READING FASCIST ITALY BY ALAN CASSELS, ONE COULD BE TEMPTED TO DRAW PARALLELS WITH THE TRUMP 2.0 ADMINISTRATION. YET THERE ARE MANY DIFFERENCES, THE MAIN ONE OF WHICH IS THAT MUSSOLINI WAS PREPARING FOR WAR, WHILE TRUMP HATES WAR... INSTEAD OF USING NINGNONGS AND IMBECILIC SYCOPHANTIC MANAGERS (MINISTERS), TRUMP IS USING CAPTAINS OF INDUSTRY AND THE "RICHEST GUY" ON THE PLANET. WHILE MUSSOLINI WAS DOING FASCISM LIKE A WAR — FOR GLORY AND POWER — TRUMP IS RUNNING HIS ADMINISTRATION LIKE A BUSINESS, FOR SUCCESS AND IMPROVING THE CASH FLOW (PROFITS)...

HERE IS A SHORT EXTRACT FROM FASCIST ITALY:

... Fascist party officials sat alongside the syndical representatives in order to lay down the party line. Corporative agencies became merely rubber stamps for decisions taken elsewhere, usually in the Fascist Grand Council.

But, if ineffectual, the corporative system provided an arsenal of bureaucratic jobs for the party faithful. Moreover, many of these place-holders, in collusion with much of the business community, found in the corporative state opportunities for speculation on a grand scale. Most celebrated in this respect were the relatives and friends of Clara Petacci. Mussolini was always indulgent toward dishonesty in others — perhaps it satisfied his craving to feel superior — so the Petacci clan and similar parasites flourished unchecked. The situation was a replica of that in the heyday of liberal Italy [GUS' BOLD]. The parliamentary dictators of the pre-1914 era and the Fascist Duce alike were greedy for power but not wealth, and lived austere lives. Nevertheless, the machinery of both the liberal and the Fascist corporative state was oiled by bribes, the sale of favors, and corruption in general.

In sum, then, corporative theory constituted a not unintelligent reaction to the fragmentation of modern society. But its application in Fascist Italy was an elaborate fraud. In this, the corporative state was a true child of Mussolini: the great poseur brought forth an organism that was a travesty of what it purported to be.

At least the lip service paid to corporativism indicated that a Fascist regime would have no scruples about intervening in Italy’s economic process. Ironically, Mussolini's first finance minister, Alberto de Stefani, was an orthodox laissez-faire theorist, but he was replaced in 1925 by Giuseppe Volpi. Volpi was a spokesman for commerce and industry, and molded state action for the benefit of these interests. Higher tariffs, lower corporate taxes, and government contracts provided another likeness to liberal Italy, wherein the nexus between government and capital had been notoriously close. The trend to government patronage of selected businesses was quickened by the Great Depression of the early 1930's, the most notable innovation being the Istituto per la ricostruzione industrial (I.RI.), a state-financed rescue operation for shaky concerns. For the most part, the big companies received I.R.I. help, while small businesses were allowed to go to the wall. The net result was a significant increase in monopolies and trusts.

Mussolini was fundamentally ignorant of economics. He personally promoted a number of schemes, but his motivation was seldom, if ever, Italy's economic health. His prime concern was for prestige and propaganda. Thus, in 1926, Mussolini insisted that for reasons of national pride the international value of the lira be kept up. Its stabilization by the end of 1927 at an artificially high rate created endless difficulties for Italian exporters and serious deflation at home. 

Similarly, land reclamation was at the mercy of the Duce's showmanship. The Pontine Marshes, close to Rome and within the purview of foreign visitors, were the subject of a model project. But elsewhere money and good intentions were dissipated by dishonest contractors. And the Mezzogiorno, where land reclamation was crucial, remained sunk in poverty.

Mussolini liked to envisage his economic plans as military campaigns. Hence, the "battle for births." although Italy was grossly overpopulated in relation to her economic resources and her main emigration outlet in the New World had just been closed. Then there was the "battle for grain," whereby increased domestic production enabled grain imports to be cut by 75 percent between 1925 and 1935. On the other hand, this was accomplished at the cost of reducing Italy's total agricultural output because so much land suitable for fruit or grazing was foolishly planted with wheat. Both these "battles" were launched in support of a militarist foreign policy. 

Mussolini openly admitted that the goal of his demographic campaign was more cannon fodder. The concentration on grain stemmed from the desire for self-sufficiency, or autarchy, in case of war. After the League of Nations briefly imposed economic sanctions on Italv in 1935-36. the Fascist drive for autarchv accelerated. This determination to put the country on a war footing led to economic controls that dismayed many in the business community.

TRUMP HATES THE IDEA OF CANNON FODDER... WE SHALL SEE...

READ FROM TOP.

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.

Dennis Kucinich: The Cost of Freedom

Our government is drowning in multi-trillion-dollar financial corruption and debt while a fear-peddling national security state has reached deeply into the personal lives of each and every American, justifying its existence through endless wars cooked up by a deep state that has become the most corrupt marching band and chowder society in American history.

That deep state of permanent governance, entrenched media, think tanks, NGOs, and multi-billion-dollar government contractors, notwithstanding elections, has demanded US taxpayers pay additional TRILLIONS for wars, for subsidizing conflicts in other countries, for secret and not-so-secret arms deals to “rebels” for regime change, subverting governments through the pretext of foreign aid.

The government that we have succeeded most in subverting is our own.

There is an undeniable link between fiscal integrity and the preservation of our freedoms as Americans. When government becomes corrupt, it erodes not only our personal liberties and financial security, but also fosters a culture of lawlessness in both the public and private sectors. 

In order to restore our nation’s values, all three branches of government must demonstrate rigorous oversight, discipline, and integrity. Our nation requires an honest media. We must remain vigilant in holding government officials accountable. Government is too important to our lives to be left up to only those who govern.

The constitutional crisis in the form of massive federal government financial corruption looms like a giant iceberg about to sink the Ship of State. Unless its course is corrected, and soon, our nation will perish in a sea of deficits as private interests swim shark-like to feast on corpus America.

The corruption has been institutionalized in the federal budget. It has been normalized as standard operating procedure. The waste of taxpayers’ money is ubiquitous — trillions for wars, trillions in waste, fraud, and abuse. Trillions have been lost in an accounting jumble. This has been our government’s system of checks and balances: The Administration writes the checks, and Congress doesn’t know what the balance is. Is it possible that change is coming?

Congress, which by the Constitution must pass a budget, places spending bills from all federal departments into an “omnibus bill.” “Omnibus” is Latin for “budget-busting.” Most members do not know what is in the $7.3 Trillion spending bill, and those who do aren’t talking.

Welcome to America’s version of Dante’s Inferno, where in the ninth and lowest concentric circle of Hell, Cocytus, those who betrayed their countries are cast. Here is the final unresting place for those who spun the damnable lies that took us into a $3 trillion war against Iraq, which resulted in an unforgivable hemorrhage of American treasure and blood that destroyed Iraq, killing one million Iraqi men, women and children.

The Iraq War, which began under the Bush administration, turned into a budget bacchanal of bribery, bilking, blight, and betrayal. Vice President Dick Cheney, who had been CEO of Halliburton, a major defense contractor, stood to indirectly benefit from government contracts awarded to his former company during the war.

Halliburton was awarded lucrative no-bid contracts to rebuild Iraq’s oil infrastructure and provide logistical support to the U.S. military, bringing in billions of dollars. Cheney’s ties to Halliburton raised questions about potential conflicts of interest. Cheney’s former company was found to have overcharged the government and failed to deliver on its contracts in Iraq.

As a member of the House of Representatives (1997-2013), on the floor of the House, I consistently called out corruption, and also within the Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Through two Presidential campaigns (2004 and 2008), I worked to end perpetual war, the waste of money and lives that war creates, and to refocus our resources to America’s needs at home.

Over the years, I called for an end to the systemic waste, fraud and abuse plaguing war spending, including the trillions of dollars spent on the Iraq War and other military conflicts. I introduced multiple pieces of legislation, including measures to hold defense contractors accountable, strengthen oversight mechanisms, and enforce stricter regulations to prevent corruption in federal contracts. It is one thing to criticize a system. It is another thing to relentlessly work to change it.

Examples of My Efforts in Congress:

2003-2007: Led efforts in the Oversight and Government Reform Committee to scrutinize defense spending, especially contracts awarded to companies like Halliburton, to ensure taxpayer dollars were not being wasted or siphoned off into private hands. During this period, I made multiple floor speeches highlighting the lack of accountability in the U.S. military’s procurement processes and demanded comprehensive audits.

2007: Introduced H.R. 2042, the “Contractor Accountability Act of 2007,” requiring the Department of Defense to report on waste and fraud in military contracts, particularly those related to the Iraq War. This was a direct response to massive issues with no-bid contracts awarded to companies with ties to high-ranking government officials, such as Halliburton.

2009-2012: Urged Congress to conduct investigations into the billions of dollars spent on “reconstruction” projects in Iraq that failed to materialize or were poorly managed. I consistently pushed for more robust transparency and oversight measures, speaking out against the disastrous consequences of unchecked spending in conflict zones.

2011-2012: As a ranking member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, I called for audits on military contractors and their role in fueling waste and corruption. One of the biggest examples I highlighted was the $61 million overcharge by Halliburton for transporting oil into Iraq.

Call for Expanded Oversight: USAID and Other Agencies

In addition to the scrutiny of military contracts, I repeatedly called for comprehensive oversight of U.S. foreign aid and development programs. USAID has long been a channel through which billions of taxpayer dollars have been funneled abroad, often with little accountability or transparency. For years, I pushed for the auditing and review of USAID’s operations, specifically targeting the lack of measurable results in the countries it sought to “help.”

One of the most glaring examples came in the early 2000s, when billions in USAID funds were allocated to countries like Afghanistan and Iraq for reconstruction and development. There was little oversight into how those funds were being used, leading to ineffective and sometimes outright fraudulent projects.

I demanded oversight into USAID’s practice of funneling funds to for-profit companies, without competitive bidding and called for legislation enforcing stricter accountability measures.

The Pushback

My efforts to root out waste, fraud, and corruption in military spending were often met with harsh criticism from both the mainstream media and political opponents, who characterized my calls for accountability as naive, unrealistic and damaging to national security.

The Wall Street Journal, in an editorial, called my opposition to military interventions misguided, suggesting that my views were out of touch with the political mainstream. Politico went as far as to label my approach idealistic and impractical.

On the political front, many of my Republican colleagues dismissed my positions as unpatriotic, arguing that scrutinizing defense spending would weaken the country’s ability to defend itself. But the problem wasn’t just with Republicans.

Democratic leadership, despite campaigning on promises to end wars, repeatedly voted to fund them once in office. Key figures like Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton supported the Iraq War authorization in 2002, and President Obama, despite vows to withdraw, continued the Iraq War and expanded military actions into Syria and Libya.

This hypocrisy—condemning endless wars while funding and escalating wars—allowed the military-industrial complex to thrive, betraying both the promises of peace and the trust of the American people.

The First Trump Administration

Unlike his Democratic predecessors, President Trump did not initiate new military conflicts during his first term. While the U.S. remained engaged in existing wars, particularly in Syria and Afghanistan, Trump made efforts to reduce troop deployments and avoid escalating military action. This stood in stark contrast to the actions of previous Democratic administrations, which, despite campaign promises to end wars, continued or expanded military engagements once in office.

Trump’s stance on reducing foreign military involvement marked a departure from the longstanding cycle of military escalation under Democratic leadership. Yet, even as he moved toward peace and restraint abroad, his first administration’s approach to military spending remained largely influenced by the military-industrial complex—a reality he must confront more directly in his 2025 agenda.

The Trump administration’s fiscal approach was entrenched in the military-industrial complex. Trump advocated for increasing military spending, and in 2019, his administration requested $732 billion for the Department of Defense for FY2020 alone—reflecting a continuation of the military-driven fiscal expansion.

Notably, the Trump administration also continued to rely heavily on private military contractors, that flourished during this period. With little oversight, defense spending and contracts grew, with military companies like Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and Boeing benefiting enormously.

One of the more controversial policies was the Trump administration’s continued involvement in the war in Afghanistan, where taxpayer dollars were flowing into both military operations and private contractors, despite bipartisan calls for an end to the conflict.

The second Trump Administration must focus on rooting out the massive, systemic corruption and corporate giveaways that continue to drain our resources and undermine our national security.

Will President Trump now reign in military spending and fight the entrenched interests that have profited from endless war?

The Biden Administration:

The Biden administration’s 2023 budget proposed a military spending request of $813 billion. This included funds for continued involvement in global conflicts, counterterrorism operations, and military contractors.

While the Biden administration has faced criticism for its handling of the war in Afghanistan, it also made efforts to address the domestic impacts of military spending, focusing on rebuilding infrastructure and increasing social safety nets. 

However, waste, fraud, and abuse continued to plague the system. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), for example, reported more than $100 billion in improper Medicare and Medicaid payments in 2023, echoing concerns about the massive inefficiencies within federal spending.

With Dick Cheney’s endorsement of the 2024 Democratic presidential nominee, the Democrats were officially recognized as the war contractors’ party, with Trump as a threat to business as usual.

Cheney’s endorsement of the Democratic nominee marked a pivotal shift in the political landscape, where the party that once claimed to stand against endless wars had now fully embraced the military-industrial complex.

It’s encouraging to see that in recent years a growing number of Americans and lawmakers are beginning to recognize the dangers of unchecked military spending and corruption. However, the consequences of years of waste, fraud, and abuse will take years to undo. The growing recognition of the necessity of reform must translate into transparency and fiscal discipline.

This Administration must be made aware of glaring examples of waste and corruption, which, in the past, became “business as usual:”

$10 Billion in Cash…Vanished

After the U.S. invasion of Iraq, over $10 billion in freshly minted $100 bills, shrink-wrapped into bundles of $75,000 each, were placed on skids and loaded onto a C-130 transport to be flown from the United States directly to the U.S.’ Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) in Baghdad.

Over $10 BILLION in CASH disappeared in an orgy of corruption, ultimately ending up in the hands of enemies of the United States. That the money derived from proceeds from the sale of Iraq oil compounded the corruption, placing an exclamation point on zero accountability in protecting Iraq’s money or, as you will see, the taxpayers.

A Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan estimated the cost of waste, fraud, and abuse to be upwards of $60 BILLION, deriving from a lack of oversight, no internal controls in keeping track of who received the money, who spent it, and what it was spent for—and if indeed its purpose was accomplished.

A 2007 audit of Iraq Reconstruction couldn’t determine how $1.3 BILLION for Iraq internal security was spent.

Well-connected government contractors cashed in, overcharging the government for tens of millions, notably Halliburton, which overcharged the government $61 million for transporting oil into Iraq.

DynCorp nicked U.S. taxpayers for millions, inflating Iraq contract costs and billing the U.S. for unauthorized projects, like an Olympic-sized swimming pool built in a war zone.

RTX (Raytheon) was caught in a web of no-bid contracts, involving bribery, fraud, lying about labor and material costs, and double-billing. RTX (Raytheon) paid back $950 million in a settlement last October.

Trillions of hard-earned U.S. taxpayer dollars were spent on a war based on lies, notably the biggest one: that Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) ready to use against the U.S. Iraq did not.

Years later, the WMDs have been discovered, not in Iraq, but in Washington. Lying is a Weapon of Mass Destruction. Corruption is a Weapon of Mass Destruction. A $37 trillion dollar deficit is a Weapon of Mass Destruction.

This is the war machine of wealth transfer at work. Each conflict escalates the flow of public money into private hands, further enriching defense contractors, military suppliers, and multinational corporations, while the costs of war—lives lost, communities shattered, and nations destabilized—are borne by the public. The more destruction and chaos generated abroad, the more contracting opportunities arise, providing new revenue streams for those who profit off the war economy.

The federal government needs to be cleaned from top to bottom. It must align with the principles expressing the connection between honest government and freedom. Those principles were implicit in Benjamin Franklin’s warning to the Constitutional Convention on September 17, 1787, in which he forecast the insidious danger and reciprocal nature of a corrupt government that corrupts the public and thereby induces despotism:

“… I think a General Government necessary for us, and there is no form of government, but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe further that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government.”

As he was leaving Independence Hall, Franklin was asked by Elizabeth Willing Powell, “Doctor, what have we got? A republic or a monarchy?”

His reply, bids us to be eternally vigilant citizens, if we are to remain free:“A Republic, if you can keep it.”

https://scheerpost.com/2025/02/16/dennis-kucinich-the-cost-of-freedom/

READ FROM TOP.

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.

HYPOCRISY ISN’T ONE OF THE SINS OF THE TEN COMMANDMENTS.

HENCE ITS POPULARITY IN THE ABRAHAMIC TRADITIONS…