president is? Has very few friends, and fewer all the time?

Is it just me or is anyone else curious about the only real outsider in his shrinking circle of friends? Robert Wolf?

From ^[2] the New York Times article titled “Obama Gains Reputation as Distant in Washington”:

Mr. Obama, in general, does not go out of his way to play the glad-handing, ego-stroking presidential role. ….more often than not, he keeps Congress and official Washington at arm’s length, spending his down time with a small — and shrinking — inner circle of aides and old friends.

[snip]

…His social life runs toward evenings playing Taboo with old friends and their families, Wii video games with his wife and daughters or basketball with Robert Wolf, a banker and the rare new best friend Mr. Obama has acquired since entering politics…..

Read More:

http://whowhatwhy.com/2012/01/02/obama’s-only-friend-left/

Dr. Paul L. Williams - Isn't this a crock that should be corrected NOW!!

Written by Dr. Paul L. Williams

"In my own life in my own small way, I have tried to give back to this country that has given me so much," she said. "See, that's why I left a job at a big law firm for a career in public service, "...Michelle Obama

No, Michele Obama does not get paid to serve as the First Lady and she doesn't perform any official duties. But this hasn't deterred her from hiring an unprecedented number of staffers to cater to her every whim and to satisfy her every request in the midst of the Great Recession.

Just think,  Mary Lincoln was taken to task for purchasing China for the White House during the Civil War. And Mamie Eisenhower had to shell out the salary for her personal secretary from her husband's salary.

Click to read more ...

Tom Coburn - Releases New Report on Wasteful Government Spending in 2011: "Wastebook 2011"

Dec 20 2011

http://www.coburn.senate.gov/public/6946d43b-bccf-4579-990e-15a763532b40.html

(WASHINGTON, D.C.) – U.S. Senator Tom Coburn, M.D. (R-OK) today released a new oversight report, “Wastebook 2011” that highlights over $6.5 billion in examples of some of the most egregious ways your taxpayer dollars were wasted. This report details 100 of the countless unnecessary, duplicative and low-priority projects spread throughout the federal government.

“Video games, robot dragons, Christmas trees, and magic museums. This is not a Christmas wish list, these are just some of the ways the federal government spent your tax dollars. Over the past 12 months, politicians argued, debated and lamented about how to reign in the federal government’s out of control spending. All the while, Washington was on a shopping binge, spending money we do not have on things we do not absolutely need. Instead of cutting wasteful spending, nearly $2.5 billion was added each day in 2011 to our national debt, which now exceeds $15 trillion,” Dr. Coburn said.

“Congress cannot even agree on a plan to pay for the costs of extending jobless benefits to the millions of Americans who are still out of work. Yet, thousands of millionaires are receiving unemployment benefits and billions of dollars of improper payments of unemployment insurance are being made to individuals with jobs and others who do not qualify. And remember those infamous bridges to nowhere in Alaska that became symbols of government waste years ago? The bridges were never built, yet the federal government still spent more than a million dollars just this year to pay for staff to promote one of the bridges.”

Click to read more ...

ACLU NEWS - President Obama Signs Indefinite Detention Bill Into Law

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE - December 31, 2011

CONTACT: Mandy Simon, (202) 236-7031; media@dcaclu.org

WASHINGTON - President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act

(NDAA) into law today. The statute contains a sweeping worldwide indefinite

detention provision.  While President Obama issued a signing statement

saying he had "serious reservations" about the provisions, the statement

only applies to how his administration would use the authorities granted by

the NDAA, and would not affect how the law is interpreted by subsequent

administrations.  The White House had threatened to veto an earlier version

of the NDAA, but reversed course shortly before Congress voted on the final

bill.

"President Obama's action today is a blight on his legacy because he will

forever be known as the president who signed indefinite detention without

charge or trial into law," said Anthony D. Romero, ACLU executive director.

"The statute is particularly dangerous because it has no temporal or

geographic limitations, and can be used by this and future presidents to

militarily detain people captured far from any battlefield.  The ACLU will

fight worldwide detention authority wherever we can, be it in court, in

Congress, or internationally."

Under the Bush administration, similar claims of worldwide detention

authority were used to hold even a U.S. citizen detained on U.S. soil in

military custody, and many in Congress now assert that the NDAA should be

used in the same way again. The ACLU believes that any military detention of

American citizens or others within the United States is unconstitutional and

illegal, including under the NDAA. In addition, the breadth of the NDAA's

detention authority violates international law because it is not limited to

people captured in the context of an actual armed conflict as required by

the laws of war.

"We are incredibly disappointed that President Obama signed this new law

even though his administration had already claimed overly broad detention

authority in court," said Romero. "Any hope that the Obama administration

would roll back the constitutional excesses of George Bush in the war on

terror was extinguished today. Thankfully, we have three branches of

government, and the final word belongs to the Supreme Court, which has yet

to rule on the scope of detention authority. But Congress and the president

also have a role to play in cleaning up the mess they have created because

no American citizen or anyone else should live in fear of this or any future

president misusing the NDAA's detention authority."

The bill also contains provisions making it difficult to transfer suspects

out of military detention, which prompted FBI Director Robert Mueller to

testify that it could jeopardize criminal investigations.  It also restricts

the transfers of cleared detainees from the detention facility at Guantanamo

Bay to foreign countries for resettlement or repatriation, making it more

difficult to close Guantanamo, as President Obama pledged to do in one of

his first acts in office.

Col. DOUGLAS MACGREGOR - A National Deficit of Reason and Integrity, Why America Can’t Afford Its Military

December 28, 2011

by Col. DOUGLAS MACGREGOR

http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/12/28/why-america-cant-afford-its-military/

Through the last year the defense industries and their supporters in Congress worked overtime to ensure the federal government kept the armed forces in a perpetual procurement cycle. Inside the Pentagon, the generals and admirals who lead the defense bureaucracies worked to minimize procurement costs. This was not altruistic behavior. It’s the only way to protect the armed forces’ outdated force structures from more debilitating cuts; cuts that threaten the single service way of warfare along with the bloated overhead of flag officer headquarters.

Meanwhile, public pronouncements from the office of the Secretary of Defense on cost savings initiatives or about imminent strategic disaster if defense spending is reduced fell flat. In fact, everything in 2011 related to defense, from the controversial F-35 program to the multi-billion dollar contracting fiascos in Iraq and Afghanistan, looked like window dressing designed to buy more time for an anachronistic, insolvent defense establishment.

It’s no secret what’s required in 2012 and beyond: an efficient and effective organization of military power for the optimum utilization of increasingly constrained resources. More specifically, a serious audit of the U.S. Department of Defense, along with a national reset where the roles of politicians, bureaucrats and four stars are recast as servants, not masters, of the national interest. Unfortunately, inside the Beltway where accountability is a dirty word, political and military leaders are free to conflate their personal and bureaucratic interests with the national interest.

Click to read more ...

The Guardian/UK - United States as a Global Power: New World Disorder

Published on Thursday, December 29, 2011 by The Guardian/UK

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/12/29-1

The US is struggling with a paradox: while its military power retains global reach, its role as world leader is gradually ending

The Guardian Editorial

The time has long since past when it became fashionable to talk about a new world order. The collapse of the Soviet Union provided an opportunity to fashion one. But instead of using that opportunity to create a new security architecture in Europe, Nato expanded eastwards as the military anchor for democracy promotion. Not content to have seen off one global military competitor in the Soviet Union, the western military industrial complex and the think-tanks they funded scurried around for a worthy replacement. When 11 September happened, they thought they were in business again. For a brief moment, al-Qaida seemed to fulfil some of the characteristics of communism: it could pop up anywhere in the world; it was an existential enemy, driven ideologically and uncontainable through negotiation; and it was potentially voluminous. Neither the doctrines of the pre-emptive strike, nor attacking a foreign country abroad to ensure security at home, were new. Swap the domino theory of the Vietnam era for the crescent of crisis of the Bush and Obama eras, and you had the same formula for a foe that hopscotched across the globe.

Click to read more ...

Rebecca Jeschke - Time for Supreme Court to Weigh in on Forced DNA Collection

Published on Thursday, December 29, 2011 by Deeplinks Blog / EFF

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/12/time-supreme-court-weigh-forced-dna-collection

 

by Rebecca Jeschke

Can the government force people who are arrested – but not yet convicted of a crime – to give a DNA sample without a search warrant, or does that violate the Fourth Amendment?  One arrestee is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to consider this important question, and this week EFF urged the court to take the case.

A federal law mandates DNA collection for those who have been arrested for felonies. The FBI analyzes the samples, and puts a profile into CODIS, a national database.  Those who aren’t eventually convicted of a crime can get their information removed if they request to do so, but data from other individuals remains indefinitely.  In this case from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, U.S. v. Mitchell, the defendant argues that the DNA collection violates his Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Some judges have considered DNA profiles in the same light as fingerprints – a means of identification.  But DNA is much more than that.  It can reveal your family background, your current health, and your future propensity for disease, among other personal details.  In the future, as technology advances, scientists will be able to read even more into DNA.  Meanwhile, the government is collecting this information without warrants, and storing them in a database that’s freely accessed by state and federal law enforcement agents across the country without any need for a search warrant. The Fourth Amendment prohibits warrantless searches and seizures of private information, and we think its protections apply to the DNA collection at issue here.

Click to read more ...

TERRA DAILY - Science taboo for Republicans seeking White House

by Staff Writers, TERRA DAILY

Washington (AFP) Dec 29, 2011

http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Science_taboo_for_Republicans_seeking_White_House_999.html

Many of the Republican candidates vying for their party's nod to take on President Barack Obama, dismiss science in favor of strong evangelical faith, playing to a hardline conservative electorate.

Only one of the White House contenders, former Utah governor Jon Huntsman, has come out with force to proclaim a belief in man-made climate change, as he condemned his party's hostility to science.

"To be clear, I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy," he wrote in an August post on micro-blogging site Twitter.

"The minute that theRepublican Party becomes the anti-science party -- we have a huge problem," the former US ambassador to China later told ABC television's "This Week."

Other major political figures, such as New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, have lambasted the lack of scientific faith of Republican hopefuls seeking the highest office of the world's first superpower.

"We have presidential candidates who don't believe in science. I mean, just think about it, can you imagine a company of any size in the world where the CEO said 'Oh, I don't believe in science' and that person surviving to the end of that day? Are you kidding me? It's mind-boggling!" Bloomberg told an economic forum in November.

The importance of the ultra-conservative vote, championed by a religious, anti-evolution electorate, is not lost on the contenders seeking their party's nod to face Obama in November's presidential election.

In Iowa, where caucuses kick off the months-long nominating process on Tuesday, just 21 percent of Republican voters said they believe in global warming, and 35 percent in the theory of evolution, according to a Public Policy Polling survey.

Click to read more ...

Patrick Martin - Government of the Rich, by the Rich and for the Rich

By Patrick Martin

Global Research, December 29, 2011

World Socialist Web Site - 2011-12-28

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=28393

According to a study reported Tuesday, nearly half the members of the United States Congress are

millionaires. Of the 535 legislators (100 members of the Senate and 435 members of the House of Representatives), at least 250 are millionaires and the median net worth is $913,000.

 

Sixty-seven senators are millionaires and the median wealth of the body’s 100 members is $2.63 million.

 

While the Senate has long been known as a millionaires’ club, the transformation of the House is a relatively recent phenomenon. The median net worth of members of the House of Representatives, excluding home equity, has more than doubled over the last 25 years, from $280,000 in 1984 to $725,000 in 2009 in inflation-adjusted dollars. During that same period, the median net worth of an American family fell from $20,600 to $20,500.

 

Both the Washington Post and the New York Times gave front-page treatment to the data, derived from figures collected by the Center for Responsive Politics. The articles reflect nervousness in the corporate-controlled media over the degree to which the rising personal wealth of members of Congress is discrediting the institution.

Click to read more ...

Joel Hirschhorn - America's Delusional Democracy. Don’t Mute Newt

By Joel S. Hirschhorn

 

Global Research, December 20, 2011

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=28298

 

The trick to maintaining the US delusional democracy is feeding the illusion for citizens that voting and elections really matter.  But when both major parties are owned by rich and corporate elites it matters less than most people think whether Republicans or Democrats win and control Congress or the White House.  Their seeming differences are a clever distraction that keeps fooling and manipulating Americans.  With the help of the mainstream media, making entertainment out of political races, Americans are deceived into thinking that elections deserve their respect and participation. 

 

As power shifts periodically from one party to the other partner of the two-party plutocracy, the illusion of meaningful change sustains the corrupt, dysfunctional political and government system and the economy rewarding the top one percent.  Winning politicians are adept at lying convincingly, especially about change and reforms and, like well advertised products, Americans consume the lies.

 

The perennial problem is that despite what so many Americans view as failed presidencies and, even more clearly, failed Congresses, no Second American Revolution is produced that would return the government to we the people.  The biggest lie of all: Elections can fix the broken system.

Click to read more ...

Zachary Roth - Paulonomics: Ron Paul’s plans for taxes, spending and Social Security

By Zachary Roth

Senior National Affairs Reporter

If you know anything about Ron Paul's economic views, it's probably that he's not a big fan of the Federal Reserve system, or that he loves the gold standard. But those are hardly the only noteworthy planks in his platform. The Republican congressman from Texas, who now looks to have a real chance of winning the Iowa caucuses in less than two weeks, also wants to abolish five Cabinet departments, drastically lower corporate taxes, and allow younger workers to opt out of the Social Security system.

Here are they key components of Paul's economic plan, "Restore America," released in October:

Spending: Paul proposes cutting $1 trillion from the federal budget during his first year in office, and balancing the budget by his third year. He would do this in part by eliminating five cabinet departments: Energy; Housing and Urban Development; Commerce; Interior; and Education. (Paul has not offered specifics on what would happen to some of the functions currently performed by the departments he wants to abolish--maintaining our nuclear weapons, administering our intellectual property system, and conducting the Census, for instance.)

He would also scrap the Transportation Security Administration, which is part of the Department of Homeland Security, eliminate corporate subsidies, end foreign aid, and return most other federal spending to 2006 levels.

Paul says he would cut the federal workforce by 10 percent, and accept a presidential salary of $39,336- roughly equal to what the average American makes. The president currently makes $400,000.

Click to read more ...

Ray McGovern - Pvt. Manning and Imperative of Truth

December 21, 2011

Exclusive: The prosecution of Pvt. Bradley Manning for inconvenient truth-telling is more proof of how hypocritical Official Washington is, especially when Manning’s case is compared to how Bush administration officials walked despite clear evidence that they sanctioned torture and other war crimes, notes ex-CIA analyst Ray McGovern.

By Ray McGovern

http://consortiumnews.com/2011/12/21/pvt-manning-and-the-imperative-of-truth/

When I was asked to speak at Saturday’s rally at Fort Meade in support of Pvt. Bradley Manning, I wondered how I might provide some context around what Manning is alleged to have done.

(In my talk, so as not to think I had to insert the word “alleged” into every sentence, I asked for unanimous consent to using the indicative rather than the subjunctive mood.)

What jumped into my mind was the letter Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. wrote from the Birmingham City jail in April 1963, from which I remembered this:

Click to read more ...

George Monbiot - This Bastardized Libertarianism Makes 'Freedom' an Instrument of Oppression

Published on Tuesday, December 20, 2011 by the Guardian/UK

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/dec/19/bastardised-libertarianism-makes-freedom-oppression

It's the disguise used by those who wish to exploit without restraint, denying the need for the state to protect the 99%

by George Monbiot

Freedom: who could object? Yet this word is now used to justify a thousand forms of exploitation. Throughout the right-wing press and blogosphere, among thinktanks and governments, the word excuses every assault on the lives of the poor, every form of inequality and intrusion to which the 1% subject us. How did libertarianism, once a noble impulse, become synonymous with injustice?

In the name of freedom – freedom from regulation – the banks were permitted to wreck the economy. In the name of freedom, taxes for the super-rich are cut. In the name of freedom, companies lobby to drop the minimum wage and raise working hours. In the same cause, US insurers lobby Congress to thwart effective public healthcare; the government rips up our planning laws; big business trashes the biosphere. This is the freedom of the powerful to exploit the weak, the rich to exploit the poor.

Right-wing libertarianism recognizes few legitimate constraints on the power to act, regardless of the impact on the lives of others. In the UK it is forcefully promoted by groups like theTaxPayers' Alliance, the Adam Smith Institute, the Institute of Economic Affairs, and Policy Exchange. Their concept of freedom looks to me like nothing but a justification for greed.

So why have we been been so slow to challenge this concept of liberty? I believe that one of the reasons is as follows. The great political conflict of our age – between neocons and the millionaires and corporations they support on one side, and social justice campaigners and environmentalists on the other – has been mischaracterized as a clash between negative and positive freedoms. These freedoms were most clearly defined by Isaiah Berlin in his essay of 1958, Two Concepts of Liberty. It is a work of beauty: reading it is like listening to a gloriously crafted piece of music. I will try not to mangle it too badly.

Click to read more ...

Robert Reich - The Defining Issue -- Not Government's Size, but Who It's For

http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-Defining-Issue-Not-Go-by-Robert-Reich-111219-786.html

December 19, 2011 By Robert Reich If we want to get our democracy back we've got to get big money out of politics. We need real campaign finance reform. And a constitutional amendment reversing the Supreme Court's bizarre rulings that under the First Amendment money is speech and corporations are people. The defining political issue of 2012 won't be the government's size. It will be who government is for. Americans have never much liked government. After all, the nation was conceived in a revolution against government. But the surge of cynicism now engulfing America isn't about government's size. It's the growing perception that government isn't working for average people. It's for big business, Wall Street, and the very rich instead. In a recent Pew Foundation poll, 77 percent of respondents said too much power is in the hands of a few rich people and corporations.

Click to read more ...