Niccolo Machiavelli, the father of modern politics, warns in his masterwork, The Discourses:
All those who have written upon civil institutions demonstrate…that whoever desires to found a state and give it laws, must start with assuming that all men are bad and ever ready to display their vicious nature, whenever they may find occasion for it.
If their evil disposition remains concealed for a time, it must be attributed to some unknown reason; and we must assume that it lacked occasion to show itself. But time, which has been said to be the father of all truth, does not fail to bring it to light.
Niccolo Machiavelli
Where the crimes of corporate employers are concerned, we do not have to wait for their evil disposition to reveal itself. It has been fully revealed for decades.
It’s time to recognize that a country can be betrayed for other than political reasons. It can be sold out for economic ones, too.
Trea$on
The United States desperately needs a new definition of treason–one that takes the above-mentioned truth into account.
- Employers who set up offshore accounts to claim their American companies are foreign-owned—and thus exempt from taxes—are traitors.
- Employers who enrich themselves by weakening their country—by throwing millions of qualified workers into the street and moving their plants to other countries—are traitors.
- Employers who systematically violate Federal immigration laws—to hire illegal aliens instead of willing-to-work Americans—are traitors.
And with a new definition of treason should go new penalties–heavy fines and/or prison terms–for those who sell out their country to enrich themselves.
A starting-point must be an all-out campaign to educate voters on the need for major reforms in corporate law.
One non-profit, non-partisan organization that’s already pursuing this is Public Campaign.
Its goal: Eliminating special interest money in American politics by securing publicly-funded elections at local, state and federal levels.
According to its website:
“Twenty-five profitable Fortune 500 companies, some with a history of tax dodging, spent more on lobbying than they paid in federal taxes between 2008 and 2012….
“Over the past five years, these 25 corporations generated nearly $170 billion in combined profits and received $8.7 billion in tax rebates while paying their lobbyists over half a billion ($543 million), an average of nearly $300,000 a day.
“Based on newly released data by Citizens for Tax Justice (CTJ), these 25 companies actually received tax refunds overall those five years.
“So most individual American families and small businesses have bigger tax bills than these corporate giants. Unfortunately, most American families and businesses do not have the lobbying operation and access these 25 companies enjoy.”
25 Companies That Spent More On Lobbyists Than Taxes | Public Campaign
Then comes the list:

Several companies on this list are well-known–and spend millions of dollars on self-glorifying ads every year to convince consumers how wonderful they are.
Among these:
- General Electric
- PG&E Corp.
- Verizon Communications
- Boeing
- Consolidated Edison
- MetroPCS Communications
But non-profit organizations alone can’t mount and sustain the sort of nationwide, bluntly-worded educational effort that’s long overdue.
The United States Government–through such agencies as the Justice Department–should start and maintain a nationwide advertising campaign of its own. Its goal: To educate voters on the real-life greed and public irresponsibility of such corporations.
It should be modeled on the efforts of former Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy to publicize the dangers of organized crime.
During that campaign, he issued the following warning:
“If we do not, on a national scale, attack organized criminals with weapons and techniques as effective as their own, they will destroy us.”
That warning applies equally to criminal corporations.
Robert F. Kennedy
Republicans–and some Democrats–have worked tirelessly to defend the greed of the richest and most privileged 1% of America.
For example, they ingeniously dubbed the estate tax–-which affects only a tiny, rich minority–-“the death tax.” This makes it appear to affect everyone.
As a result, millions of poor and middle-class Americans who will never have to pay a cent in estate taxes vigorously oppose it.
By doing so, they unknowingly support the greed of the very richest Americans who despise the needs of those poorer than themselves.
Democrats should thus cast reform efforts in terms that will prove equally popular. For example:
“Corporate Criminals: Giving You the Best Congress Money Can Buy.”
“De-regulation = Let Criminals Be Criminals.”
“[Name of corporation] Pays a Lower Percentage in Taxes than You.”
“Corporations Are Greedy People, Too”
“Owning a Corporation Shuldn’t Be a License for Treason”
Such an advertising campaign could lay the groundwork for an all-out Federal effort to reign in that greed and irresponsibility thrugh appropriate reform legislation.
It was Stephen Decatur, the naval hero of the War of 1812, who famously said: “Our country, right or wrong.”
Stephen Decatur
Billionaire tax-cheats and their Right-wing allies have coined their own motto: “My wallet–first and always.”

ABC NEWS, CBS NEWS, CNN, FACEBOOK, FBI, MEXICAN WAR, NBC NEWS, NICCOLO MACHIAVELLI, POLICE, POLICE BRUTALITY, SANDRA BLAND, TEXAS RANGERS, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE DISCOURSES, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE PRINCE, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER, USA TODAY
SUICIDE BY COP: PART ONE (OF FOUR)
In Bureaucracy, History, Law Enforcement, Social commentary, Uncategorized on July 28, 2015 at 12:51 amNiccolo Machiavelli offered some advice that might have saved the life of Sandra Bland.
In 1513, Niccolo Machiavelli, the Florentine statesman who has been called the father of modern political science, published his best-known work: The Prince.
Niccolo Machiavelli
Among the lessons he offered to those seeking to gain power was this:
A prince…must imitate the fox and the lion, for the lion cannot protect himself from traps, and the fox cannot defend himself from wolves.
One must therefore be a fox to avoid traps, and a lion to frighten wolves. Those who wish to be only lions do not realize this.
When confronted by an armed and–in this case, egocentric–law enforcement officer, it’s always best to imitate the fox.
Black motorist Sandra Bland didn’t understand this truth. Or, if she did, she flagrantly ignored it–to her own destruction.
Sandra Bland
Bland, born in the Chicago suburb of Naperville, Illinois, had just arrived in Texas to take a job at Prairie View A&M University, outside Hempstead, Waller County.
In January, 2015, she began posting videos on Facebook, denouncing racism and police brutality. In one she wrote: “In the news that we’ve seen as of late, you could stand there, surrender to the cops, and still be killed.”
On July 10, Bland was pulled over for a minor traffic violation by Texas State Trooper Brian Encinia.
FULL VIDEO OF SANDRA BLAND TRAFFIC STOP – YouTube
Their exchange was recorded on the dashcam video of Encinia’s police car, and has been transcribed by the Huffington Post’s Matt Ramos and Dhyana Taylor.
My own commentary on what happened is given in blue italics.
Brian Encinia: Hello ma’am. We’re the Texas Highway Patrol and the reason for your stop is because you failed to signal the lane change. Do you have your driver’s license and registration with you? What’s wrong? How long have you been in Texas?
Sandra Bland: Got here just today.
Encinia: OK. Do you have a driver’s license? (Pause) OK, where you headed to now? Give me a few minutes.
(Bland inaudible)
(Encinia returns to his car for several minutes, then approaches Bland again.)
Encinia: OK, ma’am. You OK?
Bland: I’m waiting on you. This is your job. I’m waiting on you. When’re you going to let me go?
[A better–that is, safer–answer would have been: “I’m fine.” And then to say nothing until the officer responds.]
Encinia: I don’t know, you seem very really irritated.
Bland: I am. I really am. I feel like it’s crap what I’m getting a ticket for. I was getting out of your way. You were speeding up, tailing me, so I move over and you stop me. So yeah, I am a little irritated, but that doesn’t stop you from giving me a ticket, so [inaudible] ticket.
[Bland may have been correct. But accusing the officer of improperly stopping her was a mistake from the get-go. No cop is going to admit he made a mistake in stopping someone–especially a cop as clearly aggressive as Encinia quickly proved to be.]
Encinia: Are you done?
Bland: You asked me what was wrong, now I told you.
Encinia: OK.
Bland: So now I’m done, yeah.
Encinia: You mind putting out your cigarette, please? If you don’t mind?
Bland: I’m in my car, why do I have to put out my cigarette?
[The smart thing would have been to put out the cigarette. Even though the trooper said “please,” this was clearly an order.]
Encinia: Well you can step on out now.
[This was clearly the point where Encinia decided to take action–to give her a warning, a ticket, or make an arrest For most of the encounter, he doesn’t say which.]
Bland: I don’t have to step out of my car.
Encinia: Step out of the car.
Bland: Why am I–?
Encinia: Step out of the car!
[It’s standard procedure for officers to order drivers to exit their cars before they write tickets or citations. The reason: The danger that the motorist might drive off–or even use the car as a weapon.]
Bland: No, you don’t have the right. No, you don’t have the right.
[Telling a policeman he doesn’t have the right to make an arrest is like telling a judge he doesn’t have the right to make a ruling. Both are certain to land you in trouble.]
Encinia: Step out of the car.
Bland: You do not have the right. You do not have the right to do this.
Encinia: I do have the right, now step out or I will remove you.
[Even if the officer’s forthcoming actions are later ruled improper by a judge, he has the legal right at that time to enforce compliance with his orders.]
Bland: I refuse to talk to you other than to identify myself. [crosstalk] I am getting removed for a failure to signal?
Encinia: Step out or I will remove you. I’m giving you a lawful order. Get out of the car now or I’m going to remove you.
Bland: And I’m calling my lawyer.
[Bland would have done better to simply get out of the car, submit to arrest, and then call her lawyer when she reached the police station.]
Share this: