Posts filed under 'FICTIONAL FREEDOM'
September 19th, 2007
By: Carolyn Baker of Speaking Truth to Power
s nightfall does not come all at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there is a twilight when everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such a twilight that we all must be aware of change in the air-however slight-lest we become unwilling victims of the darkness. ~Justice William O. Douglas~
In April, 2007 I was pleasantly surprised to find Naomi Wolf’s article, “Fascist America, In 10 Easy Steps” posted in several places online. I have been a fan of Wolf for many years, greatly appreciating her works and especially her 1991 book, The Beauty Myth. I had been looking for a list-or more specifically, an encyclopedia of the losses of civil liberties in the United States that might clarify for my history students the extent to which America has become a fascist empire. Wolf’s “10 Easy Steps” was perfect, but her just-published book, The End Of America: Letter Of Warning To A Young Patriot, from which the 10 easy steps was compiled, offers an even fuller picture-a succinct and engaging explanation of how our civil liberties have been hijacked in the past decade. It is the most poignant, powerful, genuinely patriotic piece of literature I have encountered since Thomas Paine’s Common Sense. No wonder then, that the book’s cover greatly resembles that 46-page tract by Paine written in 1775-as well it should.
One of the most frightening realities of teaching college history is that most students rarely have a clue what fascism is. They know about Hitler and the extermination of Jews, but they see little connection with Nazi rule in the 1930s and 40s and the current political milieu in the United States. Overwhelmingly, they cannot define fascism, nor can they define socialism or democracy. After all, they were pre-occupied during grammar school with becoming standardized human beings by way of taking standardized “No Child’s Behind Left” tests, five hours a day, four days a week. So why would they know the definitions of fascism, socialism or democracy?
Refreshingly, Wolf is not shy about using the term fascism and lets the reader know why. “I have made a deliberate choice in using the terms fascist tactics and fascist shift when I describe some events in America now. I stand by my choice. I am not being heated or even rhetorical; I am being technical.” (20) She explains that where Americans tend to see the various political “isms” as all-or-nothing, that perception is often inaccurate because of what she calls a “range of authoritarian regimes, dictatorships, and varieties of Fascist states…there are many shades of gray on the spectrum from an open to a closed society.” (20)
Wolf also emphasizes that America has flirted with fascism openly in the 1930s when numerous corporations and robber barons helped finance Hitler and when as Edwin Black notes in IBM And The Holocaust, some American corporations assisted the Nazi regime in carrying out its “final solution” to the “Jewish problem.” In fact, several of these corporate tycoons attempted to stage a coup d’ etat to overthrow Franklin Roosevelt in 1933 and restructure the American government under fascist control. A thorough investigation of American politics and society from the end of the Civil War until the present moment reveals, as I have carefully traced in my book U.S. History Uncensored: What Your High School Textbook Didn’t Tell You, that much of recent American history is replete with a preference on the part of corporations and the politicians they own for an economic and political system on the far right end of the spectrum. In fact, resistance to fascism in the United States has been an arduous and daunting struggle for those who have been able to understand and oppose the appeal that fascism has to the corporatocracy, and in fact, take seriously Mussolini’s fundamental definition of fascism: “Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power.”
As an historian who views American history as the complex unfolding of events that it is, I feel invigorated upon hearing someone like Wolf-especially the Wolf of feminist Beauty Myth fame-part company with the presentation of the Founders as “dead white men” inwardly tormented by various hypocrisies, such as the ownership of slaves and the subordination of women. Yes, Jefferson owned slaves and fathered six children by one of them, but what gets lost in that drama and other colorful stories of the Founders is that they were also thinking, speaking, and writing highly subversive thoughts. “You are not taught,” says Wolf, that “these men and women were radicals for liberty; that they had a vision of equality that was a slap in the face of what the rest of their world understood to be the unchanging, God-given order of nations; and that they were wiling to die to make that desperate vision into a reality for people like us, whom they would never live to see.” (27) I do not wish to romanticize the Founders and their generation living in a milieu replete with racism, misogyny, and classism, but neither will I throw their achievements out with the bathwater of political correctness, nor is Wolf willing to do so in her examination of them.
In the “10 easy steps” outlined by Wolf, countries move from open to closed and repressive societies by devolving past certain markers, and Wolf makes a powerful case for the way in which the United States is following a similar pattern without any significant deviation. In each instance she compares and contrasts how America’s adherence to the pattern compares or contrasts with the pattern in pre-World War II Germany. The 10 steps are:
- Invoking an external and internal threat
- Establishing secret prisons
- Developing a paramilitary force
- Surveiling ordinary citizens
- Infiltrating citizens’ groups
- Arbitrarily detaining and releasing citizens
- Targeting key individuals
- Restricting the press
- Casting criticism as “espionage” and dissent as “treason”
- Subverting the rule of law
As noted in the quote from Justice Douglas above, the fascist shift is a protracted process; it never happens overnight, and in U.S. History Uncensored, I offer an historical narrative describing exactly how we have arrived where we are-at “the end of America”. Some aspects of the process were generated before the U.S. Civil War, but our recent history is nothing less than the story of the acceleration of the fascist agenda and the death of the Republic.
Frequently, books come into our lives with momentous timing. Several weeks ago a friend of mine was traveling through a small town in upstate New York looking for the location of a meeting he was scheduled to attend. Realizing that he was lost, he spotted a police officer in a marked car and waived to the officer to pull over. The officer pulled over, and my friend innocently got out of his car to walk back to the officer’s car. Suddenly, the officer’s voice came blasting across a loud speaker, “Get back in the car! Stop where you are! Get back in the car!” My friend returned to his vehicle and waited for the officer to approach his driver’s side window. The officer, with a hand on his holstered firearm, angrily asked my friend what he wanted. When my friend asked him for directions, he replied with hostility that he didn’t know the location of the place for which my friend was searching and once again repeated, “Never get out of your car when you’re dealing with a police officer.” So much for asking directions from a police officer these days.
On another occasion, two friends of mine returning from Canada were detained at the U.S./Canadian border, and while one of them had a U.S. passport, the other had forgotten to bring his. He produced a variety of identification but was taken aside, questioned, shouted at, and harassed in an extremely hostile manner as if he were an enemy of the state. Fortunately, after over-the-top intimidation from a couple of surly customs officers, he was allowed to enter the U.S.
About three weeks ago I was returning from a routine visit to the dentist in Mexico and had a U.S. passport with me, even though none will be required for returning from Mexico until January, 2008. I was told by a very aggressive female customs agent to pull over to the center where vehicles are detained. I was ordered in a very hostile manner to give her my driver’s license and the keys to my vehicle and stay in my vehicle. When I asked what the problem was, I was told to be quiet and again, to stay in my vehicle. Having taught in Mexico for three years, returning to the U.S. every day and rarely having to show any identification whatsoever, I found this procedure to be astonishingly rigid and unnecessary. I have made many trips to Mexico in recent months and have never had any problem when the automatic photos that are taken of every license plate crossing the border appeared on U.S. Customs computer screens.
After what seemed like an eternity the female officer returned and told me that it appeared that I had had an expired vehicle registration four years ago which I had not taken care of and that I needed to do so at once. She gave me the name of the court where the offense was allegedly registered. The very next day I contacted the court and discovered that indeed I had been stopped four years ago for an expired registration for which I was given a warning. Every year since, I have purchased my annual registration well before the deadline, but the offense was never brought to my attention, and I even acquired a new driver’s license last year through the motor vehicles division and was not informed of the offense. Not wanting any further hassle regarding the “heinous crime” of having an expired registration four years ago, I agreed to pay the small fine imposed by the court. Some readers may assume that I was harassed because of who I am and my open delivery of alternative news and opinions on this website daily. I, on the other hand, do not believe that this was “all about me.” Whether or not it was, it is blatantly obvious to me that the behavior of law enforcement in the United States has shifted dramatically in recent months. Whether or not I was targeted, which I sincerely doubt, this kind of treatment is becoming standard in law enforcement procedure throughout the United States.
And now fast-forward to yesterday, September 18, 2007, at Florida State University and the tasering of a student questioning John Kerry regarding the 2004 elections and Kerry’s membership in Skull and Bones-an incident which has been viewed by millions on the internet and on mainstream TV news broadcasts. Writing of this debacle, Wolf’s article “A Shocking Moment For Society” appeared on various internet sites this morning, and in it she states:
There is a chapter in my new book, , entitled “Recast Criticism as ‘Espionage’ and Dissent as ‘Treason,’” that conveys why this moment is the horrific harbinger it is. I argue that strategists using historical models to close down an open society start by using force on ‘undesirables,’ ‘aliens,’ ‘enemies of the state,’ and those considered by mainstream civil society to be untouchable; in other times they were, of course, Jews, Gypsies, Communists, homosexuals. Then, once society has been acculturated to that use of force, the ‘blurring of the line’ begins and the parameters of criminalized speech are extended - the definition of ‘terrorist’ expanded - and the use of force begins to be deployed in HIGHLY VISIBLE, STRATEGIC and VISUALLY SHOCKING WAYS against people that others see and identify with as ordinary citizens. The first ‘torture cellars’ used by the SA, in Germany between 1931 and 1933 - even before the National Socialists gained control of the state, during the years when Germany was still a parliamentary democracy - were informal and widely publicized in the mainstream media. Few German citizens objected because those abused there were seen as ‘other’ - even though the abuse was technically illegal. But then, after this escalation of the use of force was accepted by the population, students, journalists, opposition leaders, and clergy were similarly abused during their own arrests. Within six months dissent was stilled in Germany.
What is the lesson for us from this and from other closing societies, some of them democracies? You can have a working Congress or Parliament; newspapers; human rights groups; even elections; but when ordinary people start to be hurt by the state for speaking out, dissent closes quickly and the shock chills opposition very, very fast. Once that happens, democracy has been so weakened that major tactical and strategic incursions - greater violations of democratic process - are far more likely. If there is dissent about the vote in Florida in this next presidential election - and the police are tasering voters’ rights groups - we will still have an election.
What we will not have is liberty.
We have to understand what time it is. When the state starts to hurt people for asking questions, we can no longer operate on the leisurely time of a strong democracy - the ‘Oh gosh how awful!’ kind of time. It is time to take to the streets. It is time to confront those committing crimes against the Constitution. The window has now dropped several precipitous inches and once it is closed there is no opening it without great and sorrowful upheaval.
As I read Wolf’s latest article, I realized that despite my enormous admiration for her and The End Of America, there are a number of areas where I must disagree with her.
First, the only thing shocking to me about the University of Florida incident is that so many Americans are shocked that it happened. Last night I posted a communication to her mailing list regarding the incident from former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney who says:
No police officer should be in the business of denying Constitutional rights to anyone; I am particularly chagrined when it appears that a black police officer participated in this attack on an innocent student.
What is happening to us???? How much more will the people accept?? I was outraged as early as 2000 when Florida was stolen and the Democrats said nothing!!!! Now, innocent students get tasered just for asking questions.
What kind of US Senator do we have who can’t or won’t answer a question about his own election that affects all of us???
Wolf has given us a compendium of civil and Constitutional rights stolen from us during the past eight years of the Bush administration. If one understands this odyssey of oppression, then yesterday’s tasering of a questioning student makes perfect sense. I appreciate why Wolf used the word “shocking” in her most recent article, but I’d be willing to bet that she isn’t shocked at all-not after the extraordinary documentation she has given us in The End Of America. What I do believe she wishes to clarify is the intentionally traumatizing methodology of law enforcement to maintain social control.
Secondly, I must take issue with Wolf regarding her statement that “…we on the left must snap out of our ‘it’s-all-the-WTO-the-two-parties-are-the-same’ torpor…We have to reengage in an old-fashioned commitment to democratic action and believe once again in an old-fashioned notion of the Republic. We need to help lead a democracy movement in America like the ones that have toppled repressive regimes overseas.” (141)
Again, let’s fast forward not to yesterday, but today and the headline ““-a decision which supports the Bush administration’s denial of habeas corpus to Guantanamo prisoners who want to challenge their imprisonment in court. Need we reiterate one more time that since the 2006 elections, the Democrats have done virtually nothing to end the occupation of Iraq? Need we watch the video one more time of John Kerry standing mute and statue-like on the University of Florida auditorium stage-saying or doing nothing as a student was tasered for asking him why he handed the 2004 election to George W. Bush? Does anyone seriously believe that in a world where fellow students applaud as police remove and taser a questioning student and do nothing to speak up against such an outrage that we will see a viable, effective “democracy movement in America like the ones that have toppled repressive regimes overseas”?
As for Wolf’s suggestion in today’s article that we “take to the streets”, the police state is preparing for that eventuality as well by letting us know that it has developed severely injuring electromagnetic crowd control technology that will dramatically limit how many and how often people can “take to the streets.” Welcome to full-spectrum “1984″.
I repeat: the police state is right here, right now!
Moreover, some pivotal factors that Wolf has not addressed are global energy depletion, climate change, and global economic meltdown which are exacerbating the fascist shift about which she so brilliantly writes and which will continue to embolden that shift as energy scarcity, climate chaos, and financial crises add fuel to the fires of terrorism that the ruling elite have so consciously and carefully incited and fanned throughout America. As American society continues to unravel, the fascist shift will escalate, and what is left of our civil liberties will further evaporate.
As for political parties, I prefer the definition offered by Mike Ruppert in “America: From Freedom To Fascism” in which he explains that the two major parties are like two crime families-the Genoveses and the Gambinos. They function like players in a crap game that feign opposition to each other, but when the chips are down, they will always unite to serve their common interests. (If the Iraq occupation is not a case in point, then I don’t know what is.) When we vote in presidential elections for corporately-owned candidates or “the lesser evil”, we are merely choosing between the two crime families, and even if one candidate were not a crime family member, our votes in the past two presidential elections, as Bev Harris has so astutely demonstrated, have been hacked. In the throes of the current, and I might add, rapidly-accelerating fascist shift, what evidence do we have for assuming that if there is an election in 2008, anything will be different? Tell me again, what’s the definition of insanity?
At this moment another Naomi comes to mind-Naomi Klein whose book Shock Doctrine I shall soon review on this site. In that work Klein documents one of the key strategies of fascist empires: shocking their citizens into submission in a variety of ways from widespread societal terrorism to the administering of electroshock therapy to individuals. What we witnessed at the University of Florida yesterday, and what we are likely to see more frequently in America, are deliberate shock tactics applied by law enforcement to citizens for the purpose of achieving massive social control.
Some of my students who are criminal justice majors tell me that the latest strategies now being taught to police officers are “shock doctrine” techniques which terrorize and intimidate civilians in order to control them. Law enforcement officers are no longer encouraged to “keep a cool head” but to “follow their own instincts” (which usually means their own internal, adrenaline-charged state of terror) and react with full force because it’s easier to apologize (or encounter a lawsuit) than to ask permission or risk being killed. Terrified people should not be wearing a badge and carrying a gun, and when they are, a fully terrorized society is guaranteed.
In spite of my disagreements with Naomi Wolf’s suggested solutions, I cannot recommend The End Of America enthusiastically enough. It is now a permanent part of my U.S. history curriculum and is an ideal tool not only for educators, but for parents who want to teach their children where all those civil liberties we used to have actually came from as well as how and why they are disappearing in the present moment.
September 17th, 2007
By Dale Allen Pfeiffer of The Mountain Sentinel
Bush now has the ability to declare martial law at his own discretion, and in so doing dissolve the other branches of government, throw out the constitution, and suspend elections. He appropriated the right to do this largely by executive order. He can declare martial law whenever he deems there is sufficient cause; cause being an act of terrorism, an economic crisis, an act of war, civil unrest, or a natural catastrophe. For more information about the executive orders and legislation granting Bush these rights, please watch the short video at mountainsnetinel.com (What We Choose to Ignore), or visit the US Martial Law Timeline.
Hard as it might be to believe, there is a very real possibility that Bush will exercise these rights before his term ends. All he needs is an excuse. At present, the economy is on the verge of collapse, the Iraqi Occupation is going badly no matter what Bush and his chosen generals say, energy supplies are unable to keep pace with demand, disapproval of the Bush administration is growing, and Bush wants to attack Iran and so complete his Middle East conquest. He has all the reason in the world to declare martial law. All he lacks is a sufficient excuse.
Many people who follow the news are worried that Bush will declare martial law sometime in the months ahead. If natural crises prove insufficient, they are afraid that he will stage another 9/11. The current economic climate is very similar to the climate at the time of 9/11, though the present brewing economic hurricane will be much worse than the dot.com bust. The economic crises we currently face could very well result in bank closings, the crash of the US dollar, and the impoverishment of a large segment of the US population. What is more, with peak oil and the dawn of a new era of energy depletion it is unlikely that we will be able resuscitate our economy once the collapse is complete.
In the past couple weeks, we have heard about nuclear weapons being “mistakenly” shipped across the country onboard B-52 bombers. These weapons, which have a very limited capacity, were accidentally shipped to one of the bases that coincidentally functions as a staging grounds for the Middle East . While it is possible that these weapons were intended to be used for tactical strikes against Iran , I think it more likely that they were going to be used on US troops in Iraq , or perhaps even citizens within the US . A nuclear terrorism attack would clear the way for an immediate attack on Iran and provide a sufficient excuse to declare martial law within the US . (See Was a Covert Attempt to Bomb Iran with Nuclear Weapons foiled by a Military Leak? by Michael E. Salla, M.A., Ph.D.)
This sounds far-fetched and paranoid, doesn’t it? Well, word is circulating around Wall Street that billions in put options were made at the end of August. Put options are short term bets that a corporation will do poorly. From the number and size of these puts, some big players are betting that the stock market is going to take a major fall before the end of September. The last time there was a move in put options this large was just prior to 9/11.
(See Dispelling the ‘Bin Laden’ Options Trades, ‘Bin Laden’ Options Trades Have Wall Street Whispering, and $4.5b bet on another 9/11 within 4 weeks)
Whether or not there are plans to stage another terrorist event, the fact remains that Bush has cleared a path towards establishing a dictatorship within the US . Given Bush and Cheney’s psychological profiles, it is unlikely that this pathway was cleared for altruistic purposes, and it seems equally unlikely that they will not now take advantage of it. No r d id Bush clear this pathway for some future president. Bush and Cheney are both far too selfish and egotistical for that. So it is likely that Bush will walk this path sometime before the next election.
Now the question arises, what will we do if Bush declares martial law and usurps our government?
What to Do
Should Bush declare martial law, life in this country will quickly become untenable for a great many of us. Halliburton subsidiaries are currently building internment camps to house detainees. The first sweep will pick up radicals and known dissenters, along with Blacks and Hispanics. Successive sweeps will capture more disruptive minorities, along with any newly vocal critics.
Knowing this, my first impulse was to head for the woods and disappear in the event of martial law. Yet this would not solve the problem. And I would have to hide forever, while my family and friends suffered the consequences. Hiding is not an option; the only recourse is to fight back.
The establishment of martial law and dictatorship depends on a majority of the public going on with thei r d aily lives as usual. They cannot arrest everyone; they cannot even arrest a sizable portion of the population should they all decide to resist in solidarity. Therefore, the key to defending our country against martial law and dictatorship lies in massive resistance and solidarity.
If martial law is declared we must, each of us, tell everyone we know that the US government has been overthrown. Everyone must know that it is time for each of us to stand up and resist. Do not go to work, do not go to school. That is what they want us to do. Far from complying, it is ou r d uty to rise up for freedom and justice. Our forefathers and foremothers would be ashamed of us if we did anything less.
Simply refusing to serve is not enough. Nor is a march through downtown an adequate response. Short-term protests will be dismissed as soon as they end. Nor is any resistor safe so long as he or she remains at home. We must rally, for safety and power. And we must stay together until the dictatorship is toppled and martial law is ended.
Rallying
There are a few possible targets for rallying. Progressive communities such as college towns would be relatively safe places to rally, and might attract large numbers of people supported by the local community. Yet for greatest effect, rallies should target seats of government and finance. The most effective targets would be state capitals, Wall Street, and Washington DC . For those desiring an even more confrontational approach, you could rally at military bases and National Guard armories. Bear in mind that these military targets have the greatest potential for bloodshed.
It would be best to plan rallying locations ahead of time. There is no telling how disrupted communications might be after martial law is declared. If the internet is still functioning, that would be great. But do not plan on it.
Print up flyers explaining what is taking place and what needs to be done about it. Tell people that it is thei r d uty to resist. Let them know where they can rally to protest. If need be, drive down the street with banners and/or megaphones.
Above all, make it clear that these rallies will not end until the coup leaders have been arrested and martial law has ended. Ceasing our efforts before our goals are achieved is simply not an option. What is more, we will all be safer if we stay together. They cannot pick us off separately; they will have to deal with us en masse.
Breaking Hard
We should be prepared for the worst. It is likely that they will try to break our rallies with force. Stand fast and be prepared. It would be wise to learn how to improvise body armor, procure helmets with safety visors, and gas masks. First aid stations should be established at all rallies.
Above all, resist any impulse towards violence. Violence will achieve nothing, but will provide them with an excuse to crack down. The violent overthrow of government by the masses simply isn’t possible in this day and age, nor is it desirable. Our strength lies in our solidarity and our ability to bring the machine to a screeching halt. When we resort to violence, we have compromised our strength and made ourselves weak.
Appeal to the police and the National Guard that you are the citizens they were hired to serve and protect. Help them to understand what has happened. It may be that many of them will side with you.
If the military does attack, stand firm, but be prepared to give up ground and reform elsewhere. Do not simply scatter and give up. In the face of a military advance, pass along word of a secondary rallying point. And send an advance team to secure that area and prepare.
Remember, martial law and the establishment of dictatorship will only succeed if we let it. Know that if you do nothing as martial law is declared and nothing as they come for your neighbors, then the day will arrive when they come for you. Or you will be left to answer for what has happened while you were looking the other way and going on with your own life.
We, the people, have the power, and never let us forget that.
September 13th, 2007
By Rowan Wolf
On September 11, 2001 a series of horrendous events happened. Planes brought down two buildings of the World trade Center complex in New York City; the Pentagon was hit; and another crashed in a Pennsylvania field. It was a shock to the systems and psyches of the people of the United States and the world. It has been repeated more times than I can count the “world changed forever.” Personally, I think that is a grandiose claim, but it set in motion a series of decisions and events that continue to the present.
Bush reportedly “joked” after 9/11 that he had “hit the trifecta.” His choices after that event have ruined the lives of millions, and drug the United States into the dubious honor of being a rogue nation.
Six years after the crimes of 9/11/2001, we still have more unanswered questions than those that have been answered. We have a Constitution in tatters and the government engaging in illegal surveillance and detention of U.S. citizens and others. The U.S. stands in violation of a laundry list of breaches of international treaties and agreements. We have two nations in shambles - “bombed back to the stone ages.” We have tens of thousands of civilians dead in Afghanistan and Iraq. We have millions displaced - almost five million in Iraq alone. We have 3,776 U.S. troops dead (by Pentagon count), and at least 27,186 U.S. casualties. At least 122 U.S. service people have committed suicide.
All of this death and destruction, and there is no end in sight. General Petraeus (purportedly speaking independent of the White House) spoke of slow progress, but gave an expected up-beat report. Crocker (U.S. Ambassador to Iraq) was equally positive. Unfortunately, what I heard from their testimony was that by next summer the U.S. should have achieved a return to the conditions of the summer of 2006, which was worse than 2005, which was worse than 2004. In other words, this is not significant “progress.”
To add to the debacle, the world is now facing the fall of Musharraf in Pakistan. This is big news that is not being adequately discussed in the U.S. Musharraf has been an “ally” in the “war of terror” in Afghanistan. His ouster there would be very bad news for the U.S.. Meanwhile, the Taliban is increasingly presenting as the (re)emerging power in Afghanistan. On the other hand we have Bush and the neo-cons trying to manufacture legitimacy for a preemptive invasion of Iran.
Given the current lack of “progress” in Iraq, one has to wonder what “progress” is being pursued.
Somehow it seems to have been forgotten what BushCo. was looking for in invading Iraq. The neo-cons saw Iraq as a potential tabula rasa for a test tube experiment in unfettered capitalism. The resources of Iraq were owned and controlled by Iraq. The utilities and infrastructure were public. One of the first actions after overthrowing Hussein was to start on an across the board privatization of Iraq. This was particularly true of the petroleum resources of the country.
The Bush administration has repeatedly conflated unfettered capitalism with democracy. They have hammered home a meme that pre-dated them, but Iraq was and is the test case. Capitalism is not democracy, and in fact the two are in direct opposition to each other. Under capitalism, the only ones with real voice are those who control enough capital to have a voice. In the U.S. we have seen that the price tag on voice has gotten increasingly dear.
Many in the U.S. are beyond frustration with the Democrats for not making significant progress to resolve the situation in Iraq and bring the troops home. However, the Democrats are using the same yard stick of “progress” that Bush and the Republicans are - namely the private control of Iraq’s oil resources. They are apparently as heavily invested in the privatization of Iraq as Bush has been. However, neither the Iraqi people - nor the Iraqi parliament - are willing to sign over the wealth of the nation. Therefore, no “political” progress. Apparently U.S. “interests” are not served by Iraq controlling its own resources (or infrastructure). Of course, this is a simplistic analysis. A lot of money is being made by some on both endless war and keeping Iraq’s oil off the market.
One might ask if we (or anyone else) is safer now than we were before. By all reports, we are not, and the world is not. Al Qaeda seems to have more diverse and active elements now than before September 11, 2001. There is now an Al Qaeda Iraq that was never there before, and which is enacting violence against both “coalition” and Iraqi civilians. Possible “terror cells” seem to be active in Europe. Turkey is threatening to launch strikes against Kurds in northern Iraq. This would be an attack against Iraq and draw U.S. forces into a conflict with an ally - Turkey. There are rumors of a permanent U.S. base on the border with Iran. That is sure to be a point of contention. Jordan and Syria don’t know what to do with the 2 million plus Iraqi refugees, and the U.S. doesn’t seem to be offering much of a solution to that.
In the U.S., we have had a dramatic restriction/erosion of both Constitutional protections and civil rights. Tests of weapons getting past airport screening systems show big weaknesses in even that basic system. The Coast Guard has spent millions on ships that won’t float and are being decommissioned. Disaster response still seems to be a shambles.
So what do we have for all the cost paid by U.S. citizens, troops and their families, and people around the world? We have a highly intrusive (though apparently not particularly effective) “intelligence” apparatus. We have constructed a private contractor infrastructure that is not only expensive, but economically invested in continuing active war - forever. It has been suggested by more than a few that the massive diversion of resources into private contractors for military and intelligence purposes actually threatens the long - and short - term security of the nation. For example, 70% of the U.S. intelligence budget is going to private contractors.
Six years after September 11, 2001, we have a nation still largely in grief. We have added millions more to the casualty total of grievers - many now also looking for revenge. Revenge not against whoever was behind the events of 9/11/01, but against the United States.
Six years after September 11, 2001 what we do have is what might be expected when revenge is pursued rather than justice. Pain, death, grief and anger. Fear, reactionary decisions, and rhetoric aimed at factionalizing a nation. Our elected representatives need to step back from political and corporate interest and work on sane actions; healing actions; actions which move us all to a better place.
August 29th, 2007
By Rowan Wolf
A lot has been written about the increasing role of “military contractors” in Iraq. Blackwater, CACI, and others have made headlines. So many contractors are being used by both the U.S. military and intelligence branches that Amnesty USA (5/23/06) claimed that the U.S. was “outsourcing the war on terror.”
According to an article at The Strategy Page, Blackwater is purchasing five Super Tucano fighter planes from Brazil. The planes can be are used for fighting and bombing. Colombia uses them for “counter-insurgency” missions. According to the article, Blackwater already has armed helicopters in Iraq.
One has to wonder where (and if there is a) line between “contractors” and troops in Iraq (and Afghanistan and elsewhere) any more. It has been clear from the beginning that contractors were being used to “free up” US troops. It allowed the U.S. to shift its troops from such things as strategic communications and supply to infantry. Of course, many of those troops had only the most basic of infantry training as they were specialized in other areas. Then we heard that the contractors were being used for “security.” I would say that attack helicopters and planes capable of mounting 1.5 tons of weaponry move them from “security” to offensive operations.
There is every reason to be concerned about the amount and significance of contracting being done by the U.S. government. According to a presentation done by Terri Everett - Senior Procurement Executive in the DNI (Office of the Director of National Intelligence), 70 percent of the U.S. intelligence budget is now going to private contractors.
I recently read R. J. Hillhouse’s new novel . In an interview with DemocracyNow, Hillhouse had talked about national intelligence, the CIA, and the use of private contractors. She said that she wrote the novel because some things can only be said (at this point) fictionally. In “Outsourced,” Hillhouse paints a picture of military and intelligence contractors intimately involved and entwined with Pentagon intelligence, the military and special ops, and the CIA. In the book (and this is reinforced by other reports) these “contractors” are doing far more than security and “support.” They are actively engaged ion operations. The purchase of fighter planes by Blackwater is only another indication of the types of “activities” in which “contractors” are involved.
I believe this is a direction that not only makes us less secure, but damages the U.S. image around the planet. From the constantly increasing costs for intelligence and the “war on terror,” it is also incredibly expensive. Contractors in intelligence and military operations are not accountable in the same way as government entities. The oversight is lacking or missing entirely. It put highly sensitive material (purportedly the most protected information critical to U.S. security) in the hands of private corporations and operators. This seems criminally stupid to me. While such an “arrangement” also allows the executive branch and the military to effectively engage in activities that are illegal on both a national and international level, that very “benefit” undermines the rule of law and the U.S. Constitution.
The other “threat” posed by the “contracting” spree is that an infrastructure of control is being put in place that can be pointed anywhere including -and particularly - the United States.
Thanks to Bill for forwarding the article on Blackwater’s fighter plane purchase.
Of Interest
Warriors for Hire: Blackwater USA and the rise of private military contractors. Mark Hemingway. Weekly Standard. 12/18/2006, Volume 012, Issue 14
. R. J. Hillhouse. 2007.
. Jeremy Scahill. 2007.
The corporate takeover of U.S. intelligence. Tim Shorrock. Salon. 6/01/07.
US Intel Budget May Reach 60 Billion Dollars. Shaun Waterman. UPI. 6/11/07.
August 23rd, 2007
By Rowan Wolf
What do you do with an administration that refuses to follow the law? Apparently not a damn thing. We have a situation where the Constitutional balance of powers have been disrupted, and where the opposition party cannot even rally all of its own members - much less a majority - to institute its responsibility of checks and balances. Instead, we have an administration which has challenged constraints since its first day in office, which now blatantly states that it will not recognize any constraints on its actions. What country is this?
Like me, you are probably outraged that the Dems let the Protect America Act of 2007 (PAA) pass. While one could argue that it is only a 180 day authorization (6 months friends), it has already been argued by numerous pundits that it not only legalizes the illegal surveillance already being done, but radically expands it to include physical searches.
To add insult to injury, aside from telling his top aides that they don’t need to even show up if they are subpoenaed by Congress, he uses his refusal to respond to subpoenas if Congress further expands The PAA, essentially giving hem a blank check for any kind of warrantless surveillance, search, and seizure he sees fit (Ward, Wa. Times).
Bush is also arguing that the White House Office of Administration is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act. This is in spite of the fact that the White House web site says that they are (Eggen).
Want to see who was at a meeting? Screw you.
Want to have someone testify on a possible criminal act? Screw you.
Want to see documents? Screw you.
Want to change direction in Iraq? Screw you.
Want us to stop illegal surveillance? Screw you.
What does Congress do? They . Oh DUH! Do ya think?
Should they be starting impeachment hearings? You better believe it. However, it does not look like they will, and there is every signal that the Administration is attempting to build a case for attacking Iran. They’ve been drooling for almost three years to do exactly that, and I have a feeling that if they can finagle it before Bush is out of office, they will.
Will the Dems act? Will Republicans look beyond party to country? Maybe or maybe not.
So what does that leave us? Well, there are various versions of a push for direct democracy. One is the Friends of the Article V Convention. Another is being pushed by presidential candidate Mike Gravel which is the The National Initiative for Democracy. Certainly, we should be pushing ALL representatives and candidates to step up to the plate and stop a rogue presidency.
8/05/07 White House press release. President Bush Commends Congress on Passage of Intelligence Legislation
8/07/07 Dan Froomkin, Wa. Post. Who’s Afraid of George W. Bush?
8/08/07 Dan Froomkin, Wa. Post. Chief Spy or Chief Enforcer?
8/09/07 Paul Elias, AP. Eavesdropping Law Illegal, Lawyers Say
8/10/07 John Dean, FindLaw. The So-Called Protect America Act: Why Its Sweeping Amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Pose Not Only a Civil Liberties Threat, But a Greater Danger As Well
8/16/07 David Kravets, Wired. Is Bush Administration Redefining New Spy Law?
August 19th, 2007
By Rowan Wolf
It seems that the militarization of police forces in the United States is taking giant leaps forward with military robots and spy satellites on the newest toy list. While the militarization is not new - it has been going on since the “war on drugs” started - the use of more sophisticated military technology is new.
Two recent articles captured my attention. The first related to the use of spy satellites by police. The second was the marketing of the new robot weapons platforms to police.
Each of these developments is alarming in its own way. However, since police are supposed to keep the peace, and the military is supposed to pacify using deadly force, the use of something like a weapons platform by police is beyond unnerving. In fact, it was once illegal to transfer military technology to local police forces. But … as the saying goes … 9/11 changed everything.
The Bush administration has approved a plan to expand domestic access to some of the most powerful tools of 21st-century spycraft, giving law enforcement officials and others the ability to view data obtained from satellite and aircraft sensors that can see through cloud cover and even penetrate buildings and underground bunkers.(Wa. Post)
Beyond the fact that these “spy” satellites are largely used by the military, why are they being pointed into the United States? Isn’t this an invasion of privacy? What are the controls for police looking into buildings and underground?
These are not pictures like GoogleEarth on steroids. These are real time, controllable target and focus images.
But spy satellites offer much greater resolution and provide images in real time, said Jeffrey T. Richelson, an expert on space-based surveillance and a senior fellow with the National Security Archive in Washington.
“You also can get more coverage more often,” Richelson said. “These satellites will cover during the course of their orbits the entire United States. They will be operating 24 hours a day and using infrared cameras at night.”
Other nonvisual capabilities can be provided by aircraft-based sensors, which include ground-penetrating radar and highly sensitive detectors that can sense electromagnetic activity, radioactivity or traces of chemicals, military experts said. Such radar can be used to find objects hidden in buildings or bunkers.
Apparently the plan was originally authorized by Mike McConnell (Director of National Intelligence) through Michael Chertoff (head of Homeland Security). So nice to know they “play well” together. The plan creates yet another agency within Homeland Security - the National Applications Office. (Whatever happened to the Republican’s love of “small government?) Conveniently, the program will have oversight from “officials” in both Homeland Security and the office of DNI. What no warrants necessary to take a peek inside anyone’s house?
One would assume that the “National Applications Office” will be dealing with more “applications” than letting local police forces use spy satellites. At the head of “applications” may be all the that Congress just gave the Bush Administration (e.g. collection of business records, physical searches, and possible narrowing of the scope of electronic surveillance necessitating a FISA warrant).
(Picture and description from Foster-Miller - the manufacturers of the Talon: “A soldier from the 752nd EOD Co. places a block of C4 explosive in the gripper of a TALON robot in Fallujah.)
Now. What about those robots? The equipment being marketed to police departments is very similar to the robot platforms that were put in use by the military in Iraq in 2005. These robots are designed for urban environments and may be deployed for reconnaissance, with an assortment of weapons, or to deploy explosives (as in the picture), or for bomb disposal. The robots are remotely controlled from several thousand feet away. They cost about $230,000 a piece, but that can vary depending on how it is outfitted. The Talon is yet another “force magnifier” technology. The U.S. military strategy of the future seems to be (in part) to use remote operators of lethal arms. For those forces on the ground, they will be “modified” in a variety of ways to either be “super soldiers,” or the meld with the equipment they are operating.
Move that scenario into a domestic police force. The image certainly gives me the chills.
It is critical to point out that police and soldiers are not interchangeable.
U.S. troops have become “warfighters” in most of the literature. What shall we call the police of the future? Will they also be “warfighters”? Or perhaps “civilian controllers.”
We live in a time of both erosion of rights and Constitutional protections on the one hand, and the advancement of technological, governmental and corporate intrusion on the other hand. Increasingly the line between military and police, and the jurisdiction of the U.S. military are intentionally being blurred. The basis of all of it is fear. We are being “protected” into a police state.
Global Security. TALON Small Mobile Robot. Good description of the Talon.
Gizmag. Talon robot soldiers shipped to Iraq.
David Crane. Defense Review. Armed/Weaponized Infantry Robots for Urban Warfare and Counterinsurgency Ops
August 18th, 2007
By Rowan Wolf
The New York Police Department released a report today “Radicalization in the West: the homegrown threat” (UTJ link). The report focuses on “Islamic” terrorism with an extended series of case studies. I am not at all surprised that it has raised the ire of a variety of social justice groups.
Perhaps more interesting than the report itself is that the NYPD met with “private security executives” to present report. Also frightening are the unscripted comments by Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly. In the interests of education and informed discussion, I have included the original article by Tim Hays of the Associated Press as this is what many other news sources were drawing on at the end of this article.
Campbell’s remarks seemed much broader and more loosely interpreted than the actual report would predict. The internet is pointed to as a “radicalizing” agent. However, so are student associations, bookstores, non-governmental organizations, and cafes. In other words, places where people might gather and converse with each other, or organize to address social issues, are potential hotbeds of radicalization.
As an activist (non-governmental organizations), a researcher (use the internet and even sponsor a political site), teacher and sponsor of student groups, who eats out from time to time, I find the breadth of NYPD’s list stunning and alarming. It is particularly alarming within the context of the loss of Constitutional protections; the extension of the “terrorist” label; and the “liberalization” of data gathering and surveillance. Not surprisingly, the report was seen by Homeland Security (AP article) contributing to understanding radicalization.
But back to the fact that the report was specifically released to “private security executives.” Why would the police brief this “clientel” on this type of report? Why would they be interested in the so-called “process of radicalization?” Exactly who were these private security executives? Who do they contract out to, and for what services? Do they perhaps contract with the NYPD for infiltrating suspected terrorist recruiting centers (like cafes or student groups)? Or perhaps they provide private data to the NYPD - or even the U.S. government. Am I missing something, or does it seem strange that apparently the first group briefed on a report researched and written on the public’s dime, is to a group of corporate executives? None of the articles I have found thus far detail who was at the briefing.
This whole thing is disturbing in so many ways. Look at it yourself. Perhaps I am just getting jaded and paranoid.
Other Related Articles
Above article also available at
MSNBC, 8/15/07 NYPD warns of homegrown terrorism threat. This article lists a few different comments than the AP article.
Sewell Chan of the NY Times offers a more detailed article with an extended statement from the from The Council on Arab-American Relations. Police Issue Report on ‘Homegrown’ Terror Threat
NYPD Warns of Homegrown Terror Threat Tim Hays, Associated Press 8/15/07
NEW YORK (AP) — They preferred bookstores or hookah bars to mosques. They stopped listening to pop music and instead surfed Web sites promoting radical Islam. They threw away their baseball caps and grew beards.
New York Police Department intelligence analysts have concluded those were some of the telltale signs of homegrown terrorists in the making - a mounting threat as grave as that from established terrorist groups like al-Qaida.
An NYPD report released Wednesday warns of a “radicalization” process in which young men - otherwise unremarkable legal immigrants from the Middle East - grow disillusioned with life in America and adopt a philosophy that puts them on the path to jihad.
“Hopefully, the better we’re informed about this process, the more likely we’ll be to detect and disrupt it,” Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said while presenting the findings at a briefing of private security executives at police headquarters.
The findings drew swift criticism from Arab-American civil rights groups, which accused the NYPD of stereotyping and of contradicting recent federal warnings that the chief terrorism threat remains foreign.
In a statement, Department of Homeland Security spokesman Russ Knocke said federal authorities “appreciate efforts to better understand the phenomenon of radicalization.”
“We are fortunate that radicalization seems to have less appeal in the U.S. than in other parts of the world,” he said, “but we do not believe that America is immune to homegrown terrorism.”
The FBI declined to comment.
Police officials said the study is based on an analysis of a series of domestic plots thwarted since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, including those in Lackawanna; Portland, Ore.; and Virginia. It was prepared by senior analysts with the NYPD Intelligence Division who traveled to Hamburg, Germany; Madrid; and other overseas spots to confer with authorities about similar cases.
The report found that homegrown terrorists often were indoctrinated in local “radicalization incubators” that are “rife with extremist rhetoric.”
Instead of mosques, those places were more likely to be “cafes, cab driver hangouts, flop houses, prisons, student associations, non-governmental organizations, hookah bars, butcher shops and bookstores,” the report says.
The Internet also provides “the wandering mind of the conflicted young Muslim or potential convert with direct access to unfiltered radical and extremist ideology.”
The report warns that potential terrorists are difficult for law enforcers to detect because they blend in well with society. It also argues that more intelligence gathering is needed to thwart potential terror plots at their earliest stages.
Potential homegrown terrorists “are not on the law enforcement radar,” the study says. “Most have never been arrested or involved in any kind of legal trouble.”
They “look, act, talk and walk like everyone around them,” the study adds. “In the early stages of their radicalization, these individuals rarely travel, are not participating in any kind of militant activity, yet they are slowly building the mind-set, intention and commitment to conduct jihad.”
The Council on American-Islamic Relations accused the NYPD analysts of distorting the innocent behavior of observant Muslims.
“Is Islamic attire or giving up bad habits … now to be regarded as suspicious behavior?” asked the group’s chairman, Parvez Ahmed.
Kareem Shora, legal adviser for the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, called the findings faulty and inflammatory.
“The report is at odds with federal law enforcement findings, including those of the recently released National Intelligence Estimate, and uses unfortunate stereotyping of entire communities,” Shora said in a statement. “The use of such language by the NYPD is un-American and goes against everything for which we stand.”
The National Intelligence Estimate concluded that Osama bin Laden’s network had regrouped and remains the most serious threat to the United States.
Kelly insisted the NYPD report made no effort to provide a “cookie-cutter” profile for terrorists. He also argued that the NYPD report “doesn’t contradict the National Intelligence Estimate - it augments it.”
August 11th, 2007
By Jason Miller
“Children are completely egoistic; they feel their needs intensely and strive ruthlessly to satisfy them.” –Sigmund Freud
Frightening as it may be, the Earth’s fate rests in the hands of children. With incredibly formidable military firepower at its disposal, the United States could catalyze Armageddon at any time. And while they may be adults chronologically, our sociopolitical structure is dominated by emotional infants.
Nietzsche once pronounced God dead. In the United States, we have a more readily demonstrable (and perhaps related) problem. Our collective id has rendered its governing superego impotent, and perhaps dead. Our prevailing moral standards, as inconsequential as they have become, are of the Jerry Falwell variety. They are mean-spirited, self-serving, judgmental, narrow-minded, selfish, and belligerent. As far as US Americans are concerned, Christ may as well have preached the Sermon on the Mount from the lowest recesses of Death Valley.
Recall that our basic drives such as libido, hunger, and aggression flow from the infantile dimension of our psyche known as the id. In terms of psychodynamics, the superego’s role is to counter-balance the irresponsible, amoral, and essentially sociopathic nature of the id with a healthy degree of conscience and guilt. Yet in the United States, we are inculcated with a deep sense of our exceptionalism and entitlement from the moment we emerge from the birth canal, thus crippling our ability to empathize and seriously impeding the development of our superego.
Consequently, conscience, guilt, personal discipline, and delaying gratification are barely extant in the toxic cesspool of our sociocultural environment.
Let’s examine some of the spiritually corrosive social forces which have molded our malleable natures in such a way that our behavior as a nation closely resembles that of a depraved miscreant:
While counseling and therapy are essential tools to heal from psychic wounds, emotional disorders, and mental illnesses, many mental health professionals offer their patients palliative “ego strokes” rather than the remedial brutal honesty and tough love they truly need. Instead of giving their clients the tools they need to heal themselves, they enable their ids to continue running rampant, unfettered by that “nasty old superego” and its “toxic guilt.”
Even those who don’t seek professional help are absolved of the pangs of conscience by the high priests and priestesses of the corporate media. Prostitutes to the establishment like Oprah pat them on the head, reassure them that their pathological self-absorption is wonderful, and tell them to further immerse their minds in pernicious idiocy by reading instruction manuals on narcissism like The Secret.
Commit a crime? No problem. We have a legal system, not a justice system. If you have money enough to hire a shrewd attorney, you are unlikely to face the consequences you deserve, regardless of the egregiousness of your crime. Unfortunately, if you don’t have money, you will face the equivalent of electrocution for stealing a loaf of bread, which means several brutal, dehumanizing years in the most populous prison industrial complex in the world for “crimes” like self-medicating to escape your already miserable circumstances.
Lack the cash to buy the $2,000.00 flat screen you “have to have” to watch the obscenely commercialized and over-hyped Super Bowl? No problem. In the advanced stages of our savage economic system, finance capital reigns supreme. There are untold thousands of lenders prepared to let you use their money, provided you agree to pay their usurious interest rates.
Want it yesterday? Not to worry. We have fast food, one hour photo, instant credit approval, movies on demand, pills to chase the blues and blue pills to give you an erection, instant coffee, microwave meals, zero down loans, and a host of other means to satisfy the relentlessly impatient demands of our ids.
Feeling bored, lonely, or depressed? Turn on the television. Fill your mind with inanity, brain candy, infotainment, and potent affirmations that your tenacious adherence to the reprehensible “American Way” is justified, patriotic, and admirable.
Need a career, training, money for college, the indoctrinated belief that you are risking your life for a noble cause, and the false security that your government will support you once they are done with you? “Join the people who have joined the Army” (or Marines, Navy, or Air Force). Our moneyed elite (desperately) need willing pawns to wage their wholesale terror operations in Iraq and elsewhere.
While it may sound a bit conspiratorial, before we go dismissing the notion that the erosion of our moral restraint (superego) has been intentionally engineered and orchestrated, let’s consider the question, “Cui bono?”
Having stunted, retarded, corralled, or in some cases, disabled the superegos of the “unwashed masses,” there is almost no end to the malevolence our sociopathic plutocracy, upper level military careerists, “religious” leaders, AIPAC, and reactionaries can commit in our names (with our overt or tacit approval) to further enrich and empower themselves.
Consider but a few examples of abominations for which we, as a nation, are responsible:
We have committed war crimes analogous to those of Nazi Germany through our pre-emptive invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. How many hundred thousand or million civilians must die before we realize that “collateral damage” is an Orwellian euphemism for mass murder?
We have long been complicit in the brutal oppression of the Palestinians. When the final Palestinian is imprisoned, obliterated, or driven out of Gaza and the West Bank will we then recognize that we facilitated an ethnic cleansing?
We employ economic tyranny and manipulation to make de facto colonies of developing nations, harvesting and consuming 25% of the world’s resources to “sustain” 5% of the world’s population. Isn’t gluttony one of the Seven Deadly Sins?
We listened to the likes of Ronald Reagan (a reactionary who never met a socially redeeming policy, law or public initiative he didn’t want to eliminate) when he moronically asserted that enacting universal health care would undoubtedly lead to “Godless Communism.” So we continue embracing a system enabling cynical wealthy elites and amoral corporations to generate outrageous profits derived from the administration of health care. As a result, there are 50 million uninsured US Americans, we have the highest infant mortality rate in the industrialized world, we are 37th in the world in health care quality, HMO’s and managed care entities often refuse to provide necessary medical procedures, insurance companies routinely deny claims based on technicalities, and hospitals dump indigent patients on Skid Row rather than treating them.
On the subject of indigents, how is it that a nation awash in prosperity has over a million homeless human beings on any given night? Or that cities like Orlando and Las Vegas have made homelessness a crime? How can a significant percentage of those condemned to sleep under bridges and eat from dumpsters be veterans who fought for our country? Could it be that chicken hawk ruling elites like Dick Cheney used them as cannon fodder in their wars necessitated by capitalism’s endless demand for new markets, cheaper labor, and more resources, and then disposed of them like so much rubbish when they came home?
We strong-arm developing countries into implementing neoliberal economic policies and free trade, deepening the impoverishment of their citizens to further enrich ourselves. This leaves them little choice but to migrate here, where virtually all of the money and resources are flowing. Now that 12 million “illegals” have established residence in the US, we are arrogantly preparing to perpetuate their employers’ capacity to exploit them or to implement a draconian plan to rip their families and lives apart, imprison them, and eventually send them back to the abject poverty we created.
Climate Change? We simply deny we bear an ounce of responsibility and rev up our gas-guzzling SUVs, pick-ups, and Hummers.
Yes, in spite of the extreme moral poverty reflected in the myriad wounds we continue to inflict upon the Earth and its sentient inhabitants, we have the audacity to call ourselves a Christian nation. Whether it is conscious or not, we organize our existences around the abhorrent beliefs that “it’s all about me,” “get them before they get me,” “he who dies with the most toys wins,” and “blessed are the rich, the joyous, the well-fed, the aggressive, the merciless, the heartless, and the warmongers,” thus manifesting the virtual antithesis of Christ’s teachings.
But what can you expect from a nation of unsupervised ids?
Jason Miller is a wage slave of the American Empire who has freed himself intellectually and spiritually. He is Cyrano’s Journal Online’s associate editor ( https://bestcyrano.org/) and publishes Thomas Paine’s Corner within Cyrano’s. You can reach him at
August 10th, 2007
BY Joel S. Hirschhorn author of Delusional Democracy and Friends of the Article V Convention
All over the Internet are sincere efforts to reform and improve America’s political-government system. The downside is fragmentation of the subpopulation that has escaped brainwashing, cultural distraction, and self-delusion. Strategy solidarity is missing, but is possible.
Millions of discontent, dissident and truly patriotic Americans see our federal government as corrupt and untrustworthy, disrespectful of our Constitution, under the grip of moneyed interests, subservient to corporate and globalization elites, unresponsive to the needs of ordinary people, and very much on the wrong track. But they are not united.
This subpopulation no longer believes that electing different Democrats or Republicans will turn around the nation. Many have stopped voting. Some believe violent revolution is necessary. Some think that only national economic disaster will produce necessary change. Most find hope in a particular reform strategy that has attracted their attention and respect. However, so many reform efforts reduce prospects for success.
I am talking about political-government reforms, not party reforms. Many successful websites often described as “progressive” seek changes in the Democratic Party. On the political right others hope to reform the Republican Party. Party reform is not the same as reversing the many declines in American democratic institutions. Devotees of popular sites like dailykos.com, moveon.org and huffingtonpost.com, for example, still believe that electing different Democrats is the solution, while true dissidents have given up on that. Being passionately anti-Bush/Cheney does not change their loyalty to the two-party system.
For the dissident subpopulation, fragmentation impedes building a critical mass that can precipitate a tipping point for revolutionary change that solves systemic national problems. Fragmentation results in large measure because of the ease of creating new groups with their own websites. Dissidents align with some web group (and sometimes several), hoping and perhaps praying for success, even if they admit the probability is low.
Admittedly, our monumentally negative and complex national situation will not receive some quick magic-bullet solution. And many will argue that we need multiple strategies and that many of them are complementary. Yet the fragmentation-critical mass issue must not be ignored any longer. Especially when we acknowledge the myriad, powerful forces supporting our ugly, oppressive status quo system and their demonstrated capability over many decades to beat back serious reform attempts. Success requires solidarity. If we do not take the fragmentation problem seriously, untold numbers of micro-reform groups will remain marginalized. Just what status quo forces want.
Realistically, reaching consensus will be resisted by many reform-groups that would not be selected as the priority, solidarity option. One cannot ignore the considerable egos of activists that have energetically created a web group, and that have attained supporters - though rarely in significant numbers. They sincerely believe that their strategy is the best one and having relatively few supporters does not deter them. Many are as opposed to alternative reform strategies as those in the status quo establishment, but not all. Most celebrate their long shot status with a religious zeal bordering on obsession. We need passion for a solidarity strategy.
This requires maturity and open-mindedness from entrepreneurial activists to acknowledge that some other strategy offers more promise of wide scale success. Joining together in common cause is necessary to save our nation.
Umbrella Strategy: What we can strive for is that many reform advocates can support another strategy that does not contradict or oppose their own one. In seeking a solidarity strategy, we want the capacity to serve as an umbrella movement that ultimately can assist others to succeed or at least fairly compete against each other for public support.
Unlikely Mass Action: The solidarity strategy should not be dependent on changing the behavior of enormous numbers of people. Many sincere groups believe that millions of converts will change more than their thinking or values - they will change their behavior. They trust that their information stimulus will produce their desired response. One group aims at convincing people to have only one child per couple as the planet-wide solution. Another preaches voting out incumbents. Another wants supporters for replacing our representative democracy with direct democracy - despite being antithetical to our constitutional republic framework. Such micro-movements hope that true believers will voluntarily choose to behave in the desired fashion. But how can one person confidently believe that millions of others will behave likewise? Such groups typically exist for years despite no objective evidence that their message is causing millions of people to behave similarly.
Unlikely Lawmaking: Many other groups, such as those pursuing specific electoral reforms, base success on Congress eventually passing the desired law. But if we are talking about profound reforms, passage is unlikely. Powerful moneyed interests spend whatever is necessary to preserve the status quo through lobbying and campaign funding. Getting dissidents to send letters to members of Congress, sign petitions and participate in street protests are tactics that rarely succeed against the corrupt power of money. Moreover, many of these groups pursue beneficial but narrow reforms that will not profoundly change our system. Note that I am not talking about worthy issue-specific actions that often mobilize large numbers, such as the recent success to kill the attempt to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants and as yet unsuccessful attempts to impeach Bush and Cheney, stop the Iraq war, and stop globalization.
It comes to this: Is there a solidarity strategy for achieving deep reforms? Yes. Some time ago I anguished over the decision to dedicate my time, energy and money to a movement that I had researched and concluded had the capacity to produce many major reforms. An Article V convention could be the successful solidarity strategy. The Framers of our Constitution created this option exactly because they anticipated the loss of public confidence in the federal government. That day has arrived.
This strategy is a clear constitutional right. An Article V convention, moreover, would provide a legal venue for consideration of many possible amendments. Indeed, when I examined countless reform groups, the clearer it became that many goals could be instituted through constitutional amendments - our ultimate lawmaking opportunity.
Why so many failed attempts to get an Article V convention? Powerful groups on the political left and right had opposed the convention. They wanted to retain their ability to greatly influence public policy and feared a convention that circumvented all three branches of the federal government. The great hypocrisy was that those professing to honor and love our Constitution opposed using exactly what our Constitution offers us.
I first wondered why Congress had not proposed an amendment to remove the convention option. But then I realized that Congress has chosen to conceal its opposition to a convention. But two of our greatest presidents backed it: Abraham Lincoln and Franklin D. Roosevelt.
I linked up with other conventionists and now we have a major web presence for Friends of the Article V Convention at www.foavc.org. We are nonpartisan and will not endorse specific amendments. We have shown the potential for wide scale success by achieving remarkable rapid growth in membership in just a few months and have begun building state chapters.
If you are a true dissident looking for major political-government reforms come with an open mind to our website. Access a wealth of information and analysis that refute any fears you may have about a convention (because of propaganda from anti-conventionists). If you have a reform group or are committed to one and can envision a constitutional amendment to reach your goal, consider affiliate membership for your group.
In solidarity there is strength. Much strength is needed to meet our common reform goal of restoring American democracy and rebuilding a trustworthy government.
August 9th, 2007
BY Joel S. Hirschhorn author of Delusional Democracy and Friends of the Article V Convention
We no longer can trust Congress to impeach and remove a terrible president. The Washington Post has published an op-ed piece by Robert Dallek that proposes a constitutional amendment to allow “ouster by the people” for removing a president other than by impeachment or because of incapacity. Considering the dismal performance of George W. Bush and his administration and the difficulty in obtaining impeachment, this is a fine idea.
Here are the main features of the amendment: The recall procedure would begin by obtaining a 60 percent vote in the Senate and House. Public pressure on Congress could help it shift decisionmaking to the electorate. Congressional support would initiate a national referendum that would be open to all eligible voters in state elections. Clearly, it should be done fairly quickly. The ballot would simply offer the choice of voting “yes” or “no” to the option of removing the president and vice president from office immediately. If the majority votes in favor of removal, then the Speaker of the House would become president and choose a vice president who would have to be confirmed by majorities in the House and Senate.
These are solid ideas that would add a much needed dose of direct democracy that would hold presidencies more accountable to Congress and the general public than any constitutional mechanism now available.
There must be limits in a functional and fair representative democracy to what a president can do. Bush has more than demonstrated that the presidency has become much too powerful, able to undermine our Constitution and the rule of law, sell out our national sovereignty, put us in incredible debt, waste American lives, and walk all over Congress.
There are 18 states that have a recall process for sitting governors. So this notion is not absurd. Interestingly, in only two cases have governors been removed through citizen action: In North Dakota in 1921, and more recently in California in 2003. Recall works, but has not been used frivolously.
As Dallek correctly concluded: “The nation should be able to remove by an orderly constitutional process any president with an unyielding commitment to failed policies and an inability to renew the country’s hope.” Amen.
The removal process has the distinct advantage of not immobilizing Congress when it pursues impeachment. More important, removing a president through a national referendum that involves many millions of citizens, rather than simply through members of Congress, makes incredible sense. If we the people really are sovereign, then we should have the constitutional right to remove a president.
Sadly, Dallek did not also support using a mechanism already in our Constitution to propose amendments that are unlikely to come from Congress. Our Founders placed in Article V the option of having a national convention for the purpose of proposing amendments. Only one specific requirement is given and that has been met, but Congress has refused to call an Article V convention, though more than two-thirds of state legislatures have asked for one and even though Article V says that it “shall” do so.
If Congress has refused to honor Article V and give we the people what we have a constitutional right to - an amendment convention operating outside the control of Congress, the presidency and the Supreme Court, then it seems unlikely to propose a new amendment that would give the nation a national referendum to remove a president and vice-president. Each of the two major parties will fear that someone of their party could be removed from office and that a Speaker from the other party might become president.
Pressure could be mounted now on Congress to obtain the new amendment for removing a president or it could be mounted on Congress to obey the current Constitution and give us an Article V convention. Choosing the second option has the huge advantage that by obtaining the nation’s first Article V convention we would also have the opportunity to consider other sensible amendments. Fears of an Article V convention have been nurtured over the decades by groups now wielding power over Congress through lobbying and campaign contributions. Such fears are nonsense. Whatever an Article V convention proposes must be ratified in exactly the same way that all proposals from Congress are ratified.
The second point, therefore, in favor of working in favor of an Article V convention is that Congress has also largely failed we the people. Making it obey Article V and give the nation an alternative means of national discussion of possible constitutional amendments that a corrupt Congress will never propose makes all the sense in the world. For example, there is serious attention being given to the idea of electing Supreme Court Justices, rather than continue allowing political considerations to choose them. But neither major party would want to lose its power to shape the court, so that amendment will not be proposed by Congress.
Learn more about the Article V convention at www.foavc.org. Friends of the Article V Convention has the sole mission of obtaining the nation’s first convention and will not support any specific amendment. But every group that now advocates some type of political or government reform that could be obtained through a constitutional amendment should join and support this umbrella group.
Next Posts Previous Posts
