Updated: Sep 5, 2022
Lots of stuff here, feel free to skip down or peruse
Just looking more at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Edgar_Hoover
COINTELPRO and the 1950s
In 1956, Hoover was becoming increasingly frustrated by U.S. Supreme Court decisions that limited the Justice Department's ability to prosecute people for their political opinions, most notably communists. Some of his aides reported that he purposely exaggerated the threat of communism to "ensure financial and public support for the FBI." At this time he formalized a covert "dirty tricks" program under the name COINTELPRO. COINTELPRO was first used to disrupt the Communist Party USA, where Hoover ordered observation and pursuit of targets that ranged from suspected citizen spies to larger celebrity figures, such as Charlie Chaplin, whom he saw as spreading Communist Party propaganda.
COINTELPRO's methods included infiltration, burglaries, setting up illegal wiretaps, planting forged documents, and spreading false rumors about key members of target organizations. Some authors have charged that COINTELPRO methods also included inciting violence and arranging murders.
This program remained in place until it was exposed to the public in 1971, after the burglary by a group of eight activists of many internal documents from an office in Media, Pennsylvania, whereupon COINTELPRO became the cause of some of the harshest criticism of Hoover and the FBI. COINTELPRO's activities were investigated in 1975 by the United States Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities, called the "Church Committee" after its chairman, Senator Frank Church (D-Idaho); the committee declared COINTELPRO's activities were illegal and contrary to the Constitution.
Hoover amassed significant power by collecting files containing large amounts of compromising and potentially embarrassing information on many powerful people, especially politicians. According to Laurence Silberman, appointed Deputy Attorney General in early 1974, FBI Director Clarence M. Kelley thought such files either did not exist or had been destroyed. After The Washington Post broke a story in January 1975, Kelley searched and found them in his outer office. The House Judiciary Committee then demanded that Silberman testify about them.
Reaction to civil rights groups
July 24, 1967. President Lyndon B. Johnson (seated, foreground) confers with (background L-R): Marvin Watson, J. Edgar Hoover, Sec. Robert McNamara, Gen. Harold Keith Johnson, Joe Califano, Sec. of the Army Stanley Rogers Resor, on responding to the Detroit riots
In 1956, several years before he targeted Martin Luther King Jr., Hoover had a public showdown with T. R. M. Howard, a civil rights leader from Mound Bayou, Mississippi. During a national speaking tour, Howard had criticized the FBI's failure to investigate thoroughly the racially motivated murders of George W. Lee, Lamar Smith, and Emmett Till. Hoover wrote an open letter to the press singling out these statements as "irresponsible."
In the 1960s, Hoover's FBI monitored John Lennon, Malcolm X, and Muhammad Ali. The COINTELPRO tactics were later extended to organizations such as the Nation of Islam, the Black Panther Party, King's Southern Christian Leadership Conference and others. Hoover's moves against people who maintained contacts with subversive elements, some of whom were members of the civil rights movement, also led to accusations of trying to undermine their reputations.
The treatment of Martin Luther King Jr. and actress Jean Seberg are two examples: Jacqueline Kennedy recalled that Hoover told President John F. Kennedy that King had tried to arrange a sex party while in the capital for the March on Washington and that Hoover told Robert F. Kennedy that King had made derogatory comments during the President's funeral. Under Hoover's leadership, the FBI sent an anonymous blackmail letter to King in 1964, urging him to commit suicide.
President Lyndon B. Johnson at the signing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. White House East Room. People watching include Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, Senate Minority Leader Everett M. Dirksen, Senator Hubert Humphrey, First Lady "Lady Bird" Johnson, Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., F.B.I. Director J. Edgar Hoover, Speaker of the House John McCormack. Television cameras are broadcasting the ceremony.
King's aide Andrew Young claimed in a 2013 interview with the Academy of Achievement that the main source of tension between the SCLC and FBI was the government agency's lack of black agents, and that both parties were willing to co-operate with each other by the time the Selma to Montgomery marches had taken place.
In one 1965 incident, white civil rights worker Viola Liuzzo was murdered by Ku Klux Klansmen, who had given chase and fired shots into her car after noticing that her passenger was a young black man; one of the Klansmen was Gary Thomas Rowe, an acknowledged FBI informant. The FBI spread rumors that Liuzzo was a member of the Communist Party and had abandoned her children to have sexual relationships with African Americans involved in the civil rights movement. FBI records show that Hoover personally communicated these insinuations to President Johnson.
Hoover also personally ended the Federal inquiry into the 1963 16th Street Baptist Church bombing by members of the Ku Klux Klan that killed four girls. By May 1965, local investigators and the FBI had identified suspects in the bombing and witnesses, and this information was relayed to Hoover. No prosecutions of the four suspects ensued, however, even though the evidence was reportedly "so strong that even a white Alabama jury would convict". There had been a history of mistrust between local and federal investigators. Hoover wrote in a memo that the chances of a conviction were remote and told his agents not to share their results with federal or state prosecutors. In 1968, the FBI formally closed their investigation into the bombing without filing charges against any of their named suspects. The files were sealed by order of Hoover.
What a dark history (obvious). Nefarious.
-> (Name sounded familiar, - I'm forgetful and also don't know or remember details much about him)
"Death of Emmett Till" redirects here. For the song by Bob Dylan, see The Death of Emmett Till.
Emmett Louis Till (July 25, 1941 – August 28, 1955) was a 14-year-old African American boy who was abducted, tortured, and lynched in Mississippi in 1955, after being accused of offending a white woman, Carolyn Bryant, in her family's grocery store. The brutality of his murder and the fact that his killers were acquitted drew attention to the long history of violent persecution of African Americans in the United States. Till posthumously became an icon of the civil rights movement.
Till was born and raised in Chicago, Illinois. During summer vacation in August 1955, he was visiting relatives near Money, Mississippi, in the Mississippi Delta region. He spoke to 21-year-old Carolyn Bryant, the white, married proprietor of a small grocery store there. Although what happened at the store is a matter of dispute, Till was accused of flirting with, touching, or whistling at Bryant. Till's interaction with Bryant, perhaps unwittingly, violated the unwritten code of behavior for a black male interacting with a white female in the Jim Crow-era South. Several nights after the incident in the store, Bryant's husband, Roy, and his half-brother J.W. Milam, who were armed, went to Till's great-uncle's house and abducted Emmett. They took him away then beat and mutilated him before shooting him in the head and sinking his body in the Tallahatchie River. Three days later, the boy’s mutilated and bloated body was discovered and retrieved from the river.
Till's body was returned to Chicago where his mother insisted on a public funeral service with an open casket, which was held at Roberts Temple Church of God in Christ. It was later said that "The open-coffin funeral held by Mamie Till Bradley[note 1] exposed the world to more than her son Emmett Till's bloated, mutilated body. Her decision focused attention on not only U.S. racism and the barbarism of lynching but also the limitations and vulnerabilities of American democracy". Tens of thousands attended his funeral or viewed his open casket, and images of his mutilated body were published in black-oriented magazines and newspapers, rallying popular black support and white sympathy across the U.S. Intense scrutiny was brought to bear on the lack of black civil rights in Mississippi, with newspapers around the U.S. critical of the state. Although local newspapers and law enforcement officials initially decried the violence against Till and called for justice, they responded to national criticism by defending Mississippians, temporarily giving support to the killers.
In September 1955, an all-white jury found Bryant and Milam not guilty of Till's murder. Protected against double jeopardy, the two men publicly admitted in a 1956 interview with Look magazine that they had tortured and murdered the boy, selling the story of how they did it for $4,000. Till's murder was seen as a catalyst for the next phase of the civil rights movement. In December 1955, the Montgomery bus boycott began in Alabama and lasted more than a year, resulting eventually in a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that segregated buses were unconstitutional. According to historians, events surrounding Till's life and death continue to resonate. An Emmett Till Memorial Commission was established in the early 21st century. The Sumner County Courthouse was restored and includes the Emmett Till Interpretive Center. Fifty-one sites in the Mississippi Delta are memorialized as associated with Till. The Emmett Till Antilynching Act, an American law which makes lynching a federal hate crime, was signed into law on March 29, 2022 by President Joe Biden.
-------- What justice
Looking at the current FBI director ->
Christopher A. Wray was born in New York City. His father, Cecil A. Wray Jr., was a graduate of Vanderbilt University and Yale Law School, and he worked as a lawyer at Debevoise & Plimpton in New York. His paternal grandfather, T. Cecil Wray, was the city manager of Brentwood, Tennessee from 1971 to 1973. His paternal great-grandfather, Taylor Malone, was also a Vanderbilt University graduate, and the co-founder and president of Malone & Hyde, "one of the South's largest wholesale grocery firms." His maternal grandfather, Samuel E. Gates, "helped shape the laws that govern national and international airline flights" as an official of the Bureau of Air Commerce.
Wray attended the Buckley School, in New York City and the private boarding school Phillips Academy in Andover, Massachusetts. Wray then attended Yale University from which he graduated cum laude with a Bachelor of Arts degree in philosophy in 1989, and earned his Juris Doctor in 1992 from Yale Law School. While at Yale Law, Wray was the Executive Editor of the Yale Law Journal. After graduating from law school, Wray spent a year clerking for Judge J. Michael Luttig of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Wray joined the government in 1997 as an Assistant United States Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia. In 2001, he moved to the Justice Department as associate deputy attorney general and principal associate deputy attorney general.
On June 9, 2003, President George W. Bush nominated Wray to be the 33rd Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Criminal Division of the Justice Department. Wray was unanimously confirmed by the Senate on September 11, 2003. Wray was Assistant Attorney General from 2003 to 2005, working under Deputy Attorney General James Comey. While heading the Criminal Division, Wray oversaw prominent fraud investigations, including Enron. In 2013, it was revealed that Wray was one of the senior Justice Dept officials who nearly resigned in 2004, alongside then FBI Director Robert Mueller and Deputy Attorney General James Comey, due to illegal surveillance techniques the Bush administration had put in place under the Terrorist Surveillance Program. In March 2005, Wray announced that he would resign from his post. His last day at the Justice Department was on May 17, 2005.
Private law practice
Wray joined King & Spalding in 2005 as a litigation partner in the firm's Washington, D.C., and Atlanta offices. Wray represented several Fortune 100 companies and chaired the King & Spalding Special Matters and Government Investigations Practice Group. During his time at King & Spalding, Wray acted as New Jersey Governor Chris Christie's personal attorney during the Bridgegate scandal. Wray's firm also represents Russian energy giants Gazprom and Rosneft (me: That's interesting), an issue which came under contention during the confirmation process for position of FBI Director.
-----> Bridgegate - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Lee_lane_closure_scandal
Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (2017–present)
On June 7, 2017, President Donald Trump announced his intention to nominate Wray to be the next Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, replacing James Comey, who was dismissed by Trump on May 9, 2017. Trump interviewed Wray for the vacant FBI Director job on May 30, 2017, according to then Press Secretary Sean Spicer. Wray's Senate confirmation hearing commenced on July 12, 2017. Among other testimony, when asked if he believed that the investigation into Russian 2016 election interference and possible links to Trump's campaign is a "witch hunt", he stated that he did not.
..."China a threat"
Okay...okay. Makes sense.
From January 2016 to July 2017, the month of his confirmation, Wray earned $9.2 million working as an attorney for the law firm King & Spalding, significantly more than his salary as FBI Director. According to a calculation from The Wall Street Journal, Wray's net worth in 2017 was estimated to be $23 million to $42 million.
--------- The Federalist Society -> (I know of it and the Federalist Papers)
It's hugely powerful.
I hate this: ->
Citizens United v. FEC
The Federalist Society had a significant influence on the Citizens United Supreme Court ruling which weakened regulations on campaign finance by finding that the free speech clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution prohibits the government from restricting independent expenditures for communications by nonprofit corporations, for-profit corporations, labor unions, and other associations.: 82–87
They do away with the fact that -
Academic George W. Scofield said that corporate speech unrelated to corporate property "becomes the purely personal views of corporate management [and is] undeserving of the constitutional protection afforded by Bellotti."
Former Judge for the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit J. Skelly Wright said that the rulings in both the First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti and Buckley v. Valeo cases have "given protection to the polluting effect of money in financial campaigns."
Some critics point out that commercial interests and public interests are not always aligned, and that investment from corporations for commercial interests can be detrimental to the formation of public opinion. In an article in The New York Times, Linda Greenhouse said, "the court's speech-protective instincts appear increasingly to serve a deregulatory agenda."
Additionally, scholar Carl E. Schneider wrote in the Southern California Law Review that the Court's opinion agreed with previous opinions on the topic of "legislature attempting to govern the political and social power of the business corporation." Schneider writes that the Court misinterpreted the First Amendment and had "problems in understanding social reality."
Last week was one of the most consequential weeks in the history of the United States Supreme Court – and perhaps that of the country itself. In a matter of days, the court shielded police officers from being sued for Miranda violations; further broadened its already expansive interpretation of gun rights; narrowed the separation of church and state when it comes to religious education; and overturned Roe v Wade, eliminating the right to abortion and eroding the underlying rights to privacy and control over one’s own body upon which Roe had been built. Millions of people who are infuriated, terrified or dismayed by the Supreme Court’s decisions have put the blame for these outcomes on different people: The conservative justices themselves who set aside precedent to enact their agenda; Donald Trump, Mitch McConnell and the other Republicans who nominated and confirmed these judges; and of course ineffective Democrats who failed to heed warning signs that such results were on their way and do something to avert the looming threats. Amid all the recriminations, some opponents of the court’s recent decisions have held one organisation in particular responsible for these developments: The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies, an organisation that is far from a household name, but that wields almost unparalleled power within the US government. The Federalist Society, as it is commonly known by the people who are even aware of its existence, started out in the 1980s as a debating society for conservative students at a handful of elite American law schools such as Yale and the University of Chicago. Initially, the main purpose of the organisation was to provide space for conservatives on university campuses to develop arguments against what they saw as domineering liberal interpretations of the law. The Federalist Society instead promoted an approach called “textualism” or “originalism”, which its proponents say interprets laws based on the plain meaning of their wording and the ways in which they were understood at the time they were passed. But as many other groups and societies started in the Reagan era, the Federalist Society quickly grew beyond its original role as a campus-based conservative discussion group. In a matter of a few decades, alongside the NRA, Family Research Council, the Heritage Foundation, and others, the Federalist Society became an expansive and extremely politically influential network counting among its members countless influential judges, attorneys and scholars.
On paper, the organisation still claims that it is merely a legal debating society that does not “lobby for legislation, take policy positions, or sponsor or endorse nominees and candidates for public service”. These claims are almost laughably absurd. Over the years, the Federalist Society has become the single most powerful force influencing the American judiciary. Beginning with Ronald Reagan, the Federalist Society has developed extensive connections with every Republican administration. The organisation and the GOP have created a pipeline to the judiciary, making Federalist Society membership almost a prerequisite to gaining a judicial appointment during periods of Republican control. All six of the Republican-appointed justices currently on the Supreme Court are affiliated with the society, as were nearly all of the federal judges appointed by Trump.
Leonard Leo, the society’s executive vice president, has been perhaps the single most influential person responsible for building the Supreme Court’s conservative majority, having played major roles in the confirmation of all six conservative justices. Leo personally drafted lists of acceptable nominees for each of Trump’s three Supreme Court picks, and he helped both presidents Trump and George W Bush strategise about how to get their picks confirmed. Leo’s control over the Republican nomination process has been so extensive that the Trump White House was said to have “outsourced” the process to Leo. Although named for the contingent of America’s founders who advocated for a stronger central government in the new country, the Federalist Society is only loosely affiliated with the views and philosophy of the original Federalists. These early American statesmen – James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay – generally argued for a strong federal government as proposed in the US Constitution. They were opposed by people like Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson who favoured stronger states and a relatively weak national government. This Federalist/Anti-Federalist divide does not neatly map onto today’s liberal vs conservative divide – indeed, the organisation reportedly chose its name as a joke and not a declaration of principle – and the modern Federalist Society is much more a creature of current politics than it is of foundational principles.
- That's correct. In reality, I think I've already shown, and everyone knows it - how money and SuperPACs have huge influence on elections. Layers and layers and heaps of heaps of money thrown at supporting particular candidates. Where are the checks and balances? The transparency? The trust? The goodwill? Anyway - Corporations had no rights in the early days (except for upholding their contracts). There wasn't a Federal Reserve Bank. There were no taxes.
I would not want to go to D.C. ("the swamp") - being around all that hoopla and mess (dems vs repubs, lobbyists, butt-kissers and all the rest) and people (Republicans and Democracts alike) - who would? Away from family and friends etc. - Just for money? I'd love to live in just a different type of society and have actual community. - Working with friends, learning with friends, etc. but I would do it for others and society and the greater world (isn't that what a politician was originally suppose to be about - and that's what I'm doing now, learning and providing evidence of, so I can prepare myself for a potential you know (and be strong in my views and be satisfied with self and my own actions and views) run at a seat (or whatever).
(Sorry, not deleting all the time stamps - be easier to program a program to do it but...I'm not a very good programmer...could probably google it but time is valuable...it looks alright enough, anyway)
welcome friends to another edition of
economic update a weekly program devoted
to the economic dimensions of our lives
i'm your host
0:36 today's program is going to be partly
0:39 something i've wanted to do for a long
0:42 partly something that is coming back
0:44 into the public awareness
0:47 and finally something that many of you
0:49 have asked me to do
0:51 i'm going to try to give you an overview
0:54 of what the word the concept and the
0:57 social movement called communism is all
1:02 and it may be different probably will be
1:05 from what you might have thought that
1:08 word means
1:10 so let's begin at the very beginning
1:13 what is communism
1:16 mostly for most of human history that
1:19 this word and this idea have circulated
1:22 i think it's fair to say it has been a
1:24 utopian dream an ideal
1:27 a notion that the human
1:29 community and notice please the same
1:32 root commune community
1:36 communism that the human community
1:39 could function
1:40 in a mutually respectful mutually honest
1:46 mutually nurturing way
1:49 as an idealized community
1:53 in which what everybody contributed was
1:56 what they knew best
1:58 loved to do felt passionate about
2:01 and where everyone received from the
2:05 both physical and material but also
2:15 of both a physical and mental life
2:19 communism was a generic idea that this
2:23 sort of community
2:25 would be valuable in terms of where you
2:29 valuable in terms of where you work
2:32 and valuable as a way to link up with
2:35 other people no matter what the
2:38 particular activities you engaged in
2:41 which is why
2:44 communities in this sense
2:46 have long existed for thousands of years
2:50 i'm going to give you just a few
2:54 i remember once traveling through france
2:56 and noticing as i entered a village
2:59 that it used to be called and many of
3:01 them still are called communes
3:04 that's partly a description of their
3:08 setup as a community but partly a
3:10 harking back
3:11 to a notion of this mutually supportive
3:15 ideal this utopian ideal
3:19 you might also be struck to learn that
3:22 in many religions
3:24 there are specific
3:26 rules and commitments to that kind
3:30 of interaction that you could call
3:35 people interested in communism have
3:37 noticed that for example medieval
3:40 catholic monks
3:42 orders of nuns and all kinds of
3:47 uh engaged people organized their
3:50 communities where they lived and where
3:53 they worked in this mutually supportive
3:58 perhaps the most famous document about
4:00 it is called fittingly the communist
4:06 written and published in 1848
4:09 that's a little over 150 years ago
4:13 by marx and engels
4:15 it talked a lot about
4:18 what was wrong with society at that time
4:21 which they identified with capitalism
4:24 and what it was that they as critics of
4:29 pointed to as an alternative
4:32 that others who are either critics or
4:34 victims of capitalism
4:37 would be
4:38 well advised
4:40 to think about and to pursue
4:43 and their idea was quite simple
4:48 this is something
4:51 has been around
4:53 and will come back over and over again
4:56 indeed they opened the communist
4:57 manifesto with that famous line
5:00 about communism is like a ghost haunting
5:03 modern society with the image constantly
5:07 of how things could be different and how
5:09 things could be better
the ghost of communism
26:11 the ghost that haunted mid 19th century
26:15 europe that marx writes about in the
26:17 communist manifesto that ghost is still
26:21 with us
26:22 changed its outfit but still with us
26:25 and that ghost now says to all workers
26:29 whispering in their ears
26:31 you know the job you have could be
26:35 the restaurant where you work
26:37 the factory where you work
26:39 the office
26:41 it could be a nurturing community
26:44 it could be run democratically one
26:46 person one vote where we all together
26:49 discuss and decide what we're going to
26:51 do as a workplace how we're going to
26:53 respond to the market what role we're
26:56 all going to have in the communities in
26:59 which we live and work
27:02 and maybe
27:05 just maybe if we transform the workplace
27:09 which the socialists and the communists
27:11 never did
27:13 we will be able to achieve what they set
27:15 out as their goal but they never
27:18 achieved either which is the
27:21 breakthrough to a new society
27:24 it may not be enough to win the
27:26 government in an election
27:28 it may not be enough to be the powerful
27:31 union of workers in a workplace
27:34 if you cannot mobilize
27:37 the people of a community
27:39 to demand the transformation
27:43 of the household of the workplace
27:46 into a democratic
27:48 collection of individuals
27:51 caring for and acknowledging their
27:53 dependence on one another you will not
27:58 to that lovely utopian image that
28:01 communism always represented
28:06 we are now far enough from the
28:08 cold war behind us
28:11 we are now smart enough to have
28:13 understood that russia versus the u.s
28:16 was a struggle between state capitalism
28:19 and private capitalism so that we can
28:21 once again talk about socialism and
28:24 communism in the honest way human beings
28:27 can and should talk about the way they
28:30 live and compare it to the way they
28:32 imagine they might live
28:35 out of that tension between what is and
28:38 what could be what you respect that what
28:42 is never exhausts all that could be
28:46 out of that communism
28:48 may very well surprise us by coming
28:51 right back
28:53 and being the active spirit that it was
28:56 when marx wrote about it in 1848
------------------------------------------------------------------------Bismallah (may Allah protect it) 001111111111111
Love this: "The knowledge of Allah (SWT) does not only encompass the details, in the minutest of them, of what has happened, but also includes what is happening right now, not just the globe, not just humankind, but the ENTIRE CREATION. Man doesn't even know how many planets are in existence but Allah knows the grain of sand and molecule on every single planet".
PACs SuperPACs - a big problem (with the federalist society and others) you have a group of people with the same idealogy/idealogue/ideologies - coming together and pushing a certain way of thinking (and recruiting interested people in these Ivy League schools and probably, basically indoctrinating or strengthening upon them, their ideologies further of course (and of course, they're backed by millions of dollars...)).
Is not intellectual...in the sense of "democrat" (or some other word - dynamic? free? -> "liberal arts and sciences"...) learning - learning how to think - developing personal knowledge to think for oneself, knowledge of the world, geopolitics, economics, economic politics (is actually just a lot of economic idealogy - in a narrow range pushing a certain narrow view to advance an agenda of corporate socialism and modern conservative right-wing thinking to be honest) - "sameness" - "the problem of the mob" and "group think" - is not like how our founding fathers of the constitution got together as individuals working within a group and developing the best ways and system(s) - debate - development - refinement - (circle back, go forward, circle back go forward) and leading to one or more solutions that can/could go their own way and ways...
- That's the problem - the feeling (one feels the problem.) of why such groups like as such
(think tanks etc., - nevermind that in this group the members are all mostly well-off white men (maybe a few well-off white women I'm sure as well, but anyway, not even trying to make it about class or gender or race) - but yes, when you have a group made up of only higher class members of society that is a reality that bears consequence - and that's how our society and politics are set up to reinforce as such - which is a huge problem - is not very representative of the people, when we suppose to have and call ourselves a representative democractic republic - (this is known by the public, on both sides of the political aisle, of course, - nobody really does anything about it though - "is corrupt" "greedy politicians" - anyways)) -
- most people will "feel" this problem, maybe without even knowing that that is the problem there feeling (about such groups - and things of a similiar nature such as that). Intuition through the self -- sometimes its right, sometimes its wrong...my opinion what I see or can sense with others as well (energies) (intuition and the production of thought without even thinking - heard a thing in a video about Allah's "mind" and creating is like woah...unimaginable...anyway...but is probably like similiar in a way, atleast as far as us as human beings can fathom).