digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

See the original image at firedoglake.com

American Parallels ...the decline of the American Empire

firedoglake.com — "History, they say, doesn't repeat –but it does echo. Looking back at other situations, other republics and empires, one is tempted to draw parallels between then and now. The parallel drawn most often is the decline of the British Empire .In the end America will follow its own unique path. All Republics end, and so do all Empires." 4 for pause.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • dgeise, on 12/30/2007, -14/+36If only Dubya was smart enough to understand this...
    • Rotzooi, on 12/30/2007, -6/+16Even if he was (and the people who act as his brain are), he wouldn't give a toss. It's me me me, money, power, securing money and power for his family and the families that aide him. He is building an empire for himself, not so much as for the U.S.
      • charlietuna, on 12/30/2007, -4/+3There is a reason a Chevron oil tanker was named the USS Condoleeza Rice!
        http://www.aztlan.net/oiltanker.htm
      • PhilLesh69, on 01/03/2008, -1/+1Nobody ever builds an empire for the good of the nation. It is always the result of strong mercantile or corporatist greed.

        The people that convert a republic to an empire are only seeking their own fortunes.

        It is the citizens who are supposed to recognize this threat and act to prevent it, that ever preserves a republic.
    • Napoleone, on 12/30/2007, -9/+11The argument that Bush is dumb is nothing more than self delusion. This man has committed crime after crime after crime and has covered up his tracks well enough to remain untouchable. That's hardly the work of a fool. We're the fools who let him remain in office.
      • pintomp3, on 12/30/2007, -4/+6i still think it's an idiot, he's just surrounded by a lot of smart people. he was selected as a figure head because of name recognition and to appeal to the born-again religious block. but the people behind most of the agendas and legal maneuvering are people like karl rove, dick cheney, paul wolfowitz, alberto gonzalez, scooter libby, david addington, etc. it's easy to go after bush, because he represents them, but we should not forget them and let them off the hook.
        • bullcutter, on 01/05/2008, -0/+1i don't think anybody's "letting them off the hook", as a matter of fact, i think there are people looking for hooks for them right now!
    • l33tspam, on 12/30/2007, -3/+2It is not him alone who needs to understand it, but also other leaders of our nation, and most importantly the people them selves.

      we're all too lazy.
    • floorman56, on 12/31/2007, -2/+2Wow .....BDS is running rampant tonight
    • PhilLesh69, on 12/31/2007, -1/+4Whether or not a person appears to be smart enough to understand this, there is an historical precedence in the progression between the Roman Republic and the Roman empire.

      People seeking profit over the welfare of the society know this, they understand the historical methods of taking a republic into an empire.

      If you don't understand the benefits of a republic and the harms and risks of an empire, you probably will not see how bad our situation really is.

      I feel sorry for you folks. Do some research. Fast, before it is too late.
      • bullcutter, on 01/05/2008, -0/+1Gee whizz, thanks for that timeless piece of insight, professor. I'm on it! Wouldn't want to single-handedly destroy America!
    • bullcutter, on 01/01/2008, -2/+1if only you were smart enough to understand how little actual relevance any of the aforementioned "empires" has to the current state of affairs in America (first of all its NOT an "empire"; you can't go right after using that assertion as your premise)...
      • PhilLesh69, on 01/03/2008, -1/+1Most of what you wrote doesn't even make any coherent sense.

        History is our best guide. "Those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it". Maybe that ws Churchill, or someone else, but it makes a lot of sense.

        First of all, the United States is absolutely an empire. Nixon was our first "empirilcal president", according to Newsweek and Military History magazine, and many other magazines and historians. Second, a nation that invades other countries, installs consulars and prelates is, by definition, an empire.

        We may not call ourselves an empire, but our practices say otherwise. Maybe that is because people like you and I would not like that term, we are still products of the old order, and would not accept an empire. That does not mean that our disquiet over empire precludes empire. It just means they have to tread lightly while people like us think that way. Once a generation or two has grown accustomed to the concept, then they will call it the "Great American Empire", but probably not, they prefer to just do it without the repercussions of admitting it.
        • bullcutter, on 01/05/2008, -0/+1All of what I wrote made perfect sense. You just refused to attempt to understand it.

          First of all, the U.S. is absolutely NOT an empire. We are defined by what are pretty much world standards as a federal constitutional republic. According to newspapers and magazines, Dewey defeated Truman, the moon landing never happened and George Bush caused 9/11.

          Second, I have yet to see a definition of the word "empire" that includes your criteria. And neither are we installing "consulars and prelates" by definition.

          Its granted we are a world superbully, but we are NOT an Empire. That is a childish term used by ***** authors, bloggers and nobodys who are trying to become somebody by exploiting discontent with this country. You've been tricked.
  • Napoleone, on 12/30/2007, -7/+62I'm working for the preservation of our republic; as for the empire, I couldn't care less.

    • Veni_Vidi_Vici, on 12/30/2007, -2/+9I'm working toward the preservation of our democracy as well. With just a republic we would have a select few in the political elite with all the power who are not being subject to their own laws.
      oh wait....

      Power to the people, not to the elite.
      • Protonz, on 12/30/2007, -3/+13Democracy is not all that great of a thing. "Power to the people" is the slogan of most socialist nations like Venezuela, or Cuba. It is an illusion that the 'people' have some kind of power, but what is this power exactly? I don't want my neighbor to have the power to steal from my paycheck or put me in a prison for crimes without a victim (ie. drug laws, prostitution).
        Power to the individual.
        • bullcutter, on 01/05/2008, -0/+2Its not all that great of a thing, but its the best we've got. Feel free to come up with a better idea.
      • InformedCrab, on 12/31/2007, -0/+5No way. Power to the people doesn't mean power to the people unless the people are informed, proactive, and responsible, among other things; otherwise, it's just power to those who can pander to the people, power to the demagogues.
    • logosx1, on 12/30/2007, -4/+1You cannot preserve what no longer exists.
      • PhilLesh69, on 01/03/2008, -1/+1Oh *****. You already know.

        Doesn't it suck??
    • RobotBuddha, on 12/30/2007, -1/+4Why? If it collapses, hasn't it proven that it needs to be reformulated and begun again differently?
      • PhilLesh69, on 01/03/2008, -1/+1Think about how most people are completely beholden to this system. When this system collapses, everyone but the extremely wealthy will suffer greatly. Only those making over $350,000 a year and those worth over a billion will survive.

        The rest of us will be stuck in a world of medieval proportions. Our only hope is to save the system by taking it back and reverting to a more rational system.

        Anyone with a creidt card, or a mortgage, or any sort of debt, even anyone renting their home are all vulnerable to the collapse they've orchestrated.

        Empires serve those that have amassed great wealth and can afford to pay their way through all the turmoil they are certain to create.

        I can't afford my own private security. When unrest occurs, I'm screwed. I cannot afford 10,000 acres in a south american country, so when famine occurs, I cannot import my own food. I cannot buy the law or purchase my own justice, so when totalitarianism ensues, I will be its victim.
        • bullcutter, on 01/05/2008, -0/+1" When this system collapses, everyone but the extremely wealthy will suffer greatly. Only those making over $350,000 a year and those worth over a billion will survive. "

          I would think that the extremely wealthy would be the first targets for "redistribution," unless they can escape with all their holdings very quickly.

          This scenario isn't going to happen within your or my lifetime, and might not for hundreds of more years, but it is fun to pretend, isn't it.
    • phatvolvo, on 12/31/2007, -3/+6Well, the Empire doesn't consider a small one-man fighter to be any threat, or they'd have a tighter defense. An analysis of the plans provided by Princess Leia has demonstrated a weakness in the battle station. But the approach will not be easy.
      • floorman56, on 12/31/2007, -2/+1Humm they used that to destroy a weapon ...not a empire ...The empire lasted a long time after that ...killed LOTS of people ...and we still don't know what happened after the emperor was killed.
        How about this
        After the emperor was killed civil war broke out TRILLIONS were killed The Jedi tried to bring order but most thought they were just "religious freaks" trying to gain power.
    • PhilLesh69, on 12/31/2007, -2/+3If you have read up on the Roman Empire, you'd know how it is destructive. It is the result of greed and power seeking, driven to fulfill the vices of a single power.

      If you know the concepts of democracy, even the original Roman concept of democracy, you would do everything you could to prevent the emperical forces, and fight to preserve the democracy.

      Rome was a great civilization as long as it believed in democracy. Rome ultimately failed by pursuing empire.
    • mdcarso, on 12/31/2007, -0/+5We are a Constitutional Republic and that is what we should be striving to preserve.
      Someone far wittier than I once remarked that, in a democracy, two wolves and a sheep take a majority vote on what’s for supper, while in a constitutional republic, the wolves are forbidden on voting on what’s for supper and the sheep are well armed.
      Neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution even contains the word “democracy.” In a democracy, the majority rules and individual rights are irrelevant. If the majority votes that half of your income be confiscated before you can even by groceries, oh well. If the majority votes that you must educate your children in a certain location because you live on a certain side of an arbitrary line, oh well. If the majority votes that you must be disarmed and defenseless against violent criminals, oh well. If the majority votes that your religion be designated an “outlaw religion” and that you and all other practitioners be committed to mental institutions, oh flipping well.
      • PhilLesh69, on 01/03/2008, -1/+1You should have spelled it out more clearly for the slower people in our ranks. The nascar daddies need to understand that the wolves are the government (or the majority) and the sheep are the citizens.

        But you got the concept down pat. if Majority rules, it is no more than organized anarchy. If we live in a constitutional republic, we are striving for every citizen to beneift, to gain and to ultimately reduce crime, poverty and injustice throught the very nature of an all inclusive, everyone can benefit from their efforts, society. Not communism, not socialism, just a social order where those that wish to take part can, and will thrive, without the forces of those that have already thrived preventing them from climbing the ladder, so to speak.
  • jeffiek, on 12/30/2007, -36/+12"There is, in human history, a series of cycles of renewal, decay and renewal. "

    Let's make the next American renewal one of choice. The opportunity is there. One candidate has the message of freedom.
    All the others will just continue the decay.

    Dr. Paul is a doctor and a 10 term Congressman. He ain't perfect (says so himself), but there's no one else waiting in the wings. NOW is the time.

    The choice is yours.
    • brycelb, on 12/30/2007, -11/+17"The choice is yours."

      Thanks, I choose to bury your tired spam.
    • InSectWar, on 12/30/2007, -4/+10Somehow i knew someone would put a ron paul in here. They even invaded my battlefield 2 game with spam (oh sorry, "promotion" as he called it) every 5 minutes and just moving around enough not to get booted.
    • Tilon, on 12/30/2007, -2/+6a proper candidate is 'tired spam' in the New America.
      • PhilLesh69, on 01/03/2008, -0/+1He is when he scares the status quou folks. People of marginal intelligence and lesser imagination, who need to hold onto existing paradigms will always downplay anyone offering something new.

        New is scary. Logic is unreasonable.
    • mdcarso, on 12/31/2007, -0/+3Regardless of whether you think his comment in spam, he is still right. No other candidate is offering anything but the status quo. They are merely two sides of the same tarnished coin.
      • PhilLesh69, on 01/03/2008, -0/+1I don't know if I'll vote for the guy or not, but I am so shocked at how many people are ready to dismiss him just because the media has told them to do so.
  • Paktu, on 12/30/2007, -6/+31That was a surprisingly well-informed article. The comparison to Roman farming is especially apt- America has moved from small, family owned farms like what Rome had in the early days of the Republic, to massive, corporate owned farms (in Rome, these were called Latifundia).
    • l00s3r, on 12/30/2007, -1/+8The government lavishes the Aggro-Corps with billions in corporate welfare. Small farms just can't compete. Half of the farm subsidies go to the richest 10% of the farms.
      • PhilLesh69, on 01/03/2008, -0/+1You don't even know. Those "richest 10% of the farms" are not even actual farms. If you own a certain amount of acreage, you can be paid not to grow a crop. Even if you are a cosmetics company, or a magazine publisher.

        I worked for Kiplinger. They owned property that paid them a million or more a year to not grow. Since they were a "family owned company" and the employees were shareholders, I saw their statements every year. They made decent money just by owning property, as an investment, that could have been farmland. They also owned farmland (citrus, emus, corn, cows) that also made them money, but many of their tens of thousands of acres were just fallow, and receiving government subsidies to not grow.

        There is a website where you can see the list of land owners who receive money from the government for not growing crops. I forget the site URL, but I remember that a majority of the checks go to addresses in Manhattan.
    • PhilLesh69, on 12/31/2007, -1/+6Rome prospered as a true democracy when their military was comprised of land owners, farmers. They fought away enemies. They defended the democratic republic.

      Rome failed when they departed from a republic and embarked on empire. The military was no longer land owners, and they embarked on conquering foreign lands. They became an empire, and lost the virtues of a republic.

      Once Caesar crossed the rubicon river, that was the end of a representative government. And the end of Rome. Eventually they were only left with total collapse and eventually the middle ages, etc.
    • bullcutter, on 01/01/2008, -0/+1... surprisingly well-informed to somebody with absolutely no grasp on history.
  • katiedogg, on 12/30/2007, -8/+2Great post.
  • Duilen, on 12/30/2007, -5/+10Read Orson Scott Card. He writes about US parallels quite a bit in his Enders Game series.
    • BigW, on 12/30/2007, -3/+4I agree completely Card has a good read on where America is and where it is headed. Also its not all bad the way he presents it. America is just tired and has backed off the world stage somewhat. Maybe that where we have to go.

    • devo9ineteen, on 12/30/2007, -2/+2was i the only one bored after xenocide?
      • Waterrat, on 01/02/2008, -0/+1. But he has written some great books.
    • RobotBuddha, on 12/30/2007, -1/+6He also thinks one of the ways we can save ourselves is by locking up 'the gays'. As much as he may or may not be right on some angles, there's so much crazy in him that I wouldn't put much trust in anything he puts forward.
      • TrevorBradley, on 12/31/2007, -0/+3I'm firmly in the "Love Ender's Game/Speaker for the Dead, disgusted by OSC's comments" camp.

        The man writes eloquently on how it is unfair that one group be isolated and quarantined while others rise to greatness, the best argument against the Star Trek prime directive I've ever read (Speaker for the Dead), and yet comes across as a complete ***** in many of his comments.
    • bullcutter, on 01/01/2008, -1/+1He's a science fiction writer, which makes him the appropriate channel for such idiocy...
      • Waterrat, on 01/02/2008, -1/+1 Not so,science fiction is an interesting way humans have of commenting on the world we live in.
      • bullcutter, on 01/02/2008, -1/+1what category does Elron fall under?
  • futureisours, on 12/30/2007, -26/+9How long did the Roman empire last? How long has the US been around. I think we have at least a few thousand more years, if we don't allow the illegal aliens to fracture our country.
    • Groovemaster, on 12/30/2007, -9/+13You assume the American empire has a hope in hell of lasting anywhere near as long as the Roman empire.

      The Roman Empire lasted from 752 B.C to 1476 A.D., for a total of about 2228 years. America's been around for just over 200.

      If the world turns against Fascist America as hard as they turned against Fascist Germany I give the USA 100 more years before they crawl back into their shell, tops.
      • truebeliever83, on 12/30/2007, -0/+2Groovemaster, You are lumping the Western Roman Empire, the Byzantine Empire or Eastern Roman Empire (after the move to Constantinople) and the Holy Roman Empire into one. The Roman Republic began in 510 BC, when the Romans overthrew their Monarch. Then about 450 years later it became an empire after its democracy collapsed and thus began the reign of the Caesars (I think this is a good parallel to what is happening now in the U.S.) The Empire finally ended in 476 when Romulus Augustus was deposed by Odoacer of the Ostrogoths, who the Roman's pretty much considered barbarians.
      • goomba323, on 12/30/2007, -4/+0Well America, or any nation, won't last another 1000 years because we'll all be underwater or living in a post-apacolyptic time by then.....probably sooner than later. If it isn't global warming then it will be a nuclear holocaust. If it isn't a nuclear holocaust it will be damage from the rapid increase in technology combined with little known effects of that technology long term.

        My guess....Children of Men will become true and as a result of children giving laptops/cell phones when they are 10, we will genetically be incapable of producing semen (or will have to get our balls chopped off from the cancer).

        But then again, I'm paranoid as hell.
      • senatorpjt, on 12/31/2007, -0/+3If Terence McKenna is to be believed (not that I'm saying he is), then these empires will go through their cycles of ascension, supremacy, and decline at an increasing pace over time.
    • tmbrwolf19, on 12/30/2007, -0/+15Being an Empire doesn't mean there is a required amount of time to remain in power. The British Empire lasted about 500 years, Roman about 2200.
      Wars during the Roman empire lasted decades. It sometimes took several years just to march an army to the enemy. Today, we can mobilize and have troops fighting in country within all of 2 days. Trade goods used to take months to reach the mother country, now make it there in a matter of days. Even communications with used to take several weeks, now can be done instantaneously. See what I am getting at? As technology and the way we live our lives accelerate, so does the life span of dominance. It has taken China less than 60 years to go from a relatively weak economy, to the world's largest producer of goods with trillions of dollars in trade a year. It took American about 200 years to go from colony to superpower. And unlike previous empires, America doesn't hold political power over very many nations.
      The fact is, even if America turns around drastically, it can not stop the economic success of China or India, so its days are numbered. Oh, and those illegal aliens are probably one of the few things maintaining a fractured and outsourced economy.
  • MyDiggIsBig, on 12/30/2007, -31/+2i'de give the US another year or two before it collapses on its face and eats poo and then goes potty in my mouth and oooooo yahhhh Koolaid style rejoicing of jihadist extremists and party all the timing in Ibiza with some trance dun dun dun dun tss tss tss and then mexicans will rule the world before jews steal their money and wave their toras in the air, waving it like they just dont care, hollering woot woot and with will smith singing we are going to miami nana nana where the heat is on and the US will send nukes in my butt to counter the nuclear activity in my butt which is brewing chemicals at 1000 degrees celsius which martha stewart recommends as the right temperature for baking chocolate crumbles in the heat of the night when we are having a fiesta bailamos let the rythm take you over bailamos, tequiero, mama sita, yo quierro taco bell on them bitches says Islamic terrorists who rent a party plane to celebrate Ali's circumcision which sadly crashes but makes the US realize the trouble its in and it will realize its sorrows so it will hire a couple hoes Clinton style them and leave like nothing ever happened.
    • annonimality, on 12/30/2007, -3/+6Punctuation is our friend. Use it.
    • blademanx, on 12/31/2007, -0/+5What the hell are you talking about?
  • coffee200am, on 12/30/2007, -24/+10Rome lasted for 800 years. We have a few centuries left.
    • Napoleone, on 12/30/2007, -2/+29What makes you think all empires share the same life-span?
      • EarlOfLade, on 12/31/2007, -4/+7Let's see...
        1. He is American
        2. Probably right winger
        3. He has no knowledge about world history
        4. He is totally brainwashed with "USA #1!" *****
        5. He has never been outside his state or country
        6. He will vote for Ron Paul
        7. He thinks Ann Coulter has a lot of good points.
        8. He believes that every muslim is a terrorist
        9. He thinks G. W. Bush is one of the great American presidents.
        10. He doesn't like wetbacks, chinks, towelheads or ***** or any other non-white non-christian person.

        How much more do you really need?

        • Bhima, on 12/31/2007, -0/+1You forgot the most important one: It can never happen to me!
    • amrizzle, on 12/30/2007, -4/+11Empires back then lasted a long time, now with all the technology we have and corruption, I would doubt any superpower can last that long.
    • dsmx, on 12/30/2007, -8/+4No you don't, the American empire is already in the final stages.
    • JoeMondo, on 12/30/2007, -3/+4That's the sort of uneducated thinking that is accelerating the US decline.
    • BossKey, on 12/31/2007, -0/+4Leaning on the Rome example is simply you extrapolating from an insufficiently small sample size.

      Alexander Tyler did a bit more study. He wrote that “The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations from the beginning of history has been about 200 years."

      The US has been around for...

      uh oh...
  • fadeout, on 12/30/2007, -4/+14There was a book called "the rise and fall of great powers" by Paul Kennedy about this, link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rise_and_Fall_of_ ...


    It was actually a bestseller for a while and to some extent was the catalyst for the neo-conservative movement in that it caused many conservative policy wonks to take up a more aggressive foreign policy stance to bring America back to the top.

    FYI, it was knee jerk then just as this blog is now... America's economy bounced back from the great depression and the explosion of the Japanese (and European) economies. We survived Korea, Vietnam and the other asinine foreign adventures, all of which were far worse than Iraq. America still has lots of resources, entrepeneurs and potential. Who knows what will happen?
    • SiNN4R, on 12/30/2007, -8/+4Well I'm relieved to know that we'll have more Korea, Vietnam, and Iraqs in the future. God bless America!
    • captainbeah, on 12/31/2007, -0/+1That's a good point. I think the Digg community is too quick to call the future of America. It's true that America is taking the steps necessary for a decline, and taking the steps necessary for a fascist takeover, however, there's no guarantees. We could very well find our way again, if only by accident.
  • bewth, on 12/30/2007, -16/+14First they ignore you: Aug. 12th, 2007
    http://www.chrisbrunner.com/2007/08/12/fox-news-ce ...
    Then they laugh at you: Sept. 5th, 2007
    http://news.aol.com/newsbloggers/2007/09/06/who-is ...
    Then they fight you: Nov. 28th, 2007
    http://thecrossedpond.com/?p=2049
    Then you win: Feb. 5th, 2008
    Super Tuesday
    • sdlvx, on 12/30/2007, -3/+3I couldn't agree more. I've thought that there was a strong comparison between the rise of christianity and the fall of rome and with the rise in fundamental christianity in america.

      Everyone seems to laugh and think you're crazy. Eventually, all the pieces fall into place, but by then, it's too late to do anything. I suppose that's how these things work.
  • amrizzle, on 12/30/2007, -9/+19Good read.
    Empires come and go, America is no different.
    • bullcutter, on 01/01/2008, -0/+1yeah, except that its not an Empire. which one of these applies to America again? from the dictionary:

      1. a group of nations or peoples ruled over by an emperor, empress, or other powerful sovereign or government: usually a territory of greater extent than a kingdom, as the former British Empire, French Empire, Russian Empire, Byzantine Empire, or Roman Empire.
      2. a government under an emperor or empress.
      3. (often initial capital letter) the historical period during which a nation is under such a government: a history of the second French empire.
      4. supreme power in governing; imperial power; sovereignty: Austria's failure of empire in central Europe.
      5. supreme control; absolute sway: passion's empire over the mind.
      6. a powerful and important enterprise or holding of large scope that is controlled by a single person, family, or group of associates: The family's shipping empire was founded 50 years ago.
      7. (initial capital letter) a variety of apple somewhat resembling the McIntosh.
  • baalzebub, on 12/30/2007, -7/+3insightful, mod this article submission up!
  • daxsymbiont, on 12/30/2007, -17/+18America is not an empire, it's a military power bully.
    • BlueStarr, on 12/30/2007, -8/+5And now its neither. :) In the end it killed it self.
      • bullcutter, on 01/01/2008, -0/+2did I miss the meeting? I'm in Hawaii so I can't tell if America killed itself really, but so far things seem pretty much the same...
        • LordKaT, on 01/01/2008, -2/+1That's pretty much what happens in a modern collapse. unless a nation is conquered daily life really isn't affected all that much.
        • bullcutter, on 01/02/2008, -1/+2so a modern collapse = no collapse at all?
    • Izult, on 01/04/2008, -0/+1funny couldn't the same thing have been said about britan at one point in time?
  • exomni, on 12/30/2007, -10/+7As an American, the decline of the American Empire is no problem for me. Especially when you compare it to the decline of the British empire.

    Speed it up, if you ask me.
  • tehxen3, on 12/30/2007, -10/+25Digg parallels the decline of aging liberal hippies.
  • StormCommander, on 12/30/2007, -11/+6Bury for pointlessness... Of course empires aren't eternal.
  • jpn1003, on 12/30/2007, -3/+1Any "State Radio" fans here? Great song by them "Fall of the American Empire". This story headline reminded me of that song.
    http://www.archive.org/details/sr2006-11-15.mbhoka ...
  • legendxx, on 12/30/2007, -11/+20This is hilarious.. The United States has been in much tougher situations than we are now.. and we've gotten through it. Not that we shouldn't be concerned about the direction we're heading... Anyone majoring in History with any kind of concentration in Western World History will tell you this.
    • BlueStarr, on 12/30/2007, -6/+8What we lost is our genuine credibility. We will no longer have that trust that we once had with others. This beautiful country will go on, much like Britain but it will never be the same. And thatsfine, it needed to happen so that we may become better citizens of the world and a better nation in the global community.
      • BigW, on 12/30/2007, -5/+12When the next president bails from Iraq and we take on a much more isolationist policy, just wait and see. The next Bosnia will pop up somewhere and the world will be back at our door asking for help again. Everyone in the world wants America to butt out until something comes up that they don't want to deal with and then they all come running.

        If we do take on an isolationist policy I hope we stay completely out of other countries' business (and stop giving them massive piles of money every year too).
        • senatorpjt, on 12/31/2007, -5/+4It's more like what happens when you build a military that is designed for that sort of thing. If we had a military that was sufficient for defense but not invasion, even if we had money, we wouldn't see other countries expecting us to fight their wars.
          • RGWX, on 12/31/2007, -4/+3Aren't you cute? We'll just retreat behind the Big Fence and hide from the world. Of course we live in a world CHOCK FULL of rational, bighearted nations with NO interests beyond daily Kumbaya singalongs, reducing carbon output and weaving their colorful native crafts. Sure. That'll work nicely.
        • GonadHunter, on 12/31/2007, -4/+7Does that include not funding Israel's existence anymore?
      • legendxx, on 12/30/2007, -5/+2The same thing happened around the turn of the century when the US was as Imperialistic as it ever was. We tried to spread our influence to all corners of the globe. The people got tired of it and we turned internally and had fun in what is now called the roaring 20's. It happened again during the cold war with Korea, Vietnam, Caribbean countries and some South American nations where we tried to influence other countries to be capitalist and not communist. MOST of these ventures were very arguably failures or the outcome had little to do with our efforts.. In both those situations the US's 'credibility' was rocked but we always regained it.

        Nothing is gone until you give up on it.
      • vault, on 12/30/2007, -6/+5"What we lost is our genuine credibility."

        Someone call the WAAAAHHHHmbulance.
      • Beveridge89, on 12/31/2007, -0/+7BlueStarr, the world is always worse with several superpowers, or with the vacuum created without one, than one with global hedgemony. The USA is not perfect, nowhere near, but comparitively it is better than what has come before it, or what will come from its fall.
    • schpadoinkleday, on 12/30/2007, -2/+2well said.
    • tmbrwolf19, on 12/30/2007, -7/+6Yes, but now most American jobs have been outsourced to China and India. China and India are both making huge strides economically and trade wise. In the past there was no real threat of competition, so when America stumbled, it could still pick itself back up and maintain a lead. The competition is now gaining, and that safe buffer of economic power is much much smaller.
      • vault, on 12/31/2007, -1/+5That's not true, in the 90's it was Japan and there absolutely was competition. As the second largest economy with all the "Made in Japan" bs people were scared they were going to replace us after watching 'Rising Sun' and suddenly becoming financial analysts (well the same chicken little types as now with China were, at least).

        Guess what? Didn't happen: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1997_Asian_Financial_ ...
  • BlueStarr, on 12/30/2007, -16/+4Such is the natural order of things. American had it's opportunity. |The decline began when they decided to start ***** in other peoples affairs. Ron Paul wants to restore it back to its original glory and at the same time mind their own ***** business.

    What's left is the best of this country. The apple pie eating, corn bread baking, beans and rice making, fried sweet plantains, mother ***** who truly love their country.

    (Plantains over sized bananas that you must allow to get really ripe(till the banana peal looks black. they are at their sweetest point then). are like caramel in sweet flavor.
    http://www.foodandwine.com/recipes/fried-sweet-pla ...
  • one2gamble, on 12/30/2007, -3/+3meh.
  • vicsvenge, on 12/30/2007, -3/+6history doesn't repeat itself but it does rhyme. at least they could try to get mark twain right. i stopped reading after that.
  • sonnybobiche, on 12/30/2007, -4/+8As far as the Roman parallel goes, it was the increasing amount of power accorded to the proconsul that ushered in the height of the empire, not its downfall. The downfall was due to barbarians constantly invading and attacking a weakened military. (sounds familiar, no?)
  • diggcensors, on 12/30/2007, -18/+13who keeps digging these stories:
    "ZOMG America is teh fascists downfall."
    I dont care.
    • TrevorBradley, on 12/31/2007, -4/+7Neither did the Germans in 1930.
      • diggcensors, on 12/31/2007, -2/+31930 Germany: Largest first time voter cohort in its history.... which means thousands of young naive germans went to the polls to vote for a seemingly democratic party.

        Bush will step down at the end of his term. Democracy will continue. And you idiots can stfu.
      • sonnybobiche, on 12/31/2007, -0/+1The spectre of fascism is continually descending upon the United States, but seems to land only on Europe.
        -some smart guy
  • thredden, on 12/30/2007, -2/+1check out the book One with Nineveh,

    actually I think you can get the whole book here,
    http://books.google.com/books?id=H1q1tAnYMY0C&prin ...

    something i read a couple of years ago, and it completely changed the way i look at things.
  • schpadoinkleday, on 12/30/2007, -7/+5Picking and choosing specific points of history to make an uneducated argument is fun. Michael Bloomberg is like Hitler because he is anti-tobacco. See, that was easy!!
    • robberry, on 12/31/2007, -1/+4You probably think you've made a valid argument, but you haven't. The article demonstrated several examples of empires in decline, and showed several similarities between the paths those empires took and the path America is taking now. If you wish to *actually* refute the article, you need to show that there are important dissimilarities between those declining empires and America. Or you might try pointing out several historical examples of empires which were similar to America now, and which were able to maintain their existence for several more decades or centuries. Neither of these options is as easy as accusing Ian Welsh of cherrypicking his examples-- and then offering no proof of your accusations-- but if you want to make your case, that's what you're going to have to do.
      • bullcutter, on 01/05/2008, -0/+1Bullcrap. The guy hand-picked events from the past and tried to fudge lessons from them into our current situation, with every single one. What more do you want??

        He did a terrible job BTW, most Diggers are better writers.
    • bullcutter, on 01/05/2008, -0/+1brilliant!
  • Navigator7, on 12/30/2007, -8/+8The biggest scourge or erosion factor on America is 'Liberal Ideology'.
    Its the catalyst for decline in all civilizations.
    Allow me to redirect my thoughts: Mass tolerance of liberalism to the point of no return is the demise of civilizations.

    Whether 'we' choose to take corrective action or not is the question.
    • BossKey, on 12/31/2007, -1/+4The greatest economic expansion in the history of the United States, and perhaps the world until then, was made when liberal ideas became embedded in American society. Coincidence? The 40-hour work week. The New Deal. The civil rights movement. Giving the vote and rights to women. Youth culture, rock music.

      Therefore, you are full of crap.

      Go to any of the countries where traditional conservatism remains the order of the day, and you find yourself in the poorest, most backwards countries on Earth. No women's rights. A self-defeating acceptance of established authority with no courage to challenge. Intense racism to the point of ethnic wars. An inability to improve beyond the status quo. No new industries. Poor economies. Poor availability of food and clean water. Resistance to Western values. A few very rich and a mass of poor.

      If you want real, traditional conservatism, as it has been practiced for thousands of years, you are free to move to where it is still practiced. But America's greatness was its ability to get away from all that.
  • topbravo, on 12/30/2007, -12/+17Any way you slice it, America is still the best place to be sans having your own private island. Many people die just trying to come here.
    God Bless the USA!
    • redxninja, on 12/30/2007, -5/+5No it is Canada that they want to move to.
      • ScottMitchell, on 12/31/2007, -2/+7Have you ever been to Canada in February?
      • topbravo, on 12/31/2007, -3/+3Yeah, but have you ever tried to receive health care there? I would have to drive to America every time that I needed FAST important procedures done.
      • akamurph, on 12/31/2007, -2/+0LOL There won't be a 'Canada' in the future - 20% of Canadians are immigrants bringing with them their own culture. Yes, 1 out of 5 Canadians weren't born in Canada. You won't have much of a Canadian culture to hold on to, no thanks, I won't be moving there.
      • captric, on 01/01/2008, -0/+1The brain drain is south - all that is left in Canada are are a bunch of half educated nit wits who rely on America for their very existence.
    • senatorpjt, on 12/31/2007, -8/+5The USA just has the most lax immigration standards. It's not on the top of any list of good places to live, by any measure, unless you're a billionaire.
      • felman87, on 12/31/2007, -0/+2Canada has the most lax immigration standards
        • RobotBuddha, on 12/31/2007, -0/+1Canada's easier if you're not from a western country, the US if you are.
    • EarlOfLade, on 12/31/2007, -5/+5I guess you base this on an extensive amount of years of living and working abroad? No? Ok, kool-aid then!

      USA is so far from being the best country to live in that you have no idea. USA is, if you are not rich and white, a very bad country to live in. Even for whites who are not upper middle class, USA is a ***** country to live in compared to many other.
      • akamurph, on 12/31/2007, -1/+4I just don't understand comments like yours - are you saying this from experience? If so, why do you live in the USA? If what you say is true, why do SO MANY people migrate to the USA? It certainly contradicts what you are saying.
        • Bhima, on 12/31/2007, -0/+1I moved out of the US in 2002, after it became clear that most American's response to 9/11 and the Bush presidency was thinking they had Carte Blanche to trot their bigotry, racism, fascism, fear mongering and war mongering out in public, all the while claiming they weren't anything like that.

          There are tons of places to live which are as good or better than the US. I've lived in a few.

          People move to the US because of Hollywood movies. They think they know what the US is all about. They think they how wonderful it is. They that in America the dogs walk around with pretzels on their tails. But it just ain't so. The US is a country populated by people, same as any other. Because people are imperfect the US is imperfect. And more importantly for about the last 8 years the US has undergone a change to severe assholerly, thus many other nations have surpassed it as a really great place to live.
          • Iconoclast25, on 01/26/2008, -0/+1"I moved out of the US in 2002"

            Now *THAT* is a wonderful piece of news. Please don't return.
    • mattyd12466, on 12/31/2007, -2/+5"Any way you slice it, America is still the best place to be sans having your own private island. Many people die just trying to come here.
      God Bless the USA!"

      what a stupid and ill informed thing to say... 1st off, people trying to get into the US are often from really crappy places already...not Canada, not parts of Europe for examples. 2nd... People die trying to get into lots of other conties too you know, France, England, Canada, Australia all have similar problems...and in what way does that make america "great"?
  • masterm1nd, on 12/30/2007, -3/+7Every empire falls -- so does every non empire not fall? No you idiot.

    Everything ends at some point, not just empires or quote unquote 'empires'.
  • phrenzy, on 12/30/2007, -1/+4I think you could argue that the Roman empire is actually still very much alive - it just transcended the need for a centralized government in Rome itself once the Catholic church essentially became the ruling power. The entire western world is simply a continuation of a decentralized Rome.
  • terroristusgov, on 12/30/2007, -7/+2United States Government are terrorists, war criminals, and horrific liars.

    9-11 was an inside job! What happened to building 7?

    Depleted uranium is a weapon of mass destruction!

    Play Wall Street like a PONZI SCHEME!
  • nirav72, on 12/30/2007, -3/+2Sad part is..if this is true - The Roman empire at least lasted several centuries, while this nation has only been around for a little over 200 years.
    • JoelBakan01, on 12/31/2007, -0/+2The US doesn't compare even slightly to Rome. The USA was a result of the collapse of the British empire - a little spin off - nothing more.
    • gdm9000, on 12/31/2007, -0/+1(several centuries == 200 years) = True
      Actually, the Roman Republic/Empire lasted almost a whole millenium...
  • RDEB, on 12/30/2007, -2/+8The difference between the other empires and the American empire is the global interconnected economies. If America "falls", then so will most of the world to some extent. What would China do, if America stopped buying its goods, or India if America stopped outsourcing call centers etc. I don't see a complete failure of the American empire, but a balancing to the rest of the world. As our economy maintains or slows in growth, the developing nations will increase their growth rate. As the world economy balances, there will be rough patches. I think all of this is null since we will probably see greater political turmoil in China, and the affects of Global warming occurring sooner then the completion of economic re-balancing.
    • mattyd12466, on 12/31/2007, -1/+3well the same could be said for Europe or asia, but of course you are right....Is America was to collapse tomorrow the world would fall into recession. That said, it wouldn't take to long for the world to adapt..maybe for the better, maybe for the worst...theres no way to tell
    • digudown, on 12/31/2007, -1/+3If US ever becomes weaker, it will not be sudden jolt. It will be a slow process. World will adjust to that.
    • bullcutter, on 01/01/2008, -0/+2if the U.S. is dependent on other economies then its not really an "Empire" now is it? you people keep mis-using the word Empire, i guess cause thats whats hot on the streets right now, but you are still semantically and factually incorrect when applying the term to the U.S.
  • redxninja, on 12/30/2007, -6/+1And I dont give a *****.
  • xSEED, on 12/30/2007, -6/+1the american empire will fall. only lasted 280 years while the romans lasted 2k years?
    • digudown, on 12/31/2007, -3/+2America as a nation is > 200 years old, but US empire started after second World War. So its only 60 -65 years old.
    • bullcutter, on 01/01/2008, -0/+2America isn't an empire and never has been.

      From the dictionary:

      em·pire

      a group of nations or peoples ruled over by an emperor, empress, or other powerful sovereign or government: usually a territory of greater extent than a kingdom, as the former British Empire, French Empire, Russian Empire, Byzantine Empire, or Roman Empire.
      2. a government under an emperor or empress.
      3. (often initial capital letter) the historical period during which a nation is under such a government: a history of the second French empire.
      4. supreme power in governing; imperial power; sovereignty: Austria's failure of empire in central Europe.
      5. supreme control; absolute sway: passion's empire over the mind.
      6. a powerful and important enterprise or holding of large scope that is controlled by a single person, family, or group of associates: The family's shipping empire was founded 50 years ago.
      7. (initial capital letter) a variety of apple somewhat resembling the McIntosh.

      ... so which one of these was America again??
  • bingobongony, on 12/31/2007, -4/+6the fact that firedoglake is saying this gives me hope for the future of the American empire.

    If anyone at firedoglake was a real journalist, analyst, etc. then they would not need to resort to spamming Digg with their crap to make a living.

    Honestly..it is a good rule of thimb. And it applies to firedoglake, alternet, consumerist, and many others...if your writing is so bad that you can't earn a living on its merit, then why on earth should anyone value it?
  • pateo, on 12/30/2007, -4/+5Beautifully written article. We are not invincible as everyone likes to believe. Our illusion of power makes us much weaker than we'd like to believe. The USA is not a bad place (at the moment) but it's within our reach to make it an AMAZING place that is TRULY free.

    Fear/Love.
  • Trebis, on 12/31/2007, -0/+4"History, they say, doesn't repeat"

    Actually....it does. I think you got the phrase backwards.
  • benkrembs, on 12/31/2007, -9/+4YAAUSSOD (yet another anti-US story on Digg)

    Doesn't it just get old after awhile?
    • mattyd12466, on 12/31/2007, -2/+5or....


      (yet another idiot who thinks anything and everything is an anti-US story on Digg)

      why is it anti american to say that other contries will outproform amrica in he future to over take them....even when such things have been happening for 1000s of years?
      • benkrembs, on 12/31/2007, -2/+3Show me a single pro-US story that's been on the front page... ummm, ever?
        • r3negadeX, on 08/11/2008, -0/+2What exactly do we have to be patriotic about these days?
          • benkrembs, on 12/31/2007, -0/+1If you can't think of any good reasons, you need to get news from sources other than Digg. Here are just a couple:

            1. You can make a sign that says "BUSH IZ TEH SUZ0R" or "JEBUZ LUVZ LIL BOYZ" and parade it down the street -- and nobody will do anything. In many countries, you d be jailed or killed for insulting their leader or profit.

            2. We have the largest economy in the world. Any inability to find a job here means you won't find one anyplace.

            3. We give more to charity than any other country.

            4. You have zero fear right now of a foreign country bombing your home right now. We have the toughest military in the world, and whether or not you like some of their policies, you undoubtedly benefit from their protection.

            There are just a few reasons to be patriotic.
        • RGWX, on 12/31/2007, -2/+2Now Ben...remember, you can't question their patriotism. ;) Digg is just a BASTION of American patriotism and belief in the future of our way of life...except for the lunatic Paulites, the 911 truthers, the emo kidz with their ragggggge against teh neokon fascists, the sloppy and reflexive leftists trotting out rhetoric that was tired in the 1970s, the delusional fools who mistake Olbermann for Murrow, the anti-Semites, the cheerleaders for Bin Laden and AQ, the America-is-the-root-of-all-evil, ***** Alex Jones acolytes, the fantasy impeachment league, the "we're morally equivalent to the terrorists" brigade and the rest.
          • benkrembs, on 12/31/2007, -0/+1D'oh.. right you are. My apologizes to the silent majority of Diggers who aren't in those fringe groups.
  • Niteryder, on 12/31/2007, -1/+3Well I would have to say we crossed the socialist line long ago. Are we safer from terrorists?
    Not really, are we safer from people in the government creating terrorist groups to use, to create
    National policy, no.
    Have we lost our nation to zealots who use religion and people of question mental and emotional ambitions, I would be inclined to say yes.
    Can we do something about it, without violence, I would be inclined to say yes.
    How? Stop buying products from China and India and buy nothing from Russia which is the next player they sold us out to.
    • r3negadeX, on 08/11/2008, -1/+1"Well I would have to say we crossed the socialist line long ago."
      We live under a corporate empire backed by the government....isn't that like, the opposite of Socialism?
    • InformedCrab, on 12/31/2007, -1/+1Good luck buying all-American with your income. I'm just assuming that you don't pull in much moneybucks, but hey, don't fault me for it, most diggers don't earn much at all.
      • Waterrat, on 01/02/2008, -0/+1 "Stop buying products from China and India "

        So that means when your motherboard dies,no more computer for you...Same for the TV set,microwave,the list goes on and on.
  • Tanbo, on 12/31/2007, -1/+2Whatever.
    The previous entities were non-democratic institutions, monarchies which are the equivalent of modern day dictatorships. They can make mistake after mistake, but their leadership would not change.

    We can change our leaders, across the board, and we do. In 1994 there was a Republican revolution in the House, and in 2006 we saw the beginnings of a revolution going the other way. Bush, hate him or love him, will be gone by 1/2009 along with his entire administration, bringing in new people, with new ideas and a new agenda.
    People change, ideas change. We now have a staunchly conservative Supreme Court - which has put the death penalty on indefinite hold!

    It is ludicrous to compare us to these previous regimes. As it is ludicrous to compare us to today's rising powers. Their economies would have to grow at 10% a year for the next 20-30 years (depending on the country), to catch up with us - IF we grow at 0% a year. That would presume a pretty flawless execution on their part - something countries like Japan and Germany ultimately failed to do.

    This article is buried!

    Peace
    • bullcutter, on 01/01/2008, -0/+2you're missing the point, all USans are evil and deserve to go down. i like the little addition the submitter gave to the title: "... the decline of the American Empire" isn't even part of the original article! they turned a inaccurate, ***** article into an offensively inaccurate, ***** article, but that's pretty much the essense of Digg I suppose.
  • fartbuttes, on 12/31/2007, -2/+3welp we had a pretty good run i think its about time we got a new republic anyways, clean house and freshen things up a bit, a few bloody civil wars, etc. i'm down.
  • Parisjune, on 12/31/2007, -2/+3Democracy is the problem. Not being a Republic. America isn't a democracy but we act like one. In a democracy people vote to "give" themselves things (programs, entitlements, subsidies, etc.) -- eventually the system breaks and goes bankrupt.
  • p51d007, on 12/31/2007, -3/+4Part of the problem with the economic decline, and industrial decline, is the amount of TAXES & REGULATIONS forced on businesses & people. To take 1/3 to 1/2 of someones wages in taxes, only to waste them is a crime. Passing the fair tax would bring such an influx of capital to the USA that you wouldn't know what to do with all the money!
    http://www.fairtax.org
    And before you poo-poo the fair tax READ THE ENTIRE THING. Usually, people say "but I don't want prices increased 23%". What they fail to realize is that the embedded tax on goods is between 21-23%.
    That means something that costs 400.00 today would cost 400.00 under the fair tax. Also, to those that
    say the "poor" would be hit hardest, Wrong again....you would get a prebate equal to the tax you would pay on the basic necessities of life. Plus, if you don't buy stuff, you don't pay any tax.
    And look at this......that 1/3 to 1/2 the government takes every month? How would you like to get that
    back instead of screwing around with tax forms trying to get it back?
    Part of the economics problem in this country can be summed up like this...
    Ask anyone how much they make...the majority will say "I take home X". No, that wasn't what I asked you, I asked you how much do you make. Then you get the deer in the headlights look. Most people
    don't get it, which is why it is hard to get congress to do anything about taxes. People are so accustomed to the government stealing part of their paycheck BEFORE they even get it, that they are use to it. How about eliminating the FICA deduction, giving that back to the people, and forcing them to write that check every month to the IRS.
    • mdcarso, on 12/31/2007, -1/+2Your 'fair tax' is just a shell game for the populace to buy into an Orwellian financial surveillance system. For your system to work, everyone would have to present an ID for every purchase. Most likely that would be a national ID. Why? Because any across-the-board sales tax would be riddled with holes by special interest groups (i.e. the poor, indigent, etc.) Therefore to determine whether a person pays the tax on an item, they would have to present an ID. Suddenly the government is tracking (for taxing purposes - yeah right) every purchases. Deeper into the surveillance state here we come.
    • Sdiggmatism, on 01/01/2008, -0/+0It isn't a shell game. It would work fine with the sales tax structure that's already in place. Any tax largely funded by a heavy sales tax won't happen for other reasons:

      It discourages consumption and the US runs on consumption. A tax structure that doesn't support consumption will not even be considered so don't talk about it or waste time thinking of another one.

      It taxes the rich and if you haven't learned anything else, learn that the rich never pay taxes. If there's a law that makes the rich pay taxes, it will change until that no longer occurs. Supporting anything that taxes the rich makes you look like an idiot. Making such a tax plan allows you to gather a list of idiots though I don't know what value such a list could be.

      >Passing the fair tax would bring such an influx of capital to the USA that you wouldn't know what to do with all the money

      Huh? You just said that all the tax money is wasted. More money == more waste, except that it won't be more money because the tax rate sounds like it would be levied to produce the same revenue.

      Tax the rich to piss them off. Don't tax the poor because there's too many of them. I see no tax revenue and lots of rich enemies.
  • kuzotz, on 12/31/2007, -1/+2The fact that we won't be a hegemon won't mean its the end of the world.

    We will not be in the lime light as often, and oh my god we might actually have to start going by the standards set by the UN, and ICC.
    Other than that. We will remain a wealthy country despite the fact that there is a lot of poverty within it. And we will continue to have large and diverse markets.

    • mdcarso, on 12/31/2007, -1/+1***** that house of imbeciles called the UN.
  • xGuerrillaRadio, on 12/31/2007, -2/+1If you find this interesting, I would strongly suggest that you read the book "Are We Rome?" by Cullen Murphy. It's a really insightful look at the parallels between present-day US and the late Roman empire.
  • olbap, on 12/31/2007, -1/+1Empires don't end, they simply transform.
  • mollerade, on 12/31/2007, -1/+1Usually they say history DOES repeat itself. Just an FYI.
  • lebaige, on 12/31/2007, -0/+1That's ridiculous to suggest all Republics end. At this point in history all Republics have not ended. This is just more sky is falling nonsense.
  • bloatedbelly, on 12/31/2007, -1/+0The elite's government FEARS you!!!!!!

    Their fear is manifested in the laws they pass. Here is a law banning what MANY of the Founders wrote is a RIGHT of citizens when a government no longer represents them:

    Section 2385. Advocating overthrow of Government

    Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or
    teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of
    overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or
    the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession
    thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by
    force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any
    such government; or
    Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any
    such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates,
    sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed
    matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity,
    desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any
    government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts
    to do so; or
    Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society,
    group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the
    overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or
    violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any
    such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes
    thereof -
    Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than
    twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by
    the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five
    years next following his conviction.
    If two or more persons conspire to commit any offense named in
    this section, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned
    not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for
    employment by the United States or any department or agency
    thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.
    As used in this section, the terms ''organizes'' and
    ''organize'', with respect to any society, group, or assembly of
    persons, include the recruiting of new members, the forming of new
    units, and the regrouping or expansion of existing clubs, classes,
    and other units of such society, group, or assembly of persons.


    The federal government is allowing MILLIONS of illegals to invade our country who are causing immense economic harm to America's working poor. Corporate America is becoming increasingly more powerful and influential. Yet, according to the government of for and by the elites YOU, a citizen, have to accept whatever the government does with NO recourse other than voting...... and there is sufficient proof that shows to me voting is worthless since the entrenched power structure ensures that the emplaced elite class can not be removed.

    Several Founders specifically wrote of the people's right to abolish a government when it no longer represents them.

    We are forced to live under an elite's TYRANNY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 52 of 52 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.