Teddy Roosevelt was right.

[kentuck]

[Rambis]

1. "Corporations are people my friend" SHIT MONEY

[Scootaloo]

2. The only Republican I've even considered liking (Besides Lincoln)

[wilt the stilt]

9. Lincoln should have let the South go

just sayin'

[Scootaloo]

16. And its three-point-five million heads of human livestock?

How about the fact these same states were - even prior to formal secession - crowing for war and conquest of the rest of the country? Do remember, they shot first.

There's also the consideration that neither the Union or Confederacy could stand alone against European power; had Lincoln "let it go," or had the south's attempt to ally with Britain succeeded the confederacy would have very quickly become a commonwealth of the British empire - and being sandwiched between two such commonwealths probably would have done the Union no favors

There's a few things Lincoln got wrong; perhaps had he not been murdered, he could have patched those few things up. But smashing aggressive traitors and reclaiming the territory they tried to steal was not one of those mistakes.

[ieoeja]

26. You're probably being halfway humorous. But this is a discussion board. So....

Let's take your thought serious and follow it through.

What about Virgina, Kentucky, Tennesee and Missouri? Should Lincoln have remained on the sidelines while each of those states fought an internal Civil War given that each of those four set up rival governments: one union and one confederate?

If Lincoln sat on the sidelines, would the Confederacy? Given that the south was founded by Normans who believed in their superiority to all other races (the south HATED Anglo-Saxons), and that it was the natural order of things that they conquer and rule others, and that southern pols had backed the freebooters who took Texas away from Mexico, conquered Baja California, invaded Sonoma (which ended up losing them Baja), conquered Guatemala, invaded Guatemala a second time after being kicked out the first time and invaded Cuba twice ... I think it is a fairly good bet they would have at least backed the Confederates in those four states with a mass of volunteers.

What about Rhode Island? Rhode Island was the only state with a viable slave population. The United States and European powers had already cut off the slave trade with Africa before the Civil War. The Confederacy would need Rhode Island to maintain their existing supply of trade. Although there were two other proposals on the table: raid the United States for Anglo-Saxon slaves or conquer the United States, tear down the cities, and restore a feudal, agrairian society (yes, both such proposals were suggested for a post-war Confederacy).

Arizona and New Mexico declared statehood on the side of the United States shortly after the war began. The Confederacy considered those lands theirs. Again, given their belief that might makes right, the Confederacy would have made every attempt to retake those states.

I can not think of any scenario in which the Confederacy does not eventually invade the United States.

Just sayin'

[RitchieRich]

43. please to clarify

So I clearly don't have the level of knowledge on this issue that you guys do, but I've long been of the impression that slavery was an afterthought in the Civil War. That it was really an issue of taxes being forced on the south in an ironically similar way to how England forced them on the Colonies.

[ieoeja]

44. That's a new one to me. I have never heard anything about taxation being a cause.

And it really wouldn't make any sense. They had equal representation in Congress. The Supreme Court was packed with southerners. And almost all Presidents up to that point came from the South.

Slavery was THE central theme. Every southern Declaration of Independance asserts that they are seceding to protect the institution of slavery which they felt could not be done on a state by state basis, but must be protected at the national level (most people get that point completely backwards; while the south was generally anti-federalist ... on the subject of slavery they fought every attempt to make it a states rights issue; they believed slavery was an individual property).

Aside from slavery there was also a cultural and ethnic division. The original southern colonies were founded and populated by Normans and Celts seeking to expand the British Empire. The original northern colonies were founded and populated by Anglo-Saxons seeking to flee the British Empire. The Normans brought their military culture with them which viewed the working class as subservient and inferior. While the Anglo-Saxons saw work as something to be proud of.

Notice something about these names?

Southern Colonies
Virginia (for the Virgin Queen Elizabeth)
North and South Carolina (hello, Kings Charles I and II)
Georgia (King George)
Maryland (good ol' Bloody Mary)

Northern Colonies
Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusettes (native place names)
New Jersey, York and Hampshire (old place names)
Pennsylvania (for William Penn's attempts to protect commoners in the English parliament)


The division was cast in stone at the outset. South Carolina was dragged kicking and screaming into the American Revolution, surrended a few months into the war, then happily supplied the British Army throughout the remaining years of the war. Their first attempt at secession from the United States came decades before the American Civil War. So it was no surprise when they kicked off the fighting.

[JDPriestly]

45. I heard the same story you heard RitchieRich -- in my Southern high school

One good and entertaining reference on this is the book, Team of Rivals.

There were a number of factors, but a major one was the fact that Southerners wanted to be able to obtain the return of slaves who escaped to the North, and Northerners like my very strongly abolitionist ancestors absolutely did not want that.

In the South, we learned that the real issue was whether the South could export cotton directly with England instead of having Northern textile mills and merchants handle that end of the business. There may be some truth in that, but it was not the reason for the secession or for Fort Sumter.

Southerners have been in denial since they seceded -- and not just about this issue.

[ieoeja]

48. History SHOULD be written by the victors.

For a long time everyone believed that winter defeated Napolean in Russia. In reality, he had already been defeated outside Moscow and was trying to escape Russia before the first snow flake fell. Rather than fighting through fresh forces on an alternate route, he chose to retrace the route he followed in since that route was largely cleared of Russian forces. Unfortunately, he had also largely cleared it of food. Winter just finished off what little was left.

For decades we were taught, based on captured Nazi military records, that winter again stopped the Nazis outside of Moscow. They dismissed their being pushed back as a Battle of the Bulge type of encounter by the last remaining defenders in Moscow. What they did not realize was that they were facing the first 10 of over 100 fresh infrantry troops en route on the Trans-Siberian railroad. Had winter not shutdown that railroad, that push would have just kept growing and growing until the Soviets broke out.

That would make for some interesting alternative history discussions. No way was Churchill going to make peace with Hitler. But he certainly viewed Stalin as an enemy as well. Would he have accepted North Africa in exchange for a ceasefire? Would Hitler have gone as far as granting France independance in exchange for their assistance against the Soviets? And what would the United States, not in the war yet, and always under rightwing national security influence, have done?

As to the Civil War, most Civil War history was written by Southern generals and politicians trying to explain their loss. Not to dis those gentlemen, but did they really understand what happened? The fact that they lost should make their explanations suspect. Look at their universal explanation for not defending South Carolina: they knew the swamps were impassable mid-winter. Since they got that so completely wrong, what else was occurring that they simply did not understand?

When you read the correspondance between Grant and his trusted generals what comes through crystal clear is how utterly amused they are by the actions of Lee, et al. Likewise, when you read correspondence between Lee et al those last couple years, it is equally clear they haven't a clue why they keep losing.

Yet, we rely largely upon their memoirs to explain why.

Further, given that any explanation they are going to give starts with the presumption that they are a superior race to their opponents, they have already written off a host of reasons right there. An inferior race could not possibly have come up with better tactics and strategy. An inferior race could not possibly have had smarter men. The fact that the lower ranks of the army of the inferior race was literate and educated while theirs was not could not possibly have been a factor. It inevitably has to come down to luck, outside assistance, just too damn many of them, etc.

It's like an economic discussion with a Reaganite. Start from the basic assumption that Reagan's economic policies are correct, then try to explain economic collapse in the Reagan economic era.

[RitchieRich]

49. "fact:" learned in college? or the History Channel?

When I consider where I learned something, it generally means: did I pick that up in school, or on the "history" channel.

I believe my most current knowledge of this springs from a series on the History Channel. Worth noting, is that they have turned into utter garbage, reality TV argument contests. If you want to absorb anything other than said flavorless crap, you have to be able to purchase the package of extended channels (knowledge only available to those who can afford it, everyone else get consumed by ignorance). Also worth noting is their being sponsored by the defense industry, or at least I've seen a million add placements.

Growing up in Maryland, I suppose I went to a Southern school, but I remember being very surprised when I heard the tax version.

I agree with your assertion that it was an issue, but not central. Always interesting how people pay no attention to history and insist on repeating it: Fleeing the church/ Europe to establish the colonies --> current Right hardline distorted religion as a pre-qualification for running that platform. Also the tax issue was a main factor for the Revolution, then a big issue in the Civil war, and current. Interesting how we are so quick to abandon the past lessons / sacrifices as is suits us.

[Scootaloo]

54. A few good sources for Civil War stuff...

If you want to counter the "apologist" crap, there's always Howard Zinn's "A People's History."
If you want to know where the apologist crap comes from, there's James Loewen's "Lies My Teacher Told me."
If you want to learn about hte lead-up to the war from primary ources, there's Adam Goodheart's "1861."
From the perspective of the slaves, there's Andrew Ward's "The Slave's War."
For the perspective of slaves prior to and during the war, there's Franklin and Schweninger's "Runaway Slaves"

[ieoeja]

47. Also, taxation was not the #1 issue for the American Revolution either.

Yes, they were extremely unhappy paying taxes to support an Army that wasn't there before what we call the French & Indian War, and that very notably took residence in the forts the French originally built to threaten the British-American colonies rather than taking up positions to defend the British-American colonies. It was clear at the time, which private correspondance made public in later years confirmed, the new British monarch felt the Americans were not sufficiently deferential to the crown.

So the multipage Declaration of Independance includes a single line mentioning taxes.

A lot of it was just plain old incompetence. The Stamp Act requiring the colonies to use the same stamped paper for legal documents as was used in the British Isles would have been received with grumbles (because nobody wants to ever pay more), but would have blown over quickly. However, a single politically connnected company had been awarded the contract for producing this paper ...

Why does this sound familiar?

... and was incapable of doubling their production and multiplying their distribution a thousand fold in the allotted time. Instead of delaying the start, the British gov't just bulled ahead and commerce throughout the far flung British Empire came to a standstill. Little Johnny could not marry Littly Susie because there was no stamped paper available despite the fact that they "had" to get married. It was a complete disaster.

The Sugar Act was established to help British Sugar industry ....

Why does this sound familiar?

... against French competitors. But the Brits also allowed their sugar growers to produce Rum which was more profitable than simply supplying sugar. While the French forbade their growers to distill the sugar to protect their domestic liquor industry ...

Why does this sound familiar?

... against new markets. So the whole act went out of disuse until the new King's ministers blew the dust off of it and decided to reimplement it. Again, the results were a disaster. After a few months, like the Stamp Act, the gov't had to rescind their decision.

And so it goes. Heavy handed police tactics by the military. An attempt to shut down public schools. Military tribunals replacing public trials. Reviving the White Pines Act which reserved every pine tree in North America for the navy, a law passed before they realized how vast North America was, regardless of whether the tree was suitable for ship masts or not.

The list in the Declaration of Independance is rather long. And, as already mentioned, there is only a single mention of taxes without representation buried in the middle of it.

[RitchieRich]

50. didn't see this before above response

Thank you guys for the thoughtful, informative responses. Need to actually work for a few hours before I can properly digest this info.

Happy Monday!

[Scootaloo]

53. I grew up with the same nonsense

Even to the point my 7th-grade teacher called it "the war of northern aggression." No shitting. To hear the Mobile county Public School System tell it, the civil war had everything to do with everything except slavery.

Later in my life, a little casual research pokes big holes in this.

Slavery was the reason for Secession in the first place. South Carolina - the first state to secede - makes it abundantly clear that they seceded to preserve slavery; the election of an Abolitionist president was a big trigger, but South Carolina was also pissed that the Federal courts would not force free states to conform to slavery (several northern states refused to enforce the Runaway Slave acts, and South Carolina was pissed that they were exercising their 10th amendment rights... So much for the "state's rights" argument). Each state that seceded either also explicitly outlined preservation of slavery as their #1 cause, or made their sympathy to such declarations implicit.

After all, absolutely everything in the southern states depended on slavery. It was an economic machine that relied on a lifetime of unpaid labor. Even if the argument was on "higher taxes" (which it wasn't, that's a neohistorical argument by modern conservatives to try to "prove" taxes are bad) then that would have been tax on wealth generated by slaves. You see this problem when people try to offer defenses for slavery. You know, "but them aster fed and clothed them" - sure he did, he fed them with food produced by th slaves, and clothed whem with clothing produced by slaves from cotton picked and planted by slaves.

Lincoln's #1 goal in the war was preventing disunion. He had to avoid mention of slavery in order to keep open rebellion from some other quarters (the New York Draft Riots are one thing this was supposed to prevent. Didn't work) However, most of the men going to battle knew perfectly well that the result of their victory would be the abolition of slavery. It's why "John Brown's Body" was such a popular marching song in the Union ranks.

[Major Nikon]

13. The GOP started out as progressive, not conservative.

[TrollBuster9090]

22. Yep. From 1860 to 1960 the GOP was the liberal/progressive party. It was all downhill after that.

[Scootaloo]

25. Actually, I would argue otherwise...

The republicans got in bed with money under Grant. TR was a small burp in that continuum; for a great length of time, there really, truly, literally was no tangible difference between the parties, save that Democrats tended to have the labor vote, and the republicans had the black vote (Void where prohibited, results may vary, consult your local sheriff if symptoms persist, and do not operate near rope)

They were both big money operations and little more. You think money in the system is bad now? Politics between 1890 and 1930 was vastly worse.

[Neoma]

33. Huh... I've always called myself a liberal progressive.

I don't say one without the other.

Edit: I replied to the wrong post, but it's still towards yah.

[wyldwolf]

31. 1960?

[TrollBuster9090]

17. Teddy was also a self-proclaimed progressive.

Remember, prior to the Southern Strategy of 1968 the Republican party was the party of rational thought and good governance, and the Democratic party was the home of demagoguery and the KKK. Lincoln was a liberal for his time, and so were the Founding Fathers.

Teddy Roosevelt was a champion of workers rights, the 40 hour work week etc., and tried to break up the big trusts that were strangling the country during the Gilded Age. He eventually left the GOP and formed the Progressive Party which was, essentially, dedicated to all the things the Democratic Party of today claims to be dedicated to.

[Scootaloo]

23. Do remember what progressive meant in the day

"Progressive" was the "middle ground" option.

On one side, you had conservationism, which was... pretty much just as it is now in the US. And on the other side, you had real, actual socialist leftism - which no longer exists in American politics.

The progressives of Roosevelt's time were the "moderates" - they supported some reforms, but not so much that it would severely rock the boat. The only reason for images like the one you presented is because then, as now, the Greed Class hated having so much as a penny lifted out of their pockets with the fury of a thousand suns. He was a reformer, but he was no radical - and notably, outside of his own presidential terms, this moderate reform policy won nothing. It actually ended up splitting the reform-minded voters between the progressives and the radicals, leaving the conservatives with the largest bloc - and it's not hard at all to see how that ultimately ended up.

Today's "progressives" are not like yesterday's progressives. Nowadays "progressive" is simply a term used by liberals who are too chickenshit to call themselves "left" or "liberal" because they're afraid the right-wingers will say mean things about them.

[TrollBuster9090]

35. Well, I agree with your last statement.

As Bill Maher said "These days calling a politician a liberal will scare them so badly that they'll put on an orange vest and run off to the woods to kill some animals."

[Scootaloo]

41. And then suddenly John Kerry pops in my head...

I always refer to myself as a leftist or socialist.

From the looks on people's faces when I say this, you'd think I just dipped my sack into the finger bowl or something. it's priceless.

[dionysus]

51. "when I say this, you'd think I just dipped... "

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

3. Unfortunately, the people who could pass such a law are on the corporate payroll.

[elleng]

4. TR was right about SO MANY things!

1. Nobel Peace Prize - negotiated peace treaty that ended the Russo-Japanese War - 1905.

2. Panama Canal

3. Created National Parks
http://www.theodore-roosevelt.com/trnatp…

4. Donated hundreds of animals to the Smithsonian in D.C.

5. Related to Franklin Roosevelt AND Eleanor Roosevelt.

6. Had the Teddy Bear named after him.

7. "trust buster" for his work in breaking up monopolies, and the Food and Drug Administration was created.

[TrollBuster9090]

24. 4. Donated hundreds of animals to the Smithsonian in D.C.

You mean after blowing their brains out with a Winchester? Hahah!

I love Teddy Roosevelt, but I just could resist that one. Bully loved his hunting trips.

[HooptieWagon]

42. A US threat to invade Colombia was the start of the Canal.

Panama was part of Colombia. Colombia didn't want to negotiate a Canal Treaty. US started an independence movement in Panama. When Colombia sent forces to crush the revolution, US gunboats cruised up and down coast threatening Colombia. Colombia ceded Panama, US quickly got their Canal Treaty with new Panamanian puppet govt.

[Demeter]

5. He wasn't known as the Trust Buster for nothing

[elleng]

7. Right. Sure could use some noise at the anti-trust division now.

'The Sherman Anti-Trust Act of 1890 became law while Theodore Roosevelt was serving on the U.S. Civil Service Commission, but it played a large and important role during his presidency.

When Theodore Roosevelt’s first administration sought to end business monopolies, it used the Sherman Anti-Trust Act as the tool to do so. Passed after a series of large corporate mergers during the 1880s, this Act enabled government departments and private individuals to use the court system to break up any organization or contract alleged to be in restraint of trade. The federal government used the Act to invalidate formal and informal arrangements by which different companies in the same industry set prices, though for the first decade of its existence the Act did little to slow the rate of business mergers.

This changed when, in 1904, President Roosevelt urged his Justice Department to dismantle the Northern Securities Corporation. This entity was a holding company, a combination of separate railroads administered by a Board of Trustees. At issue was its control of railroading in the northern tier of the United States from Chicago to the Pacific Northwest. The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the Northern Securities Corporation violated the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, the first major example of trust-busting during Roosevelt’s presidency.'

http://www.theodorerooseveltcenter.org/Learn-About-TR/Themes/Capitalism-and-Labor/The-Sherman-Act.aspx

[tclambert]

28. Roosevelt sued 45 companies under the Sherman Antitrust Act.

From Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law

[TrollBuster9090]

32. The response from Big Business hasn't changed, though.

Then, as now, the response of the big Trusts was to run to Congress, and grease all their palms.

[SDjack]

6. Corporations giving politicians money is simple theft. That money belongs to the shareholders.

It should be paid to them.

[TrollBuster9090]

27. Or at the very least, shareholders should be able to VOTE on whether their company gives money to

political parties. That should have been part of the Dodd-Frank Law, but I don't think it was. The Dodd-Frank law will give shareholders the power to vote for executive compensation, a job that had usually been relegated to the cronies on the Board of Governors, most of whom were executives from other companies. So, this old boys club would routinely vote each other compensation packages that are ten times bigger than the executives in other countries.

But as a shareholder in a company, I'd rather my company plow that money into research and innovation, or improved business practices, rather than into bribing Congress to remove regulations, and grant lower tax rates to plutocrats. I'm sure other shareholders would feel the same way.

[NCTraveler]

55. You don't think the shareholders benefit from the political influence gained? nt

[happynewyear]

8. The Bull Moose Party

President Roosevelt started up his own party after deciding to run for re-election in 1912.

>>The Progressive Party of 1912 was an American political party. It was formed by former President Theodore Roosevelt, after a split in the Republican Party between himself and President William Howard Taft.

The party also became known as the Bull Moose Party when former President Roosevelt boasted "I'm fit as a bull moose," after being shot in an assassination attempt prior to his 1912 campaign speech in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

Inspiration for the party's beginnings may have come from Roosevelt's friend and supporter, U.S. Senator Thomas Kearns of Utah, who in October 1906 broke off from the Republican Party and started the American Party in that state. Kearns was a Roman Catholic, and this was a direct response to the influence of the leadership of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on the Senatorial elections between 1902 to 1905.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Party_%28United_States,_1912%29

Isn't history sweet?

We call the late TR a "Republican". He was anything but ...



Recommend.

[hifiguy]

30. Maybe we should bring back the Bull Moosers.

They were considerably to the left of modern Democrats even then.

[happynewyear]

34. TR had a grand idea

The main problem(s) he was up against was indeed the corporations.

By the time he came up with the Bull Moose Party, his time as a politician were running on empty.

He died in early 1919.

I always loved hearing the story about the assassination attempt. He was delivering a speech and even though shot, he never left the podium and continued on.

Sadly, it was his adventures in the Amazon jungles that led to his untimely demise it has always been believed as he contracted many illnesses while trying to live in the jungle -- not a great idea. *sigh*

[hifiguy]

36. I think some part of TR thought he might be immortal.

He was a sickly boy who managed to get himself so fit that by his 20s he was able to survive in the wilds of the Dakotas living rough. He conquered everything he was ever involved in and loved being the center of attention. As his daughter Alice Roosevelt Longworth once said, "Theodore wants to be the bride at every wedding and the corpse at every funeral."

Edmund Morris' muulti-volume bio of TR is truly splendid reading. Bully, I say!

[happynewyear]

37. I've read many books on TR

The best books about him were written by himself. I have a whole 20+ volume set of his writings.

He was indeed a sickly young man and he believed that he could overcome any obstacle in life. He did just that.

[nadinbrzezinski]

10. teddy was a progressive

[hifiguy]

11. If TR returned today, he would set off after the Repigs

with half a dozen shotguns loaded with rock salt slung over his shoulder and blast their asses until there was no tomorrow.

[happynewyear]

15. No, not quite

Ever heard his famous quote:

SPEAK SOFTLY AND CARRY A BIG STICK.

The time has come for our Nation to find another TR, one who has a big stick and can speak softly. There must be one among us.

[Scootaloo]

18. Nah, there'd be no sport to it

He'd just shoot them with his eye lasers.

[hifiguy]

19. I dunno.

TR seems like the sort of fellow who would enjoy blasting some rock salt into the asses of people like Rmoney, Yertle, the Orange Man and Cantor just on general principles.

[hollysmom]

12. he would not be acceptable to the tea party, can't be called a republican any more.

We need a new designation for such early republicans.

[zeemike]

14. Well he must have been a Marxist Communist then

And hated America....and probably palled around with Saul Alinsky's father or something.
And we all know that Rough Rider is a code word for being gay...Just what were they doing up on San Juan hill anyway?

[hifiguy]

20. LOL!

[TrollBuster9090]

21. Well, Teddy would know about that first-hand!

Like many presidents over the last two centuries (including Obama), he tried to fight the Trusts, and the influence of corporate money in politics. And sometimes he was forced to do it by fighting some of the WORST trusts with the self-interested help of what he considered to be the 'LESS-WORSE' trusts. Basically the same method that Obama/Emanuel used when they attempted to fight the HMOs with the help of BIG PHARMACY.

[tclambert]

29. TR might be too progressive for the Democratic Party today.

For Republicans, forget it.

[underpants]

38. The Supreme Court today counter their own ruling from last year in Citizens United.

First of all courts for years have held that these fees are okay because without paying these fees non-members are "free riders" and get collective bargaining for free.

In this ruling the court countered what they established in Citizens United. Coporations can contribute money to political causes (not campaigns or parties) in unlimited amounts with no regard for shareholders' concerns OR (not pointed out in the NPR piece) taxpayers' concerns for corporations receiving tax incentives like Walmart not paying property tax as part of their business model. Unions, after this ruling, can't contribute money to political causes (not campaigns or parties) because of the concerns of non-union members.

The kicker is that in Citizens United the court went beyond the case to state that the contributions do not have to disclosed. In this case the court went beyond to say that there has to be an "opt in" (not an "opt out&quot which was not part of the case. Breyer apparently gave an oral dissent today railing the court for adding on to this ruling when the parties had not been able to air their side.

What this signals is that this court is so partisan and out of control that Scalia is willing to rule against himself in Raich v. Gonzales and overturn Obamacare.

[nineteen50]

39. This would make a great t-shirt!

[happynewyear]

40. Great idea!!!

[JDPriestly]

46. Mother Jones (magazine) to the rescue.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/06/history-money-american-elections

Bill Liedtke was racing against time. His deadline was a little more than a day away. He'd prepared everything—suitcase stuffed with cash, jet fueled up, pilot standing by. Everything but the Mexican money.

The date was April 5, 1972. Warm afternoon light bathed the windows at Pennzoil Company headquarters in downtown Houston. Liedtke, a former Texas wildcatter who'd risen to be Pennzoil's president, and Roy Winchester, the firm's PR man, waited anxiously for $100,000 due to be hand-delivered by a Mexican businessman named José Díaz de León. When it arrived, Liedtke (pronounced LIT-key) would stuff it into the suitcase with the rest of the cash and checks, bringing the total to $700,000. The Nixon campaign wanted the money before Friday, when a new law kicked in requiring that federal campaigns disclose their donors. Maurice Stans, finance chair of the Committee for the Re-Election of the President, or CREEP, had told fundraisers they needed to beat that deadline. Liedtke said he'd deliver.

Díaz de León finally arrived later that afternoon, emptying a large pouch containing $89,000 in checks and $11,000 in cash onto Liedtke's desk. The donation was from Robert Allen, president of Gulf Resources and Chemical Company. Allen—fearing his shareholders would discover that he'd given six figures to Nixon—had funneled it through a Mexico City bank to Díaz de León, head of Gulf Resources' Mexican subsidiary, who carried the loot over the border.

Winchester and another Pennzoil man rushed the suitcase to the Houston airport, where a company jet was waiting on the tarmac. The two men climbed aboard, bound for Washington. They touched down in DC hours later and sped directly to CREEP's office at 1701 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, across the street from the White House. They arrived at 10 p.m.

. . . .

Entertaining, great article about the mess we are in when it comes to Citizens United.

[CBGLuthier]

52. Sorry, I find nothing to like about genocidal white men.

"I don't go so far as to think that the only good Indians are dead Indians, but I believe nine out of ten are, and I shouldn't like to inquire too closely into the case of the tenth.

Teddy Roosevelt.

I saw this quote just two days ago so it is at the top of my mind. Fuck him.