Cake & Steak
What I'm about to share with you today may be very shocking and sickening. However, there is a way to move from the appalling way our country's political and economic leaders have chosen money over people.
In today's post, I will introduce you to John Perkins. He is the author of a trilogy named Confessions of an Economic Hit Man. Consequently, he focuses on how people like him helped the U.S. government and corporations colonize countries with the resources they wanted, like oil. As a result, Economic hit men (EHM) are highly paid professionals who cheat countries around the world out of trillions of dollars.
Meanwhile, John goes on to describe the ways the EHM model is adapted to exploit our own U.S. citizens. To clarify, two recent rulings – one by the Justice Department and the other by the Supreme Court.
Citizens United(?)
These new rulings have given Corporate hitmen tools that upgrade their powers to alarming new levels and will contribute to the colonization (settling among and controlling indigenous people) of America by powerful corporations.
In the past few blogs, I have shared my insights regarding Visa and Mastercard's loan shark lending practices. Likewise, I have written about the $17 million reduction in the L.A. fire department. In addition, FEMA received $29B from a supplemental funding bill passed in December 2024 totaling $110 billion. In each of these stories, three major private equity/financial services companies are the major shareholders who benefit. These names came up in each story: BlackRock, State Street, and Vanguard.
Are you human?
So, what do John Perkins's EHM books have to do with today's post? I recently came across an article he wrote that supported his thesis that corporations are using these hit men to "legally" remove any impediments to legal action against their companies.
For example, after being accused of conspiracy to defraud the United States for its role in two fatal 737 Max crashes, Boeing has reached a deal with the Justice Department whereby the corporation pleads guilty to one conspiracy charge. As a result, Boeing will pay up to $487 million in fines — a fraction of the $24.8 billion sought by the families of crash victims. Although the corporation pleaded guilty, no Boeing executives face criminal charges.
Therefore, corporations that have the rights of individuals can plead guilty to a coverup that killed 346 people, but no one is held accountable. To be clear, the prosecution did not charge any Boeing executives or individuals involved in the conspiracy and subsequent coverup with a crime.
On the record
Here is an excerpt from the New York Times:
According to the charges, the company defrauded the Federal Aviation Administration while certifying the 737 Max to carry its first passengers. Consequently, investigations revealed a design flaw in its autopilot system. Boeing has admitted responsibility for the fatal crashes and that its employees withheld information about the design flaw from the FAA during certification.
In January 2021, the federal prosecutors and Boeing agreed to settle criminal charges and defer any prosecution on the matter. Subsequently, during a three-year probationary period, Boeing agreed to improve its quality issues and transparency with the government.
Meanwhile, In May [2024], the DOJ said it was looking into bringing criminal charges against Boeing once again due to a potential violation of that January 2021 agreement. Boeing had argued in its court filings that it did not violate the contract and should be spared prosecution. Sunday night's guilty plea, which came minutes before a midnight deadline set by the DOJ, settled that issue.
Money shouldn't talk
In other words, this "deal" is heavily biased in favor of the executives and wealthy investors. To clarify, Boeing employees "withheld information," and executives whose annual compensation is in the millions of dollars conspired to hide criminal acts from a federal agency and the public. And ultimately, no one person is responsible.
Who are the top three shareholders of Boeing Corp, you may ask? The institutional investors who own most of Boeing's shares include Vanguard Group, BlackRock, Newport Trust, and State Street Corp.
Likewise, How much of Boeing's annual revenue comes from the U.S. taxpayer? In 2023, Boeing reported total revenues of approximately $77.7 billion. Of this, 37%—about $28.7 billion—was derived from U.S. government contracts, including foreign military sales.
Follow the money, again
In addition, foreign governments accounted for an extra 3% of Boeing's revenue, bringing the total from government sources to 40%. Moreover, Boeing's Defense, Space & Security segment, which primarily handles government contracts, generated revenues of $24.9 billion in 2023.
In short, this indicates that a significant portion of the U.S. government-related revenue comes from this segment. Therefore, approximately 37% of Boeing's annual revenue is from the U.S. government (we, the people).
Finally, as of 2018, Boeing is the largest U.S. aircraft builder, constituting approximately 44% of the U.S. commercial aircraft fleet, with 3,226 out of 7,356 aircraft. The Boeing 737 was particularly prevalent, accounting for 26% of all commercial airliners globally.
Secondly, Lockheed Martin – While primarily focused on military aircraft, provides the L-1011 TriStar. In third place is Gulfstream Aerospace (owned by General Dynamics), a leading U.S. aircraft manufacturer for private and corporate aviation.
Blind Justice
Guess who the leading shareholders are for all of these companies? Yep, BlackRock, State Street, and Vanguard.
Why do large corporations get away with illegal practices? According to Perkins, highly paid Corporate Hit Men (lawyers, lobbyists, politicians, and consultants) can corrupt government officials through bribes and threats (that aren't considered illegal because they've been codified [systematized] into laws).
Meanwhile, the Court's decision in late June 2024 to restrict the regulatory authority of federal agencies is a significant blow to the rights of Americans' protection against exploitative and illegal actions by corporations.
The recent Supreme Court ruling could significantly weaken or eliminate thousands of federal regulations on environmental protection, healthcare, worker rights, food and drug safety, telecommunications, and financial oversight.
You be the judge
Consequently, this decision marks a major victory for conventional activists who have long sought to reduce the power of federal agencies. They argue that the courts—not administrative bodies—should interpret laws. Experts warn that essential regulations affecting Americans' daily lives, from clean air and water to workplace protections, may now face legal challenges and potential rollbacks.
Moreover, this ruling reflects a broader shift in judicial philosophy, favoring corporate interests (money) and limiting regulatory oversight. Critics highlight the irony of a court system that recently sided with Boeing executives over victims while simultaneously stripping regulatory agencies of their enforcement powers.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court is facing historically low approval ratings amid allegations of judicial corruption, and concerns are growing over the increasing influence of corporate-backed legal activism in reshaping U.S. governance.
The ruling class
To be clear, congress changes the laws based on the people's will. The DOJ, the Supreme Court, and the regulatory agencies do not establish regulations. Further, until this recent ruling, it was the job of trained experts at the regulatory agencies to enforce rules made by our elected representatives. This ruling transfers that job to lawyers and judges who often lack education or knowledge in specific areas.
I'll leave you with this quote from a movie I love. In It's a Wonderful Life, during Henry Potter's scene with George Bailey, Potter harshly criticizes George's father, Peter Bailey. Potter calls Peter Bailey a "miserable failure" and dismisses his belief in helping people by providing affordable loans to people who otherwise couldn't get one. He tells George: "Peter Bailey was not a businessman. That's what killed him. Oh, I don't mean any disrespect, George, but it's a fact.
Grace
I agree with Potter; Peter Bailey was not a businessman; he was a human being who valued people over pure profit. We are not talking about making a good living and paying a fair price for services rendered. No, we are at an inflection point where all the information you need is in front of you right now. To be clear, no fighting is required, only being with the uncomfortable truth and deciding whether to participate with those companies or products. The choice is always yours.
In conclusion, I'll leave you with the image of George Bailey and a quote I had not noticed until Christmas of 2024. "All you can take with you is that which you've given away."
