Trump’s CPAC rant: Cornucopia for psychiatric diagnosis

Scroll down for updates.

Trump walked out at CPAC and hugged the flag, for a second he rocked it back and forth as if he was dancing with it. I could say as if humping it but that would be rude.
If Trump planned to hug the flag prior to his entrance this would have a benign psychiatric explanation. If he did it on the spur of the moment I would wonder about his impulse control. If it was something in between and he got carried away and began to rock it back and forth a few times I’d begin to be concerned. This may seem to be a small thing, however, this is what clinicians look at when they do a psychological assessment. Unfortunately, the camera didn’t move to a close-up until he had started to hug the flag. Watch the video and see what you think.
The flag hugging and the bulls*it comment are making worldwide headlines. What must foreigners think of us?
As a clinician, I saw numerous signs of his deteriorating mental condition and this is just from the clips I watched. I can’t stand to watch the entire two hours.
Knowing he won’t ever get the Nobel Prize maybe he wants to get himself on Mt. Rushmore. I made two images before I decided to write a column to go with them.
Journalists watched the speech and selected choice segments to report on. They’re getting paid to do this. I’m not. So I admit my impressions came from the parts I’d seen and read about.
There is a cornucopia of clinical riches here from word salad to the looseness of associations. In psychiatry speaking in word salad “may describe a symptom of neurological or psychiatric conditions in which a person attempts to communicate an idea, but words and phrases that may appear to be random and unrelated come out in an incoherent sequence instead. Often, the person is unaware that he or she did not make sense. It appears in people with dementia and schizophrenia.Wikipedia

In psychiatry, loose associations (technically derailment, asyndesis, asyndetic thinking, knight’s move thinking, or entgleisen) is a thought disorder characterized by discourse consisting of a sequence of unrelated or only remotely related ideas. The frame of reference often changes from one sentence to the next.

“In a mild manifestation, this thought disorder is characterized by slippage of ideas further and further from the point of a discussion. Derailment can often be manifestly caused by intense emotions such as euphoria or hysteria. Some of the synonyms given above (loosening of association, asyndetic thinking) are used by some authors to refer just to a loss of goal: discourse that sets off on a particular idea, wanders off and never returns to it. A related term is tangentially—it refers to off-the-point, oblique or irrelevant answers given to questions. In some studies on creativity, knight’s move thinking, while it describes a similarly loose association of ideas, is not considered a mental disorder or the hallmark of one; it is sometimes used as a synonym for lateral thinking.” Wikipedia

I could go through the speech minute by minute and parse out examples of dangerous psychopathology.  I’ll never be put on an official panel to evaluate his fitness to serve on 25th Amendment evaluation because I’ve expressed too many public opinions about this, as have other mental health professionals like Bandy Lee, M.D., Lance Dodes, M.D., and John Gartner, Ph.D. the founder of the Duty to Warn group of mental health professionals, in which I was an early member.

If this speech doesn’t prompt a movement to invoke the 25th Amendment among Republicans I shudder to think of what has to do in order for them to recognize he is perilously close to making a decision that will have grave irrevocable consequences.

Afterword from Michael Gerson in The Washington Post: “What happens when a narcissist occupies the White House?

Most of our politics now consists of seeing the same horror from new angles. America has a president who respects no rule of morality, tradition or law that conflicts with his own immediate self-expression or gratification. His only self-limitation, apparently, is plausible deniability — a moral framework that seems to be based on old episodes of “The Sopranos.” This is narcissism that has slipped its leash, roaming wherever it wishes across the wide world, and in our heads.

Years ago, I posed the question: What happens when a narcissist who thinks he is at the center of the universe is actually placed at the center of the universe? We are seeing what happens. The whole apparatus of a political party — including its legislative and religious wings — is now dedicated to the defense of one man’s feral will.

Addendum 1: What may be the least unhinged and most strategic thing Trump may have said was that he had been joking when, at a press conference in July 2016, he encouraged Russia to find his rival Hillary Clinton’s missing 30,000 emails, and blamed the “sick” media for using it to incriminate him. Lame as it is, this is likely to have been a planned defense should he end up being impeached.

Addendum 2: What about the Goldwater rule which says it’s unethical for psychiatrists to publicly diagnose or assess a public figure?

I am not a psychiatrist and even if I were I would ignore this rule. The rule is from an association not a governmental body like a licensing board and is not binding. A psychiatrist who belongs to a professional organization has the option of quitting and it would be up to them if they did so to object to a rule they promulgated for their members. This would not affect their ability to practice.  I believe mental health professionals are justified in applying the duty to warn mandate they have with their actual clients to Trump because of exigent circumstances, i.e., his disorders make him unfit and dangerous to have the power of the president. I also believe mental health professionals are in a unique position by dint of their expertise to share their knowledge of psychopathology as it applies to a president like Donald Trump so laypersons can better understand what drives his behavior. Although I am not a psychoanalyst and not a member of their association I agree with their position on the Goldwater rule:

American Psychoanalytic Association Statement on “Goldwater Rule”New York – July 25th, 2017 – The American Psychoanalytic Association (APsaA) seeks to clarify statements made in a recent article in STAT. APsaA is an autonomous mental health professional association which represents psychoanalysts from all mental health professions and academia. Our members include psychiatrists, psychoanalysts, psychologists, psychotherapists, and social workers. In an email to association members, our leadership did not encourage members to defy the “Goldwater Rule” which is a part of the ethics code of a different mental health organization, the American Psychiatric Association (APA). Rather, it articulated a distinct ethics position that represents the viewpoint of psychoanalysts. The field of psychoanalysis addresses the full spectrum of human behavior, and we feel that our concepts and understanding are applicable and valuable to understanding a wide range of human behaviors and cultural phenomenon. Our position statement regarding commenting on public figures is available here. Some of APsaA’s members are psychiatrists, and some of these psychiatrists are members of the APA and other professional organizations.  Any member of a professional organization is responsible for following the ethics code of every organization they belong to.  APsaA has not made any statement that would intrude in the internal rules and governance of another organization.

UPDATE: Capitol Hill Blue is decidedly not the mainstream media.

Donald Trump’s CPAC speech was completely unhinged. Why didn’t media cover it that way? Mainstream media is downplaying Trump’s bizarre two-hour CPAC rant. Have they seriously learned nothing from 2016? Salon, Amanda Marcotte

Trump unleashed a two-hour-plus rant that sounded at times, more like the delusional ramblings of someone hopped up on drugs or suffering a mental breakdown than anything resembling a normal political speech.

If that sounds like an exaggeration informed by partisan bias — seriously, it’s not. Trump kicked the thing off by hugging the American flag, and that might have been the least strange part of the whole spectacle.


EXCERPT: Furthermore, assessing Trump’s psychology requires little speculation as we have available to us a life-long history of personal, romantic, business, and political relationships. With the exception of some of his predatory and criminal behavior, he has led his entire life in public. We know what he says and how he says it. Through his own words Trump has even let us in on what provokes him to act – primarily vengeance, vainglory, lust, greed, and an obsession with domination. It has been on this public stage, not behind closed doors, where we have witnessed him reward anyone who flatters him and punish those who fail to do so. His daily Twitter tantrums have constituted a kind of ongoing characterological EEG reading, as if the vicissitudes of his personality disorder produced brain waves that could be converted into a text form readable by all.

To discuss and explore his obvious psychopathology – a malignant narcissism and psychopathy that threatens us all – is not to adopt the Soviet-style use of psychiatric diagnosis in the service of political repression. Rather, as I will argue, it is understanding that can be put to emancipatory purposes. This is because knowing his psychology is central to the project of resisting his policies, and to the task of understanding his appeal to a significant plurality of Americans. If the central thesis of this essay is correct, that Trump’s pathology is isomorphic with his brand, then what may look to some of us as signs and symptoms of profound impairment is precisely what makes him the object of near delirious veneration on the part of his base. As he well understands, to them he can do no wrong. Or, rather, every wrong he commits is righteous.

UPDATE: Lawrence O’Donnell discussed Trump’s CPAC rant last night and quoted from the book “The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump.” Video story “bullsh*t” segment 6 minutes – this is only the first half of the segment.

UPDATES Mar. 6, 2019

REMEMBER, THERE ARE multiple reasons why Trump might cry foul and refuse to concede come 2020, and why he might also believe he could get away with it.
First, there is his personality. Trump is a malignant narcissist who values himself and his own advancement over everyone and everything else. Using and abusing his presidential powers to protect his prestige and position would be “very tempting” for him, to quote professor Bandy Lee, a forensic psychiatrist at the Yale School of Medicine and editor of the 2017 book “The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump: 27 Psychiatrists and Mental Health Experts Assess a President.”
“When you have extreme narcissism,” Lee told me on my podcast, “Deconstructed,” last month, “the danger of it is that one can quickly go to resorting to violence and resorting to extreme measures to move away from the possibility of humiliation and to project force.”
Another article, this is from an Australian website owned by Rupert Murdoch:
Excerpt: “He’s become more aware of what needs to happen so he can continue to be what he is [US president].”
“And he’s just getting a little bit more wary of how he does that.”
She says Mr Trump, will always believe he is “Teflon man” because the malignant narcissist personality type always believes that it is the cleverest and is always right.
“Absolutely he thinks he’s cleverer than all of us, that he’s the cleverest leader of all and ultimately this will be revealed and shown,” she says.
Equally, the malignant narcissist goes on the attack with critics, and will “lie with ease” and reshape facts to suit themselves — hence, she says, Mr Trump’s term “fake news”, for anything he doesn’t want to hear or which paints him in a less than adoring light.
He believes he’s always right, and anyone who thinks otherwise is out to get him.
“Malignant narcissists are dangerous in that they say essentially say “it doesn’t matter what it costs, I’ll get what I want”, she said.
“They can be concerned and empathetic — as long as it benefits them.”

She says Mr Trump has his eye firmly on the next election.

Third: “Something is seriously wrong with Donald Trump: Let’s stop kidding ourselves about that” by Bob Cesca, Salon

Whether it was genuine madness or all an act, Donald Trump’s CPAC creepshow was evidence of profound crisis

TWO EXCERPTS: If you’ve only watched the clips and highlights from Donald Trump’s CPAC speech last Saturday, you’re not getting the full picture of the explosive horror show that is the worsening status of the president’s mental health. For reasons that defy comprehension, I decided to watch the whole thing live. At the outset, I tweeted that given the Michael Cohen testimony in the immediate rear-view mirror, Trump’s CPAC speech was going to be “next level crazy.” In hindsight, I feel like I low-balled it.
Before we continue, I’d like to emphasize that I’m not a mental health professional, nor am I an expert in the pharmacological effects of cognitive enhancers like Adderall or Provigil to make a judgment call on the specifics of what’s wrong with the president. However, I can say with confidence that something’s extraordinarily wrong with him, and it’s only getting more dangerous for the nation and by extension the world as time advances.
The normalization of Trump’s unpredictable, spasmodic presidency, as well as the fact that so many of us don’t have the stomach to tolerate two-plus hours of watching him, are perhaps the only reasons why more Americans aren’t gathered as we speak, devising how best to legally remove him from office. For what it’s worth, I propose here and now that this conversation must begin in earnest.
Trump’s obvious mental instability and emotionally erratic behavior has reached a harrowing new depth. They need to be addressed by our political leadership with the same urgency as the myriad investigations into his crimes. This has to begin now before it’s too late. He will clearly do and say whatever it takes to secure his status, and it’s the presidency alone that’s keeping him out of federal prison. He’s at least competent enough to understand this, and he might be crazy enough to do anything to avoid accountability. We’re in new territory. There is no road map, and what we do now will determine whether Trump is the last Trump, or possibly the first of many Trumps along the not-so-lengthy journey into a permanent form of lunatic authoritarianism. It’s time to take his madness seriously now before he levels-up again.


Psychiatrist on Trump: “The president deserves medical standard of care, and he is not getting it”

Yale psychiatrist Bandy X. Lee examines President Donald Trump’s recent outbursts

A member of the public asked, “When Donald Trump wrapped his arms around the flag, it evoked Lennie from Of Mice and Men squeezing the mouse until it’s dead. Is the president going to destroy our country?”

I didn’t tell her this, but my answer would have been that he is well on the way, as long as we let him. How are we letting him? By colluding on the most basic point: by telling ourselves that the mental unwellness we see is not what we are seeing. Allowing him to give as long a speech as he did, allowing him to continue on Twitter, allowing him to remain in his position, and allowing his staff to turn over so that he has no one left but those who enable his illness—all this is the opposite of the proper treatment that he needs.

Containment and removal from access to weapons, urgent evaluation, and then the least restrictive means of management based on the evaluation, is the medical standard of care.

Even the president deserves medical standard of care, and he is not getting it. The natural course of disease is that it will engulf the afflicted persons and lead them to destruction, if left without resistance.


March 7, 2019: “Donald Trump’s 2020 re-election strategy: Scaring white people with threats of violence” by Chauncey DeVega in Salon

“Mentally unwell old man hugs American flag; rants about ‘socialism’ and ‘baby killers.'”

That’s not a headline from a local newspaper somewhere in rural America. Instead, it is an entirely factual description of Donald Trump’s speech last Saturday at the political rodeo and hate festival known as CPAC.


Copyright © 2019 Capitol Hill Blue

Was Trump’s treason willful or witless?

Alliteration alert: I admit that I am addicted to alliterations. So many come to mind when I think about Trump, treason, and Russia.

Most pundits who aren’t on the White House payroll or Fox News Trump toadies you are publicly pondering whether the president’s working to further Russian interests was done wittingly or witlessly. This is a critical, sometimes life or death, question when it’s decided in a court of law.  When it comes to the questions being asked about Trump and Russia now the court of public opinion it matters just as much in a different way.

The court of public opinion has the potential to sway the decision of the actual court which may eventually try Trump to see if he’s committed a high crime. No matter what that legal definition of treason is, when it come to removing the president it means whatever the Senators want it to mean.

If number one can be proved he must be impeached  and convicted forthwith. Whether we call it collusion, conspiracy, or simply his work as an agent furthering Russian interests it would be a dastardly deed done to further an enemy agenda. It would be treasonous if not literally treason. This is a crime which even in the 21st century would send a leader to the gallows in many countries. There would be no impeachment dragging on for months, no languishing in jail working with defense lawyers, and no endless appeals of sentencing dragging on for years. There would be a quick trial with the sentence carried out post-haste.

If he’s guilty I find it unfathomable to believe he doesn’t know it. Perhaps all his “no collusion” tweets were his attempt to convince himself as much as they were to persuade the public he was a victim of a witch hunt. Somewhere in his muddled mind he must know that

If number two is true then Trump is merely guilty of being a gullible goof gobsmacked by all these accusations. There are many letter D’s to describe such a brainlessly ignorant person staring with dumb and progressing though dolt, dense, dimwit or dimbulb, and dunderhead.

We know Trump is famously ignorant and unschooled in everything from science to international relations. We know he ignores the sensible and sometime vital-to-the national-interest advice coming from the experts working for him. However, it would take a light year-long leap of faith to believe he was so stupid to believe Putin over all his intelligence agents and that making decisions to Putin’s benefit was a mere coincidence because, well, he’s really been tougher on Russia than President Obama ever was.


Copyright © 2019 Capitol Hill Blue

Trumpology: Trump isn’t a pathological liar. He’s worse.

The occasional Trumpology series of columns are informed by my 40 years of experience as a clinical social worker and psychotherapist and my understanding of psychiatric diagnosis, psychology, and psychopathology as applied to Donald Trump who I consider to be a sadistic impulsive malignant narcissist.

If you Google Trump and pathological liar you will find numerous articles explaining the evidence to support the claim that he is a pathological liar. The Washington Post undertook the tedious but useful task of determining the veracity of his words and the count is now over 4,000 lies. They recently introduced a new category, the Bottomless Pinocchio.

The original Pinocchio is more like Trump than the sympathetic Disney version:

“Pinocchio’s bad behavior, rather than being charming or endearing, is meant to serve as a warning. Collodi originally intended the story, which was first published in 1881, to be a tragedy. It concluded with the puppet’s execution. Pinocchio’s enemies, the Fox and the Cat, bind his arms, pass a noose around his throat, and hang him from the branch of an oak tree.” (Wikipedia)

Clinically, Trump’s persistent lying does not make him a pathological liar. It makes him a persistent liar, but pathological lying has a different meaning.

Trump, in the medical and psychiatric sense, does suffer from a mixture of symptoms when, taken together, add up to psychopathology as described in the “bible” of the mental health profession, the American Psychiatric Association Diagnostic nd Statistical Manual (current edition DSM-5). Anyone can look up narcissistic personality disorder and antisocial personality disorder and go over the indications to make these diagnoses and apply them to Trump. The diagnosis that fits him to a “t” isn’t in the DSM-5 but many clinicians, myself included, think it applies to Trump. This is malignant narcissism.

Pathological lying which is also called pseudologia fantastica and mythomania is, (as per Wikipedia) “a behavior of habitual or compulsive lying.[1][2] It was first described in the medical literature in 1891 by Anton Delbrueck.[2] Although it is a controversial topic,[2] pathological lying has been defined as ‘falsification entirely disproportionate to any discernible end in view, may be extensive and very complicated, and may manifest over a period of years or even a lifetime’ ” (my emphasis added)

The reason Trump does not meet the criteria to be diagnosed as suffering from this disorder is emphasized in bold above. It is that most of his lies always serve a purpose. They range from self-aggrandizement (the size of his inauguration audience for example) to political (starting his run for president with two whoppers, the birther lie and the lie that rapists and criminals were flooding across our southern border) to the current flurry of lies which are attempts to save himself from impeachment or indictment, falsely accusing special counsel Mueller of having conflicts of interest and the staff led by the longtime Republican of being “angry Democrats” for example.

If Trump ever believes his lies this is symptomatic of a delusional disorder. That would mean that at least at times he is psychotic, indeed a troubling thought.

However it is more likely that his lies fit into the behavior repertoire of someone who is an anti-social personality, or to use the older and more common term, a sociopath.

Consider that lying is an aspect of anti-social personality:

a. Manipulativeness: Frequent use of subterfuge to influence or control others; use of seduction, charm, glibness, or ingratiation to achieve one’s ends.
b. Deceitfulness: Dishonesty and fraudulence; misrepresentation of self; embellishment or fabrication when relating events.

…and that lack of guilt is another characteristic of the disorder:

c. Callousness: Lack of concern for feelings or problems of others; lack of guilt or remorse about the negative or harmful effects of one’s actions on others; aggression; sadism as well as anger being a response to minor slights:
d. Hostility: Persistent or frequent angry feelings; anger or irritability in response to minor slights and insults; mean, nasty, or vengeful behavior.
There are many kinds of criminals. Think of a few television villains (I  contend Tony Soprano doesn’t fit, for example) and see how many meet the DSM-5 criteria for anti-social personality. You will find that some do and some don’t.
Then consider Donald Trump.

You be the judge.


Copyright © 2018 Capitol Hill Blue

Donald Trump: The stunted stunt man

Trump’s adult life consists of a series of stunts, as in the dictionary meaning of a number of feats, exploits or tricks. As a businessman in the rough and tumble New York City real estate world he managed to pull off the stunt of marketing himself though bravado, bluster, and bullshit and he got brick and mortar buildings constructed with his name as a selling point.

He managed to avoid various ignominious exposures as a con by persuading “marks” to invest in his projects and schemes. Until his income taxes are made public we may not have proof that some of his investors were Russian oligarchs. Getting that money was a major stunt for someone prone to declaring bankruptcy.

As for a comparatively minor stunt, we already know how he conned many unwitting students, or marks, into signing up to learn his secrets at Trump University.

Amazing, the final $25 million settlement in the suit filed by students who were defrauded wasn’t finally settled until April, 2018, something that barely made the news.

Trump pulled an extraordinary stunt on the nation. He went from being a rich New York playboy who was basically known locally because promoted himself to the local tabloids to becoming a national celebrity.

Of course the monumental stunt he pulled off was of historic proportions. This stunt was of truly Brobdingnanian proportions, an appropriate word because he runs an administration that belongs in a Jonathan Swift novel.  He fooled enough voters into believing he had what it took to be president.

One of his stunts was calling tabloid reporters claiming to be John Barron or John Miller to spin stories. This set off a minor controversy when it was reported by The Washington Post in May of 2016, and reported on in Fortune with the title Donald Trump’s Long, Strange History of Using Fake Names by Michael D’Antonio, author of Never Enough, a 2015 biography of Donald Trump, and A Consequential President, a 2017 book on the Presidency of Barack Obama.

Although many of us, myself included, never watched a single episode of the NBC show he hosted for 14 seasons. The premise of the show was itself a stunt, from what I gather from Wikipedia since the winner was based on supposedly objective measures but also subjective opinions of the host and his advisors. I am sure that the decision was most likely based on what would go over the best with the audiences.

The second definition of stunt or stunted involves growth that is inhibited, hampered, hindered, or retarded. In this case it refers to Trump’s emotional and psychological growth. In many of his behaviors he’s been compared to a four or six year old having a tantrum when he doesn’t get his way.

Many Trump stunts, too numerous to list, showed how emotionally stunted this grown man was.

For example, Trump became a regular on Howard Stern’s radio show which was nationally syndicated on land based radio between 1986-2005 and has since been broadcast on satellite radio.  In October 2016 Politico predicted that Trump’s outrageously misogyinistic comments on Stern’s show would come back to haunt him, for example:

It was on Stern’s show, after all, that Donald Trump, then a playboy real estate mogul, called former Miss Universe turned Hillary Clinton supporter Alicia Machado an “eating machine.” It was on Stern’s show that Trump now infamously said he supported the Iraq War (“I guess so”)—a recording that flatly disproves his countless claims he was against it. On Stern’s show, Trump also said it’s “hard to be a 10” if a woman is flat-chested and called the challenge of avoiding STDs his “personal Vietnam.” If the political class is appalled by the notion that anything from the morass of ’90s shock-jock radio could become part of a presidential race, it may be just as surprising to Stern’s fans, who proudly embraced the outsider-ness of a guy who couldn’t seem further from inside-the-Beltway political chatter.

Obviously nobody cared. Ironically the day after Politico published this article The Washington Post published what came to be called the Access Hollywood video and an accompanying article about then-presidential candidate Donald Trump and television host Billy Bush having “an extremely lewd conversation about women” in 2005.

Nobody cared.

Flash-forward to today. Those who are paying attention have heard the word stunt used quite appropriately to describe what Trump has just done. This is his sending American troops to the Texas border. There they are eating MRI’s, sleeping in 24-person tents, using port-a-potties, and posing for photo ops as they uncoil totally unnecessary barbed wire. This is nothing more than a pre-election stunt which he has had to continue with lest he be exposed as the stunted stuntman he is.


Copyright © 2018 Capitol Hill Blue

The corporate state

The Supreme Court has put what will prove to be the nearly final nail in the coffin of democracy in its 5-4 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission by removing limits on corporate campaign contributions. While the latest blow came from a Roberts Court, the underpinnings of this disaster go all the way back to the Court finding that corporations are citizens for purposes of the law. Once having given birth to a new class of “citizens” in the corporate form, the ground was set for the final takeover of American politics. Today’s decision is as far reaching as the SCOTUS’ 2000 putsch installing Bush as President. Both decisions are based on the thinnest of Constitutional principles and make clear the 5 Justice majority of this right wing enemy of freedom will go to any lengths to support the “golden revolution.”

For those who may need a bit of historical reference on this issue, the most important decision leading to the Citizens United ruling was that in First Nat. Bank of Boston v. Bellotti which was the first to anoint an artificial entity (corporations) as citizens entitled to the protection under the Constitution. A corporation is not a person in reality, it is a collection of persons who have banded together for purposes of making money. Of course each of the persons who have decided they want the protections afforded this artificial entity are entitled to the same freedoms as any other person in the United States. But why the corporation itself should be afforded status as a person is a step of logic that only those who are enemies of democracy and citizen control over government would favor.

Despite this fundamentally flawed ruling, the Supreme Court ruled in Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce that upheld the limits on corporate spending struck down in today’s ruling by recognizing a new governmental interest in preventing “the corrosive and distorting effects of immense aggregations of [corporate] wealth . . . that have little or no correlation to the public’s support for the corporation’s political ideas.” The new decision by the SCOTUS specifically overruled this rationale thereby declaring that the government has no such interest and even if it does, the corporate interest in buying elections supersedes it.

The corporation as citizen decision looms as one of the most devastating since the Dred Scott debacle. With the Citizens United ruling there it is unclear if any restrictions on corporations can be imposed by Congress or the states with regard to campaigns and the political process. Corporations, which now own nearly every aspect of life in America, are now free to complete their take over of the entire political process.

They already have nearly complete control over Congress through lobbying and other means of political extortion. They are already able through PAC’s to dominate elections.  Now they will not need to go through this subterfuge any more and they are free to directly fund all the elections they wish. How can citizens hope to have any impact on democratic institutions when they will be outspent by corporations.

This threat applies to both right, left and center politics. Some will say that the decision not only favors corporations but unions as well. That is an illusion.  Corporate wealth dwarfs unions abilitiy to provide political funding by many billions of dollars. The real victim in this decision is you and I, people who struggle to redirect this government, whether to the right, left or simply toward good government. It is we who have lost all hope of impacting future elections.

We have today witnessed as effective a takeover of government as if bayonet wielding troops had ransacked Washington D.C. This “golden revolution” is breathtaking if it were not so diabolical. Elections which already were tweedle dee and tweedle dum are now simply shadow matches to keep us occupied while big money interests complete their pillaging of our nation.

Election “surprises” such as the Massachusetts GOP upset are nothing compared to the impact of this decision by the SCOUTS. Democracy is over. Long live the corporation.