This is the personal blog of Rick Staggenborg, MD. The opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect the official positions of Take Back America for the People, an educational 501.c3 nonprofit established by Dr Staggenborg.

Feel free to reproduce any blogs by Dr Staggenborg without prior permission, as long as they are unedited and posted or printed with attribution and a link to the website.

For other blogs, please contact the author for permission.

Tuesday, November 22, 2011


With the Arab Spring and the Revolution that has become visible in the Occupy movement in the US and around the world, many people are beginning to have hope for the first time in their lives that the imposition of a permanent fascist New World Order that would enslave us all can be stopped and reversed.

The question is, is this starry eyed optimism or are the pessimists who dismiss the Revolution as a temporary phenomenon right? The answer may depend on how you view the situation. In any event,the pessimists are guilty of accepting a self-fulfilling prophecy. If they do not believe that democracy or the end of war are possible, they will not see how they may be wrong. Therefore, they will not know how to help the Revolution succeed and even if they try, their efforts could lead to the opposite effect of what they want if they promote division rather than the union of the international front against fascism and war that has the collective power to crush the corporatocracy if enough people believe that it can.

Whether the pessimist or the optimist proves to be the realist depends on whose vision prevails. That is why we must encourage doubters to suspend their disbelief in the possibility that we can save human civilization and join us in convincing others that war can and will end when enough people reject the self-fulfilling prophecy that it is inevitable.

If you wish to know the objective truth of something you must seek to understand it from every point of view and find that which is true from all of them. To understand the world as it is enables one to understand the world as it should and can be, if we apply our collective will to creating that world.

Planning for the future in what seems like a chaotic world situation requires a unified world view that sees the future as one of many possibilities. To develop such a way of looking at the world, you must have a clear grasp of what is important to attend to based on a good understanding of what has led us to the present moment.  

In today’s world of information overload that may seem impossible, but it is not. The key to overcoming America’s Attention Deficit Disorder is to help our neighbors understand what issues are fundamental to the process of taking America back for the people. In selectively focusing attention on information that answers the most pressing questions of how to create a united front against fascism in America and war in the world, patterns begin to emerge that make the importance of new information easier to recognize.

Once enough people understand the pattern of recent history, the collective consciousness will shift in the direction of positive change that is possible only through collective action. It is not true that history repeats itself. History is made by those who refuse to accept this futile proposition.  Those who make history are those who study the mistakes of the past to find new paths that we can take together to a more promising future.

Some look at world history as one of endless warfare and an individualistic struggle for supremacy in a hostile universe. These people implicitly reject the idea of democracy in the belief that selfishness is an indelible part of human nature. Thus, the falsely believe that history repeats itself regardless of the efforts of individuals and societies to change.This worldview is distorted by the failure to recognize the abundant evidence to the contrary.

Those of us with the faith that men and women are capable of governing themselves know that they are wrong. It is those who reject the idea that we cannot individually and collectively change history who will be the agents of the change for which the world is clamoring. The stubborn refusal of pessimists to challenge the self-fulfilling prophecy that their own neighbors cannot be trusted to make sound judgments about what form our society should take is a danger to democracy itself and ultimately, to the survival of human civilization.

There are examples to be found throughout history of social cooperation creating critical positive change. Here are a few:

-There have been many centuries in which Jew, Christian lived in harmony throughout much of the world.
-In the American Revolution, men put aside fundamental differences on the issue of slavery in order to ensure that they did not all become enslaved by the fascist Old World Order of the British Empire.
-Americans came together in crisis of the Great Depression to try social experiments that would have been unthinkable ten years earlier, at the height of the Red Scare.                                                                       
-There was shared sacrifice during WWII and a sharing of the benefits of the economic prosperity that followed, including with the vanquished nations of Germany and Japan.

-Throughout the history of the US there has been an evolution toward democracy punctuated with stunning successes by both the forces of democracy and those of the fascist mindset that currently controls the US government and its military.

When trying to develop a strategy to create the fundamental social and political changes that must be made to save human civilization from the depredations of the selfish elite class, we must keep in mind the lessons that history provides. If we apply to our current situation the lessons of both our successes and failures in the past, we can together create a road map to peace based on mutual respect, empathy and a deep appreciation of our interdependence. Any such map must lead to a world in which all enjoy the benefits of liberty and justice. Only in such a world is democracy possible. Without democracy, there can be neither true freedom nor peace for anyone.

If we begin with the assumption that democracy is possible, then we must assume that we are capable of achieving the consensus necessary to create a government and a society that will function according to the wishes of We the People. One of the fundamental contradictions in the American collective consciousness is that we can somehow force the other side to accept our vision of America through waging a Civil War for the hearts and minds of our neighbors using weapons of ridicule and invective.  This has led to a social psychological disorder I call America’s Borderline Split.

US society has the characteristics to merit the diagnosis: Idealization and devaluation of our leaders, self-destructive anger, generally unstable emotions, and a disturbing tendency to be preoccupied with death while doing little to help ourselves overcome our self-destructive behaviors. Like the individual with borderline personality disorder, we feel profoundly empty and as a society struggle to maintain a coherent image of ourselves and others as basically worthy of love despite the imperfections all humans share.

We are so busy fighting each other that we cannot come together to fight the real enemy: fascism. Our common enemy is not those who vote for leaders whose policies we despise, or even the corporate Puppets in Congress. The real enemy is the small group of counter-Revolutionaries that was never happy that the US government was designed with a view toward creating a society in which each citizen had an equal voice in the operation of the government. From the Hamiltonian Federalists to the modern Republican Party, there has been a never-ending battle between those who believe that democracy is necessary and possible and those who have no faith in We the People to decide our collective or even individual destinies.

Those who reject the notion that we can achieve the consensus necessary to assure the continuity of progress toward democracy are the COINTELPRO agents among us. Wittingly or unwittingly, they serve as agents of the State in helping to divide us, just as the survival of human civilization depends on our coming together. Some might assume that these are those who would consider themselves “conservative,” but they would be wrong. Many self-identified liberals are so used to despairing at the corporate media and politicians manipulating the public discourse that they have given up hope of reasoning with those with whom they disagree. The truth is that both sides are entrenched in a pit of despair and loathing. Only we can free ourselves from this trap. The time for recriminations is over. Politics does not have to be a battlefield if we learn to think of each other as fellow Americans and citizens of the world.

A world in which everyone has the right to the benefits of freedom, justice and peace starts with the idea that such a world is possible. If you do not believe that it is then you cannot conceive of how to help create it. If you do not consider what it would take than you will miss the obvious signs that such a world is right in front of us in the near future, if we work to get there from here. If you believe as I do that the pattern of history is coming to a dramatic punctuation point, the signs are all around you.

The pattern of change is unmistakable if you know what to look for. The Occupy movement is the most obvious sign of a Tectonic Paradigm Shift that is taking place in human consciousness. At the same time, international activist communities are learning better how to unify their efforts, a world ecumenical movement is building and vast networks are forming that are connecting the dots that represent our individual interests. Projects like John Perkins' Awakening the Dreamer, Changing the Dream are painting a picture of a world in which it is generally recognized that the interest of each of us is intimately connected to the best interests of all.

All humans are much more alike than they are different. The commonalities that we share make us human. Our differences give rise to the variation in thought that can help us adapt to a world that is changing in dangerous ways. As long as we continue to think of ourselves as members of this or that group first rather than fellow travelers on Earth, we constrain our individual and collective power. Only by uniting can we realize our potential to change the world into one fit to leave our children.

Thursday, November 10, 2011


There have been a slew of constitutional amendments introduced in Congress recently, each claiming to “reverse Citizens United.” This is the result of pressure from activists passing resolutions around the country calling for an amendment that would actually do this, which none of the amendments introduced to date would do.

Each of these amendments is limited to giving states and the federal government the right but not the obligation to control the flow of corporate money in elections. It is preposterous to expect that a Congress dominated by corporate money would even consider using such a power if by some miracle the thing were passed. Do not be fooled by these generally well-meaning efforts by members of Congress trapped in the mentality that they must work on only what is possible now. The fact that they are working with colleagues who have accepted the self-fulfilling prophecy that they have no choice but to sell their loyalty to the highest corporate bidder is no excuse. While some willingly sell their loyalty, others feel this is the only way that they can make a difference in Congress because they have to be re-elected to do the public any good.  

The 99% cannot give up on the electoral process if they want to effect real change. They need to recognize that we do have real representation in Congress, but they will only take risks when they know we are backing them. Some members of Congress have been elected and re-elected without being tainted by corporate money. Senator Bernie Sanders comes immediately to mind as an example. We have to ask the question why is he afraid to do what must be done: introduce a constitutional amendment that would abolish corporate personhood outright? He knows as well as anyone that only by ending the power of corporations to buy members of Congress can we hope to elect those who will put the interests of We the People over those of They the Corporations. The answer may seem clear but it is not as simple as many people think.

Although Bernie doesn’t rely on corporate money to run, he has to realize that planting a dagger in the heart of the corporatocracy would invite retaliation, making himself the target of right-wing campaign PACs like Karl Roves’ Crossroads. In addition, he would be setting the corporate Democratic leadership up by making support for the amendment a campaign issue. We all saw what happened to Dennis Kucinich and Anthony Weiner when they dared challenge Democratic leadership to put the interests of American citizens over those of their corporate Puppetmasters: Kucinich was marginalized even by real liberals in Congress like Peter DeFazio of Oregon, while Weiner was left twisting in the wind when he got caught in a scandal that had nothing to do with the performance of his duties as a Representative.

As long as Democrats and independents in Congress are cowed into following the Democratic leadership in lockstep toward the Right, voters will continue to abandon the party in disgust. Many are concluding that a party willing to be led by the nose by the same corporate entities that have wholly bought the Republican Party is not worth their support. The perception is that the difference between the two is not important enough to fight for. The Democratic Party has not so much been abandoned by their supporters so much as they have been abandoned by it.  

Democrats supporting the amendments presently in Congress fall into two categories. There are those like Max Baucus who have long ago sold themselves out to corporate interests, and those who believe that incremental change is their only choice. Baucus took in over $6 million dollars in the election cycle preceding the Democratic effort to bail out a failing medical insurance industry that was cynically labeled “reform.” The resulting gift to the corporations that comprise the medical-industrial complex was obvious. What was less obvious to many is that this was the intent of Democratic leadership when they decided to take on the issue. There are lessons here we must heed if we are going to get a constitutional amendment introduced and passed that will accomplish what the members of Congress proposing the current bills claim.

Prior to the public debate about the public option and its far worse alternatives, Rahm Emanuel put Democratic leaders on notice that single payer was off the table. Inside sources say that Howard Dean was told that he would not be a player in the debate if he could not get Democracy for America to support the public option bait-and-switch. DFA responded by claiming that their million-plus members supported the public option strategy when a simple poll would have proven otherwise. In getting other progressive leaders and members of Congress to fall in line, they managed to sell to the Democratic rank and file the self-fulfilling prophecy that single payer was “not politically possible.” 

This Machiavellian plan to satisfy corporate interests in the name of “reform” was reminiscent of the Bush Administration’s marketing of the Medicare Modernization Act that appears to have been designed to kill Medicare by establishing an unfunded prescription benefit plan whose costs were deliberately and grossly misrepresented. Among other gifts to the medical-industrial complex, pharmaceutical manufacturers were given the power to set their own prices by a ban on the government negotiating drug prices. In what came as a shock to those who are unfamiliar with how some Democrats receive underserved credit for being “liberal,” Oregon’s Senator Ron Wyden crossed party lines to cast the deciding vote for this bill that is putting the viability of the Medicare program at risk.

Not surprisingly if you follow the money, Wyden introduced the only serious competitor to the public option plan, the Healthy Americans Act. It was so bad that it received bipartisan support. While quickly shelved, key elements of this mandate plan were quietly put into the Orwellian-titled “Affordable” Care Act, including massive cost shifting to the consumer that was not taken into account in the CBO analysis. As a result, health care costs continue to rise even while the Democrats proclaim victory in producing health care ”reform.” 

The bait-and-switch going on in Congress now is even more insidious and dangerous. If we do not call on these members of Congress to abandon their effort to placate the public while doing essentially nothing about the problem, the movement to abolish corporate personhood will be split and a historic opportunity lost just when the economy, the environment and the families of those serving in wars for corporate personhood cannot stand the delay. 

This is a call to action for those who understand the difference between abolishing corporate personhood and enshrining it in the constitution through an amendment that would validate the doctrine by recognizing that Congress should have the power to regulate it. If corporate personhood is abolished then there is no need to regulate corporate money going to campaigns because it will be illegal.

Those of us engaged most deeply in this modern abolition know just what is at stake. In our educational efforts we need to let the public know the danger of supporting this pig with lipstick. We can pass an amendment abolishing corporate personhood outright and win the war being waged against the 99% if we focus our efforts on making support for a proper amendment a campaign issue in 2012 and beyond.

Monday, November 7, 2011


There is a famous illustration in game theory of how moral reasoning works when someone is faced with the choice of betraying another in order to save his own skin. The idea is that if a prisoner is questioned knowing that his co-conspirators are being questioned at the same time, the knowledge that confessing will save them while dooming their confidantes influences their decision as to whether to cooperate. The chance that they will confess under these circumstances often depends on their estimate of how likely it is that the other will betray them.

They say there is no honor among thieves, but when the prisoner is certain that no one would risk the consequences of betrayal they will often refuse the deal. This is what often happens when Mafiosi are captured and questioned. It is also what happens when most members of Congress are asked whether they will support a constitutional amendment to abolish corporate personhood. Knowing that this would reveal many of their colleagues to be corporate tools when they fail to support the amendment, most will not tell the truth and admit that this is what they want.

This analogy may seem like a stretch, but in fact basically honest members of Congress are prisoners of the mentality that they must protect other members of their party in order to protect themselves. This has been made quite clear to Republican politicians for decades, as moderates were systematically purged from their ranks. As their political power has grown as a result of their craven pandering to the corporate interests, Democrats have meekly moved ever further to the Right until our government crept across the line into fascist territory.

The key then to success in getting a constitutional amendment passed is to convince members of Congress that the first to tell the truth will be rewarded while the others will meet their just fate. Of course, no one of them is going to do this alone, but what if we let those who express interest talk among themselves about whether they might want to stage a prison break that would enable us to punish all those who have chosen to work for the criminal enterprise that is corporate America?

Those of us working to make support for an amendment a campaign issue are using just this variant of the prisoner’s dilemma. We are offering liberty to those who want to free themselves from the chains of corporate dependency. When they decide to own up to their own complicity in the imposition of fascism in America, they will be free to do what needs to be done to save our nation and the planet from economic, environmental and moral destruction: Abolish corporate personhood now!

Friday, November 4, 2011


Money was originally created for the wealthy to keep score of how they were doing compared to their rivals in the game of Monopoly, where each player sought to acquire the most wealth and property. Once the game was started no new players were allowed unless they took a player's money and property by war in another game we call Risk. The risk of war of course is that players can lose everything in the pursuit of global conquest, and as in Monopoly there is only one winner. Of course, in both games if it gets too tedious the players can decide to put their time to better use. That time may be coming as those left out of the game are demanding that the bank gives up more of what it has taken from them.

When money was created it was not needed by commoners, who were given sustenance by the Lords of whatever feudal Kingdom in which they lived. No wages were paid as they were subject to the will of their Lord Protectors, whose responsibility it was to protect them from those who sought to seize their lands through force of arms. In turn, they tilled the fields like slaves and were expected to go to war when told, much like modern society. The Lords in turn paid a tithe to the King or Queen, who were regarded as entitled to the wealth of the nation by divine right.

A third class arose from the artisans who produced the goods necessary in any society. Originally they were expected to do this as a duty to whatever King, Pharaoh, or High Priest who had been given or had seized authority to rule over the society that was created and maintained by slave labor. Later, artisans were allowed to engage in a system of barter that allowed peasants to acquire these good by exchanging the products of their labor.

Eventually Lords and Kings were expected to pay for these goods and services and money began trickling into the hands of the petit bourgeoisie of the day. This custom originally arose no doubt when competition began among the Lords to acquire the finest goods that their artisans would compete to create. It was a necessity as Lords agreed in most nations to cease making war with one another so that they might combine forces to defend their Kingdoms from powerful foreign invaders.

Peasants eventually came to acquire money when they began to be paid in cash for their labor, a practice that became universal in developed countries during the Industrial Revolution. The barter system persisted to a lesser extent but was supplanted by a cash economy as peasants began to dream that they too could become wealthy Lords in their own right. This radical idea was popularized when America became the first nation to declare that every free male was entitled to this opportunity. This is the origin of the myth that each of us can survive and prosper by the sweat of our own labor if we are willing to engage in the game of Monopoly.

At the founding of the American republic, this proclamation was nearly true, even though only about ten percent of the population was allowed to play. Women, African American slaves and indentured servants were left out of the game and only the indentured servant was allowed to work his way into it. The others had to wait generations before slaves were freed by a bloody Civil War and women gradually acquired the right to own property, a right that had existed even in feudal Europe, at least for those from wealthy families.

Throughout history there have been those who profited from the slavish insistence of the privileged that the object of the game of Life is no more than to acquire enough property to be declared winners. The players did not have to be the first to reach this goal; they only had to make sure that they would not be last and thus losers in the game. Those who profited most were the money lenders, who after generations of living off the sweat of others became the modern aristocracy that is the banking industry. Through their unmitigated greed they have become chief among the international corporate terrorists who are seeking to enslave us all in a fascist New World Order as the final stages of the global game of Risk are played out. The banksters hold the keys to the Kingdome that each of the leading players in the game of Monopoly is sure awaits him.

Something important happened recently that resulted from the banksters and their chief co-conspirators sensing that there was an easy way to win the game: They changed the rules so that a quick victory seemed assured. The first step was for the leading national player to cede sovereignty to the banks upon which they had come to depend to finance their wars of corporate Empire. They did this by creating an international system of currency that they controlled. Initially backed by gold at a fixed price, ultimately it was backed only by an empty promise to repay. Flush with successes since WWII, the banksters and their Puppets in the US government were so positive they would ultimately be the winners in the game of Monopoly that they had no fear that a roll of the dice might result in all of these IOUs to be called in.

The conversion to a promise-based monetary system allowed the banksters to create paper money whenever they chose. In a free market system of currency exchange this would cause the money to become less valuable. Not so under the new rules of Monopoly unilaterally declared by Nixon and New York-based international bankers. As the US was the dominant player in the game of Risk, the other players were compelled to agree to this rule change. This is how the dollar became the standard medium of exchange for the world and the agreed upon petrocurrency. The threat of war did not at first intimidate the other two leaders, China and Russia. However, Russia took a large gamble in invading Afghanistan and lost much of her cash and influence in the game of Monopoly.

Russia then capitulated to the leaders of the game, privatizing the resources of the state so that a few might still earn it a place at the table in the game of Monopoly, even if it could no longer afford to play Risk. In proclaiming itself democratic, the then-leaders of the Politburo repudiated its nonsensical claim to have been the first truly democratic socialist republic. The chief beneficiaries were of course well connected within the communist party and its organ of control, the KGB.

As Orwell predicted in 1948, until 1989 with the fall of the Berlin Wall, we found ourselves in a situation where there are three main power blocs that used the threat of war to subjugate their people to their will. Eurasia is still a player but one in the weakest position. Neither Eurasia nor Eastasia is in a position to actually wage the all-out war that will determine the winner in the global game of Risk and therefore the game of Monopoly, but Eastasia is building their military and Eurasia retains a share of the prize that will determine the shape of the New World Order: oil.

Oceania has taken the same gamble that cost Russia so dearly. Its arrogant leaders seem to believe that victory in the game is near. The wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan are a proxy war against Eurasia and Eastasia. The citizens of Oceania are hostage to the banksters who finance and profit from these wars of corporate Empire. China has become an uneasy ally of  Oceana following its embrace of capitalism, but its leaders know that the US and UK governments have already set in motion plans to finish the creation of a permanent fascist New World Order in which they would become the Kings by what they considered to be divine right. In such a world order, the Chinese people too would become their subjects.

What none of the Monopoly players ever seriously considered was the possibility that their own Peoples would rise against them and demand that their stolen wealth be returned and that the threat of war be ended once and for all time. We now see ourselves in the midst of a global Revolution where the Peoples of the Earth are beginning to sense their interdependence and the power of collective action. We are witnessing the rise of a united international front against fascism and war that could have prevented WWII had we had the power of the internet at the time.

George Dmitrov laid out the strategy in a famous speech before the Seventh International Communist Conference, but the petit bourgeoisie did not join the workers to demand that their “democratic socialist” governments refuse to capitulate to fascist demands. Too many workers did not join the global protests against the rise of fascism. Global arms dealers were allowed to continue to sell weapons to Germany despite the terms of the Treaty of Versailles. The stage was set for global war, pitting fascist nations in the US, Europe and Asia against each other, with Russia playing both sides against the middle. The result was a world where nations were subsumed by alliances among the players determined to be the winners in the game of Monopoly at any Risk.

Fascism arises when the peoples of a nation are impoverished by other players in the game of Risk, as Germany was under the conditions of the armistice ending WWI. After a brief flirtation with democracy under the Weimar Republic and under direct provocation from Great Britain, beleaguered Germans gave up the power to determine their collective destiny and placed it in the hands of a madman who promised security and wealth. As we have seen, a similar thing took place in the United States after 9/11, the equivalent of the burning of the Reichstag that fueled Hitler's rise to power. The only difference is that Hitler was a dictator of the People while working hand in hand with the corporate powers that profit from war, while in the US the war profiteers dictate to the President.

History does not repeat itself unless we allow it to. The people of the US face a stark choice at this singular moment in history. They can capitulate to the international corporate terrorists Hell-bent on world domination or they can abandon the illusion of our separateness from the rest of the world and the cause of liberty and justice for every citizen of Earth. If we let go of our fear of terrorism and demand an end to the Anglo-American War of Terror being waged against the Peoples of the world we will soon see victory and the death of fascism and war.

The banksters are fearful and perhaps beginning to regret that their feral attack on the people of the United States has unleashed a power that for once they cannot control through propaganda and economic slavery. The Peoples of the world can end this global war once they accept that only by ensuring liberty and justice for all can any of us truly be free. That means giving up our narrow self-interest and laying our prejudices aside so that we can combine forces to eradicate the scourge of greed from the Earth.

One of the most powerful tools at our disposal is the ability to take the wealth out of the hands of the banksters by moving our money from their accounts and placing it in the trust of the collectives that are credit unions. When we do we become part owners of a collective enterprise created to serve the community and each of its members. They use the money to provide loans that allow small businesses and thereby communities to thrive and prosper. Every dollar we move is food placed in the mouths of our hungry children.

Move your money to depositor-owned credit unions and encourage your local governments to do the same while we work for state-owned banks and ultimately, a national bank that puts the power of the money press in the hands of the People. Show the banksters that they have no power over us that we do not willingly give them.

Wednesday, November 2, 2011


When Adbusters Magazine called for an occupation of Wall Street, it recommended that occupiers have a specific political goal in mind. Their short list of suggestions included calling for a constitutional amendment to abolish corporate personhood, the Supreme Court doctrine that corporations are people with constitutional rights, among them the “right” to contribute unlimited sums to elect candidates of their choice.

The occupiers have been criticized from both the left and right for adopting an anarchical process that has led to no clear demands other than that all of the problems besetting 99 percent of Americans be addressed. The problem is that with members of Congress so beholden to corporate money to stay in office, none of the things that must be done to redress their grievances will occur when the interest of We the People conflict with those of the corporations that control the levers of power in the US government.

It is not too late to adopt a strategy that embraces support a constitutional amendment as the central issue by which to advance the cause of economic and social justice for the 99 percent. The laborious decision making process of direct democracy as practiced by the occupiers will not lead to this outcome. It is up to each of us who support the movement to decide for ourselves whether we will choose to promote this idea in General Assemblies around the country and within other groups. This is a social justice issue that should concern all Americans.

Members of local party central committees, political activist groups, unions, churches and other organizations need to talk about the central importance of abolishing corporate personhood in protecting the American dream and ensuring liberty and justice for ourselves and our posterity. We can then take the discussion from our meeting places to the town hall meetings that are already beginning to take place across the country as the 2012 election season begins. If we show up and ask candidates to take a position on whether or not they would support a constitutional amendment abolishing corporate personhood, we will easily determine who is willing to put our interests over the corporate Puppetmasters of Congress.

We cannot be distracted by the usual half measures proposed to deal with excessive corporate power, such as proposed constitutional amendments introduced by Kurt Schrader, Donna Edwards and Max Baucus. Each of these would if passed give Congress and state governments the power but not the duty to regulate corporate money in elections. While nice in theory, it is clear that given the conflict of interest between serving We the People and serving their corporate patrons, the majority of members of Congress are not going to willingly bite the hand that feeds them.

As an example, Peter DeFazio of Oregon has endorsed the Schrader amendment, lending credence to an idea so obviously mistaken that even well known corporate beneficiary Max Baucus is willing to promote it in a Senate version. At least two Democratic central committees in DeFazio’s district have passed resolutions calling for an amendment to abolish corporate personhood and others around the state have passed or are considering similar resolutions.

The question is, even if every DCC in Oregon’s District 4 endorses such resolutions, will Congressman DeFazio listen? A resolution to call on him and other members of the Oregon congressional delegation narrowly failed on procedural grounds at the last CD-4 convention. It appears certain that the resolution will be reintroduced and passed at the next convention.

This well-known liberal Democrat ignored resolutions calling on him to back HR 676, the single payer bill that was ignored by Baucus and others during the health care “reform” debacle that resulted in the “Affordable” Health Care Act. That Act has proven unaffordable and to not provide health care but a bailout for the medical insurance industry but was the bill Democratic leadership wanted. Had DeFazio and others listened to the local Democratic Party rank-and-file when they spoke loudly and clearly, the Democratic Party might not be suffering the well-deserved backlash from its blatant sellout to the corporate interests of the medical-industrial complex.

There is only one way to reclaim democracy and make our government one of, by and for the People. We must make support of a constitutional amendment to abolish corporate personhood a campaign issue in 2012 and beyond. Candidates around the country are taking a pledge to amend. As they challenge incumbents and better-known challengers in the upcoming primaries, the issue will gain prominence in other races. Eventually it will become generally recognized that when faced with a choice between candidates willing to prove that they are seeking office in order to serve the interests of their constituents and not those of their corporate patrons and themselves, the choice will be obvious. As voters in more and more elections respond by electing candidates who have taken the pledge to amend it will become clear that the amendment will pass.