From Tom Paine: A Political Life by John Keane:

If, as Paine thought, regimes become corrupt when the propertied rich manipulate the laws to grind down the poor, then a young republic like America could easily suffer the same fate, especially if its citizens fell under the influence of self-interested men of property. "A rich man makes a bonny traitor," he told his friend Joseph Reed, quoting James I. If that was so, then republican principles must be extended to the sphere of economic life. Men of wealth must be tamed by public ethics. Property and its corresponding "liberal" values must be subject to the universal "civic humanist" rule of civil and political rights. That would not fully eliminate disparities of wealth. But the availability of rights to all adult, male citizens, not just to property owners, would ensure ongoing controversies about how to divide that which is divisible. Such controversies would ensure that existing patterns of wealth and inequality would never be seen as natural, as reflecting the will of God, or as a brutal fact of economic life.

SOURCE:

http://goo.gl/IUHrKR

Did the U.S. Military Plan a Nuclear First Strike for 1963?

Recently declassified information shows that the military presented President Kennedy with a plan for a surprise nuclear attack on the Soviet Union in the early 1960s.

James K. Galbraith and Heather A. Purcell
The American Prospect | September 21, 1994

During the early 1960s the intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) introduced the world to the possibility of instant total war. Thirty years later, no nation has yet fired any nuclear missile at a real target. Orthodox history holds that a succession of defensive nuclear doctrines and strategies -- from "massive retaliation" to "mutual assured destruction" -- worked, almost seamlessly, to deter Soviet aggression against the United States and to prevent the use of nuclear weapons.

The possibility of U.S. aggression in nuclear conflict is seldom considered. And why should it be? Virtually nothing in the public record suggests that high U.S. authorities ever contemplated a first strike against the Soviet Union, except in response to a Soviet invasion of Western Europe, or that they doubted the deterrent power of Soviet nuclear forces. The main documented exception was the Air Force Chief of Staff in the early 1960s, Curtis LeMay, a seemingly idiosyncratic case.

But beginning in 1957 the U.S. military did prepare plans for a preemptive nuclear strike against the U.S.S.R., based on our growing lead in land-based missiles. And top military and intelligence leaders presented an assessment of those plans to President John F. Kennedy in July of 1961. At that time, some high Air Force and CIA leaders apparently believed that a window of outright ballistic missile superiority, perhaps sufficient for a successful first strike, would be open in late 1963.

The document reproduced opposite is published here for the first time. It describes a meeting of the National Security Council on July 20, 1961. At that meeting, the document shows, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the director of the CIA, and others presented plans for a surprise attack. They answered some questions from Kennedy about timing and effects, and promised further information. The meeting recessed under a presidential injunction of secrecy that has not been broken until now.

CONTINUED...

http://prospect.org/article/did-us-military-plan-nuclear-first-strike-1963

Gerald Ford White House Altered Rockefeller Commission Report in 1975; Removed Section on CIA Assassination Plots

White House Aide Dick Cheney Spearheaded Editing of Report to Dampen Impact

New Documents Cast Further Doubt on Commission’s Investigation, Independence

National Security Archive Briefing Book No. 543
Edited by John Prados and Arturo Jimenez-Bacardi
Posted - February 29, 2016

Washington, DC, February 29, 2016 – The Gerald Ford White House significantly altered the final report of the supposedly independent 1975 Rockefeller Commission investigating CIA domestic activities, over the objections of senior Commission staff, according to internal White House and Commission documents posted today by the National Security Archive at The George Washington University (www.nsarchive.org). The changes included removal of an entire 86-page section on CIA assassination plots and numerous edits to the report by then-deputy White House Chief of Staff Richard Cheney.

Today’s posting includes the entire suppressed section on assassination attempts, Cheney’s handwritten marginal notes, staff memos warning of the fallout of deleting the controversial section, and White House strategies for presenting the edited report to the public. The documents show that the leadership of the presidentially-appointed commission deliberately curtailed the investigation and ceded its independence to White House political operatives.

This evidence has been lying ignored in government vaults for decades. Much of the work of securing release of the records was done by the John F. Kennedy Assassinations Records Board in the 1990s, and the documents were located at the National Archives and Records Administration at College Park, Maryland; or at the Gerald R. Ford Library in Ann Arbor, Michigan. Additional mandatory declassification review requests filed by Archive fellow John Prados returned identical versions of documents, indicating the CIA is not willing to permit the public to see any more of the assassinations story than we show here. The documents in this set have yet to be incorporated into standard accounts of the events of this period.

Among the highlights of today’s posting:

* White House officials of the Ford administration attempted to keep a presidential review panel—the Rockefeller Commission—from investigating reports of CIA planning for assassinations abroad.

* Ford administration officials suppressed the Rockefeller Commission’s actual report on CIA assassination plots.

* Richard Cheney, then the deputy assistant to the president, edited the report of the Rockefeller Commission from inside the Ford White House, stripping the report of its independent character.

* The Rockefeller Commission remained silent on this manipulation.

* Rockefeller Commission lawyers and public relations officials warned of the damage that would be done to the credibility of the entire investigation by avoiding the subject of assassinations.

* President Ford passed investigative materials concerning assassinations along to the Church Committee of the United States Senate and then attempted—but failed—to suppress the Church Committee’s report as well.

* The White House markup of the Rockefeller Commission report used the secrecy of the CIA budget as an example of excesses and recommended Congress consider making agency spending public to some degree.

CONTINUED...

http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB543-Ford-White-House-Altered-Rockefeller-Commission-Report/

EXCERPT...

But even allowing for the fact that some and probably most of the gains were real, you’ll see Clinton try to sell a Big Lie: that productivity gains were tied to increased worker prosperity. As numerous commentators pointed out, that story had stopped being true as of roughly 1976. Businesses once did share the benefits of productivity gains with workers, but as labor bargaining power weakened, kept it for themselves. Clinton continues with his canards, praising “open borders” as keeping inflation low. The mechanism by which inflation is contained is by restricting wage growth. A prosperous, full employment economy will feature strong growth in pay levels, and will at some point lead to pricing pressure (mind you, profit levels in the US are now so far outside historical norms that businesses could go a long way in increasing wages if they weren’t so greedy). So his low inflation story is again at odds with his effort to depict everything as rosy for average workers.

SNIP...

The large point is the Clintons have been loyal followers of the Robert Rubin school of thinking, that bankers should run the economy, not just ours but everywhere. And he and his acolytes have been extremely successful in promoting finance-friendly policies around the world. And despite the wreckage of the global financial crisis, there has been little change in either the fealty to neoliberal ideology or the power of financiers. But both are seen as less and less legitimate by broader society, which is a key first step in reducing their influence.