VISA, the credit card company has a new self-promotional campaign on the net, in print and on TV. Being technically quite advanced, the verbiage on the web site explaining what's up can't just be copied and pasted. So, please bear with the transcription, in case I err.

On second thought, there's probably too much verbiage to go above the fold, so let me just point out that my attention was first caught by the back cover of National Journal (Senator-elect Scott Brown is on the front) where some school teacher in Mecca, California is promoting "financial responsibility" by pointing to greenbacks pinned up on the wall. More apt than the engineers of this campaign probably intended.

What they intended seems pretty well encapsulated in the Introduction of the Currency of Progress Campaign:

Visa is celebrating how the power of digital currency is transforming lives with a new advertising campaign--Currency of Progress.

SOURCE: Alternet.org

BY Chris Hedges

The Obama Brand: Feel Good While Overlords Loot the Treasury and Launch Imperial Wars | Brand Obama makes us hopeful. We like our president and we believe he's like us. But we're being duped into doing a lot of things that are not in our interest.

January 25, 2010

Editor's Note: The following is an adapted excerpt from Chris Hedges' book, Empire of Illusion: The End of Literacy and the Triumph of Spectacle (Nation Books, 2009) that first appeared in Tikkun magazine.

Barack Obama is a brand. And the Obama brand is designed to make us feel good about our government while corporate overlords loot the Treasury, armies of corporate lobbyists grease the palms of our elected officials, our corporate media diverts us with gossip and trivia, and our imperial wars expand in the Middle East. Brand Obama is about being happy consumers. We are entertained. We feel hopeful. We like our president. We believe he is like us. But like all branded products spun out from the manipulative world of corporate advertising, this product is duping us into doing and supporting a lot of things that are not in our interest.

In a previous diary I called attention to the fact that our (the American people's) generosity, dispensed via low interest loans from the Commerce Department's Fisheries Program, had been repaid by the Shafmaster enterprises by polluting the waters of Great Bay. That is, to recap, Jonathan S. Shafmaster, either in his own name or as Lordco Pier Associates, had collected, over a period of six years, at least nine million dollars in low interest loans from the U.S. Department of Commerce and yet couldn't manage to keep from fouling the Bay.

SOURCE: USA Today

Opposing view: TARP was a flop

Target relief to Main Street families and businesses, not big banks.

By Paul Hodes

A year ago, as our nation stood on the brink of economic collapse, Congress decided that to stabilize our financial system, we should spend $700 billion to bail out Wall Street banks. I opposed this move. Some now claim that since our banking system averted collapse, the Troubled Asset Relief Program — TARP — must have been the right approach. Unfortunately, the results show the opposite.

When America spends taxpayer money, we need to make sure it is being spent right. But after sending hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars to Wall Street with little accountability or oversight, we still haven't seen an increase in lending, we still face a massive foreclosure crisis and no one can say exactly where all the money went.

SOURCE:New York Times

C.I.A. Said to End Blackwater Contract
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Published: December 11, 2009

WASHINGTON (AP) -- CIA Director Leon Panetta has canceled a contract with the former Blackwater security firm that allowed the company's operatives to load missiles on Predator drones in Pakistan.

Panetta canceled the contract earlier this year and the work is being shifted to government personnel, a person familiar with the contract said Friday. The person spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the classified program.

In a failed state, the government’s priorities are totally separate from those of the people. The US can’t afford health care or a bailout for jobless homeowners, but it can afford a pointless war and multi-million dollar bonuses for banksters who wrecked the economy.

SOURCE: Counterpunch.com

The Twin Frauds of Obama

By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS

Goldman Sachs senior executives are arming themselves with New York gun permits, according to Alice Schroeder on Bloomberg.com. The banksters “are now equipped to defend themselves if there is a populist uprising against the bank.”

One can understand why the banksters are worried. The company, now known as Gold Sacks, has a large responsibility for the financial crisis and the fraudulent “securities” that wrecked the world economy and Americans’ pensions. A former Gold Sachs CEO had control of the US Treasury during the Bush regime from which he diverted $750 billion to bail out the banks, thus supplying them with free capital. Gold Sachs made $27,000 million during the first three quarters of 2009 and is paying out massive bonuses, leaving the busted taxpayers with the debt and interest charges.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

SOURCE: Constitutional Accountability Center

As we await the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, expected any day now, Constitutional Accountability Center (CAC) has continued to build on the scholarly research discussed in our brief filed with the Court:  whether corporations have the same rights as individuals, particularly when it comes to influencing electoral politics in this country.

The result of this work is this discussion draft, tentatively titled “A Capitalist Joker”: Corporations, Corporate Personhood, and the Constitution, which we intend to release more formally in January as the latest installment in our Text & History Narrative Series.  The text of our Constitution never mentions corporations and, as our narrative explains, this was deliberate: the framers wrote and the American people ratified the original Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the three Civil War amendments — the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth — to secure the inalienable rights of “We the People” — living human beings.   Governments create corporations and give them special privileges to fuel economic growth, but with these special privileges come greater government oversight.  Indeed, in the early 20th Century, the American people added the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Amendments to the Constitution, at least in part, to ensure greater governmental control over corporations and less corporate influence over our democracy.

This is what happens when you privatize your government

SOURCE: Agonist.org

BY Michael Collins

The Supreme Court of the United States will soon announce a major decision on our lightly controlled system of campaign funding. Will it retain some limitations on corporate influence or will the court blow the lid off and cause a perpetual flood of unrestricted corporate contributions?

An additional outcome may surprise and shock the public.

If the Supreme Court overturns the lower court's decision, foreign nationals, corporations, and governments with partial ownership of U.S. corporations will, in effect, end up contributing to and influencing U.S. candidates in federal elections.

The Supreme Court surprised many when it agreed to hear an appeal of a lower court ruling that enforced key sections of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (McCain-Feingold) -- Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission (FEC) (1) .

And yes, a whole bunch of Senators actually voted to continue contracting with companies prohibiting employee legal and civil rights

Sen. Franken Questions an Arbitration Lawyer about Binding Arbitration

SOURCE: Black Box Voting

You may have heard: There will be a hearing in the U.S. Senate about the ES&S monopolistic takeover of America's voting system. (ES&S bought Diebold's Premier Election Solutions, giving it control over 75% of our jurisdictions).

Here is a copy of the letter BLACK BOX VOTING has sent to every senator on the committee, and a downloadable do-it-yourself letter in Word format so you can edit and customize to your own liking and send your own, plus all the addresses, fax numbers and phone numbers.

LINK TO DO IT YOURSELF LETTER:

http://www.blackboxvoting.org/senate-hearing-doityourself-letter.doc

NEW RESEARCH

Note that the letter provides some new research to counteract claims that it's too late because the acquisition has already taken place, and that the acquisition doesn't fall under antitrust laws.

SOURCE: opednews.com

Vote of No Confidence in E-Voting Merger, Part Two: Talking with Democracy Warrior Nancy Tobi

By Joan Brunwasser (about the author)

We're back for the second part of the interview with Democracy Warrior Nancy Tobi. Can you walk us through Black Box Voting's anti-trust case, Nancy?

Black Box Voting's case is spectacular. Other objections we've heard about in the news from Hart Intercivic (another e-voting company), Senator Schumer, and Voter Action focus on the detrimental effect of the proposed merger on competitive markets in the e-voting industry. This is appropriate because the issue at hand is antitrust.

However, the Black Box Voting complaint takes things to a much deeper and more meaningful level. Their complaint points to the fact that the e-voting companies now control nearly the entire voting system, from poll book management to vote-casting and -counting to results tabulation. The complaint takes note of the unconstitutional nature of this privatization of what are supposed to be public elections, and specifically the concealment of the voting system processes from public oversight through the use of computer programs, which are not observable to the human eye.

SOURCE:Sen. Ted Kaufman (D-DE)

Press Release:

Kaufman and Isakson Statement on Tomorrow's SEC Roundtable on Short Selling

September 29, 2009

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Sens. Ted Kaufman (D-DE) and Johnny Isakson (R-GA) released the following statement in advance of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) roundtable on short selling tomorrow.

“Tomorrow’s SEC roundtable is long awaited, but it is clear that the panel is stacked against the need for restrictions on naked short selling. In the recent financial decline, there was abusive short selling enabled by the repeal of the 70-year-old uptick rule and a lack of so-called pre-borrow or hard locate requirements.

This acquisition is the latest action in a series of events which have created a concentration in the electronic voting industry. This acquisition will exacerbate and burden an already non-competitive and restrictive situation for our public elections, which under the Constitution are an essential part of our democratic system of government. This acquisition, in addition to overconcentrating the industry, will put a single company in a position to shut down federal elections at will. Thus, this overconcentration also creates a potential national security problem.~Black Box Voting antitrust complaint

Black Box Voting has sent a 21-page carefully documented letter of complaint and request for investigation to the United States Dept. of Justice Office of Antitrust and to the Federal Trade Commission regarding the acquisition of Diebold/Premier Election Solutions by Election Systems & Software.

We need and appreciate your donations. We believe we are continuing to earn your support.
http://www.blackboxvoting.org/donate.html
mailing address 330 SW 43rd St Suite K PMB 547 Renton WA 98057

Black Box Voting filed an antitrust complaint to the US Department of Justice requesting they investigate the proposed merger of e-voting companies Diebold and ES&S. Long before this merger, however, New Hampshire initiated its own antitrust situation with Diebold Corporation. Like so many other unconstitutional aspects of NH's election systems, the virtual monopoly over e-voting in New Hampshire was legislated with a wink and a nod and nary an objection from the office of the NH Attorney General, Secretary of State, the news media, or most public officials. In fact, the legislation itself that handed NH elections to Diebold on a silver platter, was written in consultation with John Silvestro of Londonderry, NH, President of Diebold's New England affiliate, LHS Associates. The legislation was passed under the direction of then Chair of the NH Election Law Committee, Don Stritch, with the full support of the office of the Secretary of State.

Former Representative Stritch is now Commissioner of Rockingham County, where LHS President John Silvestro resides. Stritch's interest in the e-voting industry is apparent in his subsequent unsuccessful appeal to be appointed by the NH Secretary of State to the Standards Board, a national board of state election officials reporting to the White House agency, the Election Assistance Commission (EAC). The Standards Board and the EAC maintain quite a bit of influence over national adoption of electronic voting technology, from advising on the design specifications for the technology to participating (formally and informally) in a disturbingly intimate network with e-voting industrialists.

Following the 2007 establishment of the NH "Electronic Ballot Counting Device Advisory Committee" (aka electronic voting technology committee), Stritch was appointed Chair of that committee by Secretary of State Bill Gardner. This e-voting committee was created by legislation passed after the Election Law Committee, under the chairmanship of Representative Jane Clemons (D-Nashua) killed several pieces of citizen-proposed legislation calling for open and public vote counting. Clemons, working with Deputy Secretary of State Dave Scanlan, instead orchestrated passage of this single bill forming the technology voting committee, effectively putting legislative stamp of approval on concealed vote counting by computers rather than the constitutional mandate for public and open vote counting. The following excerpt provides details on the shameful dealings that gave away NH's public elections to a Diebold monopoly.

more below the fold

SOURCE: Black Box Voting Letter of Complaint - Request for Investigation to AG Holder

Black Box Voting is writing to express our objection to, and to request your investigation of, the proposed acquisition of Diebold's Premier Election Solutions by Election Systems
& Software, Inc. (ES&S).

This acquisition is the latest action in a series of events which have created a concentration in the electronic voting industry. This acquisition will exacerbate and burden an already non-competitive and restrictive situation for our public elections, which under the Constitution are an essential part of our democratic system of government. This acquisition, in addition to overconcentrating the industry, will put a single company in a position to shut down federal elections at will. Thus, this overconcentration also creates a potential national security problem....

...The permitted sale of Premier Election Solutions to ES&S will consolidate this not-verycompetitive process for years to come based on the historical process timeline. In addition, certain states have added their own purchasing restrictions. The states of Texas and Ohio, for example, do not permit Sequoia Voting Systems to sell systems to their counties. The state of Florida does not permit Hart Intercivic to sell voting systems in Florida. And the state of New Hampshire has established an unusual ballot design requirement which precludes all vendors except Diebold/Premier. Some states, like (9) See e-mail documents from ES&S employee John Groh, above. Georgia, Maryland, New Mexico, Arkansas, West Virginia and Utah require all local counties to purchase a system from a single vendor selected by state officials.

Read the full complaint here

Take action here

SOURCE: The New York Times

September 22, 2009
Editorial: The Rights of Corporations

The question at the heart of one of the biggest Supreme Court cases this year is simple: What constitutional rights should corporations have? To us, as well as many legal scholars, former justices and, indeed, drafters of the Constitution, the answer is that their rights should be quite limited — far less than those of people.

This Supreme Court, the John Roberts court, seems to be having trouble with that. It has been on a campaign to increase corporations' legal rights — based on the conviction of some conservative justices that businesses are, at least legally, not much different than people.

Now the court is considering what should be a fairly narrow campaign finance case, involving whether Citizens United, a nonprofit corporation, had the right to air a slashing movie about Hillary Rodham Clinton during the Democratic primary season. There is a real danger that the case will expand corporations' rights in ways that would undermine the election system.