Thursday, May 17, 2007

An Outbreak of Democracy in America?

The Republican Party and corporate media are scared - actual democracy is threatening to break out in America.

Ron Paul is under attack by the Republicans - because he is a serious threat to business as usual. Who is Ron Paul? He is a maverick Republican candidate for the up-coming U.S. presidential election, and perhaps the only hope that the U.S. has of averting a full-blown police state. That may sound extreme, but it is quite possibly the case. No other candidate that stands a chance of winning the coming U.S. presidential election has any spine when it comes to abolishing the draconian and anti-democratic thrust of the Patriot Act and Military Commissions Act, which, along with executive signing statements and other maneuvers, have gone a long way toward institutionalizing executive privilege and the of undermining constitutional democracy.

Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton both voted not only to instate the Patriot Act, which effectively nullifies the American Constitution and Bill of Rights, but also, more recently, to extend it and to make 14 of its provisions permanent. The mainstream Republican candidates are no better.

Anyone who has kept abreast of U.S. politics should know that America is in crisis, and democracy is at stake. Ron Paul needs and deserves support. If there are American citizens reading this, please learn more about Ron Paul. Whether or not you support him, if you value democracy or freedom of speech, then you must defend his right to participate in the electoral and democratic process without being blackballed, silenced or buried under the weight of corporate media influence. The grassroots love him, and he is apparently in the lead in polls for the GOP nomination. Speak now. Time is short.

With the corporate media shutting out the legitimate candidates in the American presidential race - the only ones with integrity, such as Kucinich and Paul - the internet has become the primary political organizing tool. If you are reading this, you are in the thick of it. Make it meaningful.

Below is the full email sent from the social networking Facebook group, Dr. Ron Paul for President.


Action Alert: Keep Ron Paul In The Debate
Neo-Con Republican Elite Seek To Silence Front-runner
Sign the petition (http://www.petitiononline.com/r0npaul/petition.html), jam the phone lines (1-202-863-8500), save free speech and the electoral process
Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones
Prison Planet
Thursday, May 17, 2007

From Fox News, to GOPAC to factions of the Republican Party, the Neo-Con elite have sworn to crush free speech, kill the electoral process and kick the clear frontrunner - Congressman Ron Paul - out of the debates. Only by taking immediate action can we fight back against these anti-American enemies of freedom.

Ron Paul’s message of limited government, personal liberty, abolishing the IRS and bringing U.S. troops home for good resonates with the mass body politic of the American people - which is exactly why the establishment are attacking the Congressman and attempting to smear him from every angle.

Now the Michigan chapter of the Republican party wants to kick Ron Paul out of the debates altogether, despite the fact that he won both debates, crushed his nearest rivals in the polls and is clearly the frontrunner for the candidacy.

This is akin to an analogy where the Mafia owns nine of the ten horses in a race. The only horse that isn’t owned by them is the frontrunner and is a full length ahead. Now the mob boss simply wants to rig the race by shooting that horse dead in broad daylight.

Let these enemies of free speech know that there is an army of informed and outraged activists holding their feet to the fire and demanding that Ron Paul be included in all the subsequent GOP debates. If the Congressman is a “second tier” candidate as they claim then why are we witnessing a concerted effort to silence and censor Ron Paul?

Why are these bullies attempting to destroy the electoral process?

This is an action alert - we need everyone to flood the RNC phone lines with their support for Ron Paul and for keeping him in the debates.

ACTION: Call the RNC now at 1-202-863-8500 - jam their phone lines and let them know that we will not tolerate any effort on behalf of any faction within the GOP to silence Ron Paul or kill the electoral process!

Tell them you are extremely displeased with Michigan Republican Party Chairman Saul Anuzis who is leading this scurrilous, undemocratic, unpatriotic, un-American charge against a real hero.
Sign the petition at http://www.petitiononline.com/r0npaul/petition.html

PLEASE SPREAD THIS INFORMATION TO THE FOUR CORNERS OF THE INTERNET!

P.S. Please join all other Ron Paul support groups on facebook or elsewhere on the internet in solidarity with our fellow patriots.


Kudos to Alex Jones. I may disagree with him on many important points, but he is totally solid on this issue.

JTR


For more background on Ron Paul, see:

Ron Paul: Honest Abe Lives

For a critical perspective on Democratic lovable Barack Obama, as well as Hilary Clinton and the rest of the Democrat and Republican heirs to the dynasty see:

My Buddy Obama

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, April 11, 2007

Ron Paul: Honest Abe Lives

Congress' premier defender of the Constitution”


Why on earth would a left libertarian who admires democratic socialist Hugo Chavez favour a conservative Republican candidate? The answer is simple: I see no other contender who is willing to seriously challenge the drift toward fascism. The preservation of constitutional democracy is the first and most urgent task at hand. All other issues can be debated once the basics are secured: preserve democracy.


“Ron Paul stands for populist ideals that the country is screaming out for after seven years of hell under Bush.


Paul unites opposition to the war and the police state at home across the entire political spectrum…from libertarians through anti-war Democrats.


Ron Paul is a constitutionalist who votes based on principles that support our rights as individuals.


But it is how he does is that makes him a HERO. He consistently stands undaunted in the face of opposition. He is dedicated to protecting “the good.” He is uncompromising in his standards, valiant in his efforts, and he does it all with a quiet nobility that is inspiring. He does what is right. He tells us the Truth. It is this that defines him as a HERO for our times.”


I would urge all who oppose the slide into corporatocracy and a police state to stand up now, speak up now, across the spectrum, from liberal and progressive to conservative or libertarian, social democrat or libertarian socialist – all who oppose tyranny and who would prefer democracy to fascism – and support Ron Paul. The stakes are high, and the time is short.


Texas Congressman Ron Paul has announced he is running for U.S. President in 2008: I think he would be far superior as a president than either Bush was, or Hilary Clinton would be.

Bush goes without saying. Hilary Clinton has expressed her support for expanding the Middle East war into Iran. She has consistently voted in favour of massive funding for unconstitutional imperial war in the Middle East, thereby helping to get thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed, while bankrupting the country. She also voted in favour of the draconian and dangerous Patriot Act. She boldly voted to limit the Military Commissions Act to 2011. What’s four years of abuse of power among friends?

Barrack Obama is admired by many, but I could not possibly support such a man who would speak against war, and simultaneously continue to fund it, voting in favour of over $580 billion for military appropriations in 2006 alone – much of this specifically targeted to increased funding for the war in Iraq.

On December 21, 2005, Senator Obama voted in favour of the $450 billion Defense Department FY 2006 Appropriations Bill – including $50 billion specifically tagged for continued war in Iraq and Afghanistan. On May 4, 2006 Senator Obama voted in favour of $67 billion in “emergency supplemental appropriations” for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. On June 15, 2006, Senator Obama voted in favour of $70 billion in “emergency supplemental appropriations” for the “Global War on Terrorism.” On June 22, 2006, Obama voted in favour of over $500 billion in military spending for the fiscal year of 2007.

Now that I know the voting record of Hilary and Obama, whenever I think of either of these two “doves” I think of the line by The Who: “Meet the new boss – same as the old boss” (Won’t Get Fooled Again).

If we are to judge by action – by his voting record – and not just by words, Obama is full of shit; to be blunt. His words speak of peace, but his actions speak clearly of deferential and timid support for continued wars of empire. This man either has no spine, or else no integrity. I wouldn’t elect Obama to watch my dog for the weekend. He says one thing, and votes another. I would love to be shown wrong on Obama, but presently these seem to be the indications.

Even more fundamentally, Obama voted on March 2, 2006 - along with Hilary Rodham Clinton - to make 14 provisions of the Patriot Act permanent. This man is no patriot. Nor is he a democrat. This man, along with Hilary Clinton, voted in favour of legislation that can only be described as thoroughly anti-democratic, unconstitutional, draconian and, frankly, fascist. We cannot afford to see such wolves successfully masked as sheep. Democrats should be the first to reveal the true nature of such false-hope candidates and corporate lap-dog technocrats in drag as champions of freedom.

If I am wrong somehow on Obama, I would be glad to be enlightened. However, it seems he, like Hilary, is a lackey for the military-industrial complex, war-profiteers, oil barons and Washington chicken-hawks. Unless there is reason to believe otherwise, from what I can see now, I would hate to see this man elected or re-elected to any high office, let alone President of the United States.

As far as I am aware, there is no-one running for the next U.S. presidential election that merits support, other than Ron Paul, with the possible exception of Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) – a New Deal Democrat, reminiscent of FDR.

A former mayor of Cleveland, Ohio, Dennis Kucinich has voted against the Military Commissions Act, the Patriot Act, and the exorbitant funding for adventurous neo-colonial wars. Perhaps a two-party ticket is in order. “The Democracy Ticket.” Paul and Kucinich: uniting the sane from the Republicans and Democrats in 2008. This might be a possibility worth pursuing. I’m not sure if they would be willing to run together, but if so, it could be a winning combination. The campaign focus: end the wars of empire, and restore the Constitution. Unfortunately, differences over immigration and gun control, among other issues, would likely prevent such a liberal-conservative alliance between Paul and Kocinich. I say unfortunately, and this must be emphasized, because these are the only two candidates I know of that seem willing to stand up to the assault on civil rights and constitutional democracy.

Ron Paul voted against the Orwellian Military Commissions Act of September 2006. He voted against the Patriot Act in 2001, and again in 2005 – on three separate occasions – as well as in 2006. If there is any measure of a federal U.S. political candidate’s integrity in defending constitutional democracy, it is this: unwavering opposition to these two terrible anti-democratic, unconstitutional pieces of authoritarian legislation. Obama and Hilary both fail this test.

Ron Paul also voted to close the infamous School of Americas – the largest terrorist training center in the hemisphere, operating out of Fort Benning Georgia, whose graduates have gone on to join and lead death squads throughout Latin America, and who were among those responsible for the assassination of 9 Jesuit priests as well as Archbishop Romero in El Salvador. This man will help fight terrorism – by ceasing to fund it. If you want a true defender of democracy and freedom, here is the real McCoy.

While most of Congress is unaware of, or silent about the Security and Prosperity Partnership, Ron Paul is speaking out and standing up for sovereignty and democracy.

“NAFTA’s superhighway is just one part of a plan to erase the borders between the U.S. and Mexico, called the North American Union. This spawn of powerful special interests, would create a single nation out of Canada, the U.S. and Mexico, with a new unelected bureaucracy and money system.” - Ron Paul

The Democratic Party hates Ron Paul because he’s Republican; the Republican Party hates Ron Paul because he does not tow the party line in prostrating before the military-industrial complex, serving the interests of the corporate elite, paying homage to wars of empire, or backing the rush to implement fascist legislation in the form of the Patriot Act and Military Commissions Act. The grassroots, however, love him – across the political spectrum, from conservatives and libertarians, to anti-war democrats, to all those who oppose the slide into a police state.

All those who prefer genuine democracy and the rule of constitutional law to fascist corporate oligarchy, would be wise to support this humble Congressman. He may well be this era’s Honest Abe: a liberator of the country. If he succeeds in exercising the popular will and ending the imperial wars abroad, as well as the slide into a police state at home, he will have been, truly, a liberator of America.

Ron Paul is a true grassroots hero, in that he is willing to back the people with authentic and substantial support for the constitution, the struggle to preserve democracy, and the opposition to imperial wars – all of which, the majority of Americans clearly want. It will take more than one person to change the course of American society, as it always has. Even if that person holds the highest office in the republic, there will need to be a mass movement, not just to get a better president elected, but to get the job done: to halt the drift toward fascism and to restore democracy, freedom and human rights in America.

Paul is a Republican conservative reminiscent of Eisenhower. Like Eisenhower, he recognizes the grave danger of the military-industrial complex. Taking up where Ike left off, it is no longer sufficient to warn against the possible abuse of power and encroachment on democratic powers, of the military-industrial complex. It is now clearly time to rein it in. Ron Paul stands in this tradition, and is prepared to take the efforts to rein in this beast, to the next step. The plug must be pulled on the corporate military complex. Ron Paul is the only candidate I am confident will do just that.

Paul has 37 years of political experience, and currently sits on the House Financial Services Committee, the House International Relations Committee, and the House-Senate Joint Economic Committee. He knows the political arena.

Paul will have to run a broad-based grassroots campaign to win, as the corporate media are sure to try and shoot him down, or shut him out, while the Republican Party machine is unlikely to support a maverick who repudiates the corporate subservience of the party, and fiercely opposes their agenda of “war without end” overseas and an authoritarian surveillance state at home.

There may be issues where I disagree with Ron Paul, but he is right on the two biggest ones, in my mind: end the wars of empire abroad, and stop the destruction of civil rights and democracy at home. If there is any other candidate who shows spine enough to deal with these two most pressing issues, they should be supported. Presently, only Ron Paul evokes confidence with regards to these most critical issues.

Ron Paul is a conservative libertarian. If I were to put a phrase or a label on my political views, I would have to say they are libertarian socialist. The differences between a conservative libertarian perspective and that of a libertarian socialist are significant, but there is common ground as well. Libertarians have a deep skepticism about excessive concentrations of political power, as did Thomas Jefferson – they are not great fans of bureaucracy, authoritarianism or elitism, to say the least. Libertarians on the right have traditionally questioned state or governmental power – that is, concentrations of political power – while libertarians on the left have questioned not only concentrations of political power, but also excessive concentrations of economic power. Thus, while there may be natural common ground, libertarians of the right and the left have been historically estranged, barely communicating, if at all. However, recent trends have narrowed the divide.

What the right still fails to recognize – although this is changing – is that since the fall of the Soviet bloc, the left has abandoned what little remaining allegiance it had to bureaucratic big government, and now leans very strongly to a left libertarian perspective, advocating freedom, diversity, and limited government that is in close contact with the grassroots. Thus, there is more common ground between the right and left now than the right has recognized.

Likewise, the right is coming to realize that excessive concentrations of economic power are also threats to freedom, just as are excessive concentrations of political power. Jefferson and Lincoln – one a Democrat, one a Republican – both realized this very clearly. Now the grassroots right is beginning to realize it as well. This new tendency within the right offers the possibility for a greater basis of understanding between right and left. The left also does not yet recognize the narrowing gap between the two polarities.

While the left has largely rejected the big government bureaucratic paradigm, the right, at least at the grassroots, is coming to view the current threat to democracy and freedom as a threat waged by a combination of elitist, authoritarian government, aligned with a growing concentration of corporate power. The grassroots right now speaks of the present emergence of corporate fascism – a terminology that should be familiar to the left. The gap is indeed narrowing. It is now a struggle not so much between left and right, as it is between all those who prefer democracy to fascism – and this is the vast majority - and the few who are willing to side with an emerging corporatocracy.

It is important that the left and the right both understand this. We need a coalition that spans the political spectrum – from right to left – of all who would stand now to preserve constitutional democracy. If we fail to recognize the urgency of such a union, we will fail, and we will see fascism take hold. It may be unthinkable, but the unthinkable is taking place. We had better form a union of diverse groups and individuals to preserve democracy, freedom and human rights, or we will lose them all.


I’m not a conservative, nor a Republican party fan, but if there is going to be a conservative wing to U.S. politics - which of course there will be for a long time - there should be a representative who’s at least sane, who’s not on a corporate payroll, and who is not a military-industrial complex lackey. Ron Paul for President - now!

And for a running mate? If not Dennis Kocinich, then Robert Bowman. Fair trade, non-interventionist, anti-corporatist conservative. I didn’t know there was such a creature, but there is. He’s the real deal. Ron Paul and Robert Bowman would make a stellar team. I hope the Ron Paul campaign team will give this idea some serious thought. It could be a powerful alliance. It could be an alliance to successfully defeat the threat to democracy. The threat at home, that is.

We must now end the left-right alienation. It is in some senses a false polarization. Yes, there are very real and important issues on which there is serious divergence, but there is common ground between traditional conservatives, traditional liberals, right libertarians, left libertarians and democratic socialists. The common ground is that we all prefer democracy to fascism - whether it is the corporate fascism that is arising, or any other kind of totalitarian regime. It is neoconservatism and neoliberalism, which are two sides of the same corporate boot-licking coin, that has to be defeated now. It is the preservation of constitutional democracy that must come first. Afterwards, we can debate the rest of the issues. Democracy and human rights are fundamental.

The real division, the one that matters most, is between the neoconservatives and neoliberals on the one hand, who promote and support a corporatist regime both domestically and world-wide, and all those who prefer and support constitutional democracy. Traditional liberals and conservatives, progressives, libertarians of the right and left, as well as social democrats, must get together now to stop this slide into fascism and corporate rule.

Let’s get it together on the major issues; the rest we can debate later. First things first: we must preserve democracy and stop the slide into corporate fascism. We must first rein in the military-industrial complex, and the corporate powers more generally. Once that is accomplished, we can debate the rest of the issues `till we’re blue in the face. Until that is done, debate is largely irrelevant, because corporate fascism rules.

So long as the neoconservatives are in power in Washington, or their neoliberal “opponents” in the Democratic Party - Kerry, Edwards, Hillary, Obama et al. - the nightmare will continue to unfold.

With Ron Paul or Robert Bowman in the White House - and ideally both - I could envision a safe and prosperous, sane and just - albeit conservative - America. This would be a tremendous relief, not only to the great majority of Americans, but to the world.

Left/right debates can resume once we’ve secured the basics: the safeguarding of constitutional democracy. Until then, we need to get together, across ideological and party lines.

Support Ron Paul! Stop corporate fascism now! Yes, we are heading in that direction, and no, there seems to be no-one else in the U.S. Presidential race that will halt this slide into a very dark time.

If you like the corporate lobby, the military-industrial complex, unending bloody, costly and dangerous imperial wars, the destruction of civil rights and freedom and the slide into a police state, vote for Hilary or Obama, or any of the other Republicans or Republican look-alikes. If you prefer peace, freedom and constitutional democracy, there seems to be only one choice: Ron Paul.

Ideological rigidity won't help us now - not that it ever has. There is a war on democracy, in case anyone has missed this fact. What we need now is a coalition of all who oppose the drift into oligarchy and the destruction of constitutional rights and freedom. Come on people now, let's get together.

“I have a dream. I want to re-instate the Constitution.” – Dr. Ron Paul


J. Todd Ring,

March 2007


Vote Ron Paul For President 2008 – video short

Can it get any more clear? Ron Paul stands up to speak against war in Iraq, while Democrats – who now control Congress, and have the ability to pull the plug on this ongoing tragedy - continue to fund the war. Ron Paul clearly stands out. And what an overtly Orwellian speech by a Democrat to follow him!

Defund the War by Rep. Ron Paul – video short

Even Conservatives Hate Republicans Now

YouTube - Texas Republican slams Bush "demented philosophy of conquest

Congressman Ron Paul on Iran Situation (3-15-06) – video short

Gulf of Tonkin 2: Iran – video short

YouTube - Ron Paul on Interventionism

YouTube - Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) on House Iraq Resolution

YouTube - Ron Paul vs. Congress: Don't regulate the Internet

Presidental candidate Ron Paul to 'reinstate Constitution' - video

YouTube - Ron Paul on the North American Union

YouTube - Ron Paul Confronts the Federal Reserve

Ron Paul Supporters at Anti War Rally – video

Ron Paul Officially Runs For President - C-SPAN Part 1 of 4

The Original American Foreign Policy - by Ron Paul

Rep.Ron Paul on Iran: The Next Neocon Target « Dissident

Ron Paul 2008

*YouTube - Ron Paul Revolution - Phoenix


“Ron Paul stands for populist ideals that the country is screaming out for after seven years of hell under Bush.


Paul unites opposition to the war and the police state at home across the entire political spectrum…from libertarians through anti-war Democrats.


Ron Paul voted against the Patriot Act, opposes the draft, advocates the abolition of the income tax, urges the re-introduction of the gold standard, and stands against initiatives to strip the U.S. of its sovereignty such as CAFTA and the FTAA [as well as the secretive SPP].


Ron Paul has consistently upheld his commitment to civil liberties and slammed the militarized police state that Bush has created.


Paul has been in and out of Congress since the 70's and is universally hated by the Republican elite, who routinely back Democrats against him just to try and get him out of office. The former Vietnam flight surgeon is the perfect candidate for President and activists from every corner of every political persuasion should mobilize now in an attempt to help Paul shatter the power monopoly of the Republican and Democrat establishment who have worked together for decades to slit America's throat in the interests of power, greed, and ego.


Paul was one of only a handful of Republicans to vote against the illegal invasion of Iraq...In bucking a trend, Paul was anti-war long before the majority of the country came around to a similar way of thinking following the catastrophe of the occupation.


While Democrats soft-peddle and cozy up to Bush, creating phony arguments about the level of troop presence in Iraq and ignoring the majority will of the country to bring the troops home immediately, Ron Paul's opposition to unnecessary wars of intervention has remained steadfast throughout his entire political career.


If a gargantuan effort is made from now until the end of 2008 to heighten Paul's media profile and forward him as America's last hope, he truly has a significant chance of giving Jeb Bush, Rudy Giuliani or whichever elitist puppet the Republicans choose to put forward a real run for their money.


With the favor of the political landscape continually swinging away from the scam repeatedly run by the Republicrats and Democans, we should really start off on a positive footing and consider the fact that Ron Paul, though still an underdog, has a real chance of becoming the next President.”

- Ron Paul – America’s Braveheart

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The SPP: Stealth Coup?

The Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) is an issue that is heating up rapidly among grassroots popular movements as well as the general citizenry - ironically, on the right in the U.S. and on the left in Canada.

The SPP is an agreement signed in March, 2005 by then heads of government of the U.S., Canada and Mexico, George Bush, Paul Martin and Vicente Fox. According to the official U.S. government SPP website, the agreement is not a treaty or trade deal, but a "dialogue."

Documents obtained from the Pentagon under the Freedom of Information Act state that the SPP is "a broad and ambitious" plan to create "full regulatory harmonization" and "deep integration" of the economies, military, intelligence, laws and regulations of the three nations.

A council of 30 CEOs - 10 to represent each nation - has already been created: the North American Competitiveness Council (NACC). The NACC will form policy and "brief" Congress and Parliament.

In the U.S. and Canada, citizens groups are beginning to take notice, and are appalled. The SPP is being viewed by critics, both on the right and the left of the political spectrum, as a serious threat to sovereignty and democracy. All evidence points in this direction. The fact that it is being carried out in very secretive ways, with no Congressional or Parliamentary debate or oversight, only adds to the perception that this is a deeply anti-democratic agenda.

J. Todd Ring

April 11, 2007

For more information on the SPP, here are a few of the best articles and resources available:

INTEGRATE THIS! A Citizen’s Guide to Fighting Deep Integration

* Secret Banff Meeting of CEOs and the Defense Establishment : Militarization and the Deconstruction of North America

*** ZNet |Economy | Power to the People (In Suits)

Fast-Track to Fascism: The SPP in a Nutshell


Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Monday, April 09, 2007

My Buddy Obama

“Meet the new boss – same as the old boss”

A lot of people love Barack Obama. I hate to rain on anyone’s parade, and I don’t enjoy being the bearer of bad news, but I have to say, Obama strikes me as a poser. I’m afraid he would be a neoliberal corporate hack, a continuation of the policies of Bush and company – imperial empire abroad and war on constitutional democracy and civil rights at home – but with a pretty face, and a much more slippery façade. “Meet the new boss – same as the old boss.” Why do I say this? Take a look at the man’s voting record.

Obama, like Hilary, voted in favour of the draconian, and frankly, anti-democratic, unconstitutional, fascist legislation which is the Patriot Act. Not only did he vote in favour of this vile rights-shredding, constitution-nullifying Orwellian bill, he actually voted, along with Hilary, again, to make 12 provisions of the Patriot Act permanent. Now I don’t know about you, but a basic respect for democracy and civil rights seems like a prerequisite for any legitimate political candidate. Neither Obama nor Hilary fit this description. Both of them fail at democracy 101.

Obama furthermore, while speaking against the war in Iraq, has, like Hilary, voted in favour of every budget request from the Pentagon, voting in 2006 alone, in favour of over $580 billion of tax payer money to support the military-industrial complex, including funding requests specifically targeted to continuation of war in Iraq. Now maybe words mean more than actions, I don’t know; but if actions also count, then this man is either a liar, or has no spine. He says one thing, and votes another.

If Obama or Hilary, or anyone in the Democratic-controlled Congress were serious about ending imperial war in the Middle East, the first thing that would be done would be to pull the plug: Congress has the power not only to issue bland statements of opposition to war, but to refuse to fund it – no money, no war. It’s that simple. Because the majority of the Democrats who control Congress refuse to pull the plug on the war and stop funding it, the war continues, and Barack Obama, along with Hilary Clinton, shares directly in the responsibility for the on-going disaster - and war crimes - that is war in Iraq.

Nice words are one thing, but Congress persons and Senators act with their vote: and Obama’s record of action speaks volumes – support for wars of empire overseas, and support for the war on democracy and the Constitution at home. I wouldn’t elect him to watch my dog for the weekend.

Obama also voted to endorse John Negroponte, the man who oversaw and directed the death squads of Central America, as Director of National Intelligence. He also voted to endorse Michael Chertoff as head of the Department of Homeland Security, and Condoleeza Rice as Secretary of State. Creepy connections if you ask me.

Another consideration in the up-coming U.S. federal election is the party apparatus of the Democrats and Republicans both. It has been accurately said that the U.S. is a one party system: the Republicans and Democrats are two wings of the business party. Both party’s are deeply entwined with corporate America, both are deeply indebted to corporate America for election, party, and representative financing, both vote and act consistently to uphold and defend, not the Constitution, not civil rights and liberties, not peace, order or good government, not justice or the well-being of American citizens, and not the interests of great majority of Americans, but the interests of the corporate elite and the investment class, which they studiously represent and serve. Anyone who gains the easy endorsement of the party machinery within the Democratic or Republican bureaucracy, must be viewed with skepticism from the outset. Hilary and Obama were endorsed by the Democratic party machinery early on. The rest of the candidates were swept aside, and the media followed suit: these two are presented as the only contenders. What does this say about Hilary and Obama? They have endorsement from the party machine, which supports and is backed by the U.S. corporate elite – by far the nation’s most powerful lobby. It would most likely indicate that they have been chosen because they are considered safe: safe for the financial interests that dominate the party.

I would suggest that if you want genuine leadership, you have to look, not at the chosen heirs of the party elite, but to the long-shot, the candidates who stand little or no chance of winning the party nomination. These are the people who might actually take a stand for the people, and not just the rich.

Personally, I find no reason whatsoever to favour one party over another in the U.S. system. They are both party’s of, by and for big business interests – as the vast majority of Americans rightly view them. There are, however, a few good people in each of the official parties. I would support anyone, in either party, who favours democracy – in practice, and not just in words – who opposes the drift into fascism, and who opposes wars of empire abroad – again, in action, and not just in rhetoric.

The only two legitimate contenders in the up-coming U.S. presidential candidacy that I can see so far, are two long-shot candidates, one a Democrat, the other a Republican. They can win, and I hope one of them will. They are New Deal Democrat Dennis Kucinich, who carries on the tradition of social justice and constitutional democracy a la FDR, and traditional conservative, pro-constitution, anti-imperialist Ron Paul. God grant them the means to win, and help end this slide into a police state at home, and end the barbaric and brutal, bloody wars of empire abroad.

The long-shot candidates will not likely win the Party nomination for Presidential candidate, nor are they likely to get any major media coverage. They would have to form a campaign that is truly grassroots based: by-pass the party machinery as well as the major media conglomerates, and utilize the internet, face-to-face town hall style meetings, public rallies, and massive populist networking. This can be done. A maverick can win the U.S. election for president. It would take a lot of work, and it would take wide-spread grassroots fund-raising, avoiding the pitfalls of corporate sponsorship, as well as a popular movement to support such a candidate. But it can be done. I would like to see it happen.

The candidates that have been groomed as potential heirs to the throne, in either party, are of highly questionable legitimacy. There are others, but they need to be supported in order to win. We cannot, in any country, have a functioning democracy where everyone sits on the couch and watches the mass media play up or defame this or that candidate, doing nothing to support the people we believe would make good representatives in government, only to walk to the ballot box, and then maybe bemoan the outcome. This passive spectator politics has to come to an end if we are to see real democracy in action.

I hope I’m wrong about Obama. I would like to be. However, all evidence points to him being another corporate hack. Pretty words won’t compensate for a voting record that shows anti-democratic as well as imperialist impulses. If I’m wrong about Obama, I’d be thrilled to be enlightened. However, I don’t know how you can get around his voting record. A man who votes in favour of the Patriot Act, and in favour of continued funding for imperial war overseas, is no friend of democracy, no friend of the Constitution, and no friend of humanity, whether inside the United States, or beyond.

J. Todd Ring

April 9, 2007


See for yourself:


Voting Record of Senator Barack Obama:


Appropriations voting record – including Pentagon and Iraq war funding:

Project Vote Smart - Senator Obama - Voting Record

See votes on these dates:

03/29/2007

06/22/2006

06/15/2006

05/04/2006

12/21/2005

11/15/2005

Key endorsements:

Project Vote Smart - Senator Obama on John Negroponte, Director of National Intelligence

Project Vote Smart - Senator Obama on Michael Chertoff, Secretary of Homeland Security

Project Vote Smart - Senator Obama on Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of State

Patriot Act:

Project Vote Smart - Senator Obama on USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization


Dennis Kucinich:


"Peace Insurgency": Rep. Dennis Kucinich Challenges War Criminals in High Office

Truthdig - Interviews - Kucinich Blasts Democrats

The Raw Story | Kucinich: 'Impeachment may well be the only remedy which remains to stop a war of aggression against Iran'

Project Vote Smart - Representative Kucinich - Voting Record – No to the Patriot Act.

Project Vote Smart - Representative Kucinich - Voting Record
No to war funding, no to bloated defense budgets and financial – tax-payer – support for the military-industrial complex.

Project Vote Smart - Representative Kucinich - Voting Record
No to the Military Commisions Act.


Ron Paul:

YouTube - Texas Republican slams Bush "demented philosophy of conquest

Defund the War by Rep. Ron Paul

Rep.Ron Paul on Iran: The Next Neocon Target « Dissident

YouTube - Ron Paul on Interventionism

Presidental candidate Ron Paul to 'reinstate Constitution'

*YouTube - Ron Paul Revolution - Phoenix

Ron Paul 2008

Project Vote Smart - Representative Paul - Biography

* Ron Paul: A North American United Nations?

Vote Ron Paul For President 2008

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Friday, March 16, 2007

Freedom of the Press & the Internet


Why it matters, what is to be done:


The internet has become our town hall - particularly so since the mainstream media is neither a free press nor democratically controlled, but is dominated by a very few corporate voices who control the media by controlling advertising revenues, or who simply own the media outright. (When asked how corporations control the media, Noam Chomsky replied, "They own it. You don't ask how corporations control GM!") Given that free speech and freedom of the press are essential prerequisites to a functioning and authentic democracy, and given that freedom of the press cannot coexist with the present framework of corporate media monopolies, the internet, therefore, has become vital to democracy.


The Context: Media cartels do not constitute a free press

“To make informed decisions, citizens need a wide range of news and information. They also need access to a broad and diverse array of opinions and analyses about matters of public interest. Journalists are important providers of such information, as are the information media that transmit such material. This is why the freedom of the press is widely recognized as a central pillar of any democracy…

“Public debate based on differing views is the cornerstone of democracy, and the news media provide a vital space where that debate is carried out. The right of proprietors to voice their opinions on their editorial pages has long been considered fundamental to freedom of the press. Difficulty arises, however, if one proprietor owns so many media outlets that his or her opinions crowd out others…

“It is impossible to have democracy without citizens and impossible to exercise meaningful citizenship without access to news, information, analysis and opinion. The core of this report addresses crucial factors related to the exercise of citizenship. The public interest in healthy and vibrant news media is as important as the public interest in the rights and freedoms of individual citizens.”

- Final Report on the Canadian News Media,
Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications,
June 2006 (original emphasis)

A free press, free expression – it’s the last line of defense for all the other freedoms.… No matter how imperfect things are, if you’ve got a free press everything is correctable, and without it everything is concealable.”

- Tom Stoppard, Night and Day.


Large multi-national corporations already control the vastly greatest share of the mass media. Five corporations control the bulk of Canadian media. Six corporations control over 80% of the broadcast media in the U.S. Radio, TV, newspapers, magazines, satellite and cable are controlled by a handful of corporate giants, with only the periphery of media outlets left to represent or give voice to the 99.9% of the population that is not the media-dominating elite investment class. With media monopolies such as this, there is no free press, save for a few voices on the margins that reach only a small percentage of the population. The media barons effectively shut out the majority of perspectives, save for those that fit closely enough with that of the investment class. In terms of mass-communication networks, the only free press we now have in either Canada or the U.S. is the internet. And now the corporate communications monopolies want to take control of that too.



The Corporate Take-Over of the Internet Must Be Stopped

As has been said, the internet has become our town hall, as well as our town square: it is the place where open and free democratic debate and discourse can still happen, can still flourish, and does still flourish; and this is particularly important since the mainstream print and broadcast media are dominated by a handful of corporate voices, who all speak within the same extremely narrow band of opinion and perspective. What the telecom giants want, is to take out town hall and town square, and erect a twenty foot fence around it, topped by razor wire, leaving only a few gates for their friends: those who have the resources to pay the steep toll fee, and who furthermore, do not excessively offend the lords of the town square. This is unacceptable, and this is anti-democratic.

In the U.S., a legal battle is under way to preserve freedom of the press and free speech on the internet. Three corporate telecommunications giants have been busy lobbying political representatives to pass legislation that would grant them control of the internet, as effective gatekeepers, making the net, not a free superhighway of information available to everyone, but a high-fee toll highway, with the highest bidders having full access, and the rest of the populace having their voices muted by the inability to pay the steep tolls. This is one facet of a larger struggle to protect democracy, free speech and human rights from a broad-scale corporate assault. It is critical that the internet remain free and open to all.

While in the U.S. the campaign to save the internet has become a broad-based mass movement of real power, in Canada, the issue is not even on the radar. But in Canada as well, the combination of corporate lobbying by telecommunications giants, deregulation and the oligopoly of telecom corporations, is likewise threatening the free, open and democratic nature of the internet. This cannot be taken lightly. There is virtually no space for democratic debate or dialogue in Canada or the U.S. now in absence of the internet. The internet must be kept a public domain, dominated by none, and accessible to all. If we had had any sense, we would have guaranteed the same for the broadcast media of tv and radio. It’s not too late to return to that issue. And it’s not too late to save the internet, if we act now.


Save Community Access Programs

With large numbers of people having limited or no access to the internet, these people, these citizens, are functionally shut out of the democratic debate and dialog. They can be spectators, but not participants; and democracy is not a spectator sport: democracy, by definition, cannot function or exist without citizen participation. To allow large numbers of people to be shut out of the democratic forum is unacceptable for a democratic nation - or one that aspires to be so. For this reason, free, universal public access to the internet should now be regarded as a basic right in every democratic society.

The Community Access Program of Canada, which provides free, universally accessible internet access to people who would otherwise not have this, is therefore vital, and is a matter of upholding basic rights and freedoms for all. The funding, which has been eliminated, must be re-instated now.


Conclusion

Are we or are we not a democratic society? If we answer yes, or if we value democracy, regardless of how we answer that question, then words and sentiment must be combined with action. Rhetoric alone will not do. These basic values are too important to leave to speech writers and PR teams. They require commitment and they require tangible expression in our communities, nation and world. The CAP program is one such expression of the reality of our commitment to democratic values. The preservation of net neutrality and free speech on the internet is another, even more fundamental. If we do value democracy, we need action on these issues now. Otherwise, any pretense about democratic values should be abandoned.

J. Todd Ring,

March 16, 2007


Save Community Access Programs

Your Media: Preserve Freedom, Diversity, Independence

* Save the Internet : Fighting for Internet Freedom

Canada Sleeps Through War to 'Save the Internet'

Tory documents cast doubt on Net neutrality

BBC Reveals U.S. Military Plans to Control Internet

Join the Blue Ribbon Online Free Speech Campaign!

Electronic Frontier Foundation

irrepressible.info

OpenNet Initiative

CitizenLab

Psiphon

Tor Privacy Software

Journalists Question Media Ownership in Canada

CRTC delays hearing but mergers still on

Canadian Media Ownership Too Concentrated - Poll

Canada’s Media Monopoly

Concentration of Newspaper Ownership: Royal Commissions of 1970, 1981 - no action yet

Final Report on the Canadian News Media: June 2006

Defend the Press

PR Watch

Project Censored

Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting

The Power of Nightmares: BBC Documentary Shreds the War on Terror Myth

The Responsibility of Intellectuals

Manufacturing Consent - excerpts

Necessary Illusions; Thought Control in Democratic Societies - Noam Chomsky


Excerpts from the Final Report on the Canadian News Media,

Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications, June 2006

“Watch dogs that do not bite”

“Two federal agencies administer the legislation and regulations that have an impact on the corporate practices of Canadian news gathering organizations. The Competition Bureau is responsible for matters relating to the Competition Act, including media mergers that might affect competitive markets. The CRTC regulates the broadcasting system; changes of ownership that involve broadcasting licences must have its approval...

“A history of the approach of the Competition Bureau and the CRTC in their respective treatment of news gathering organizations and news media is available in a paper prepared for this Committee by Professor Richard Schultz.[15] It concludes that the Competition Bureau has had a narrow focus on advertising markets and the CRTC has largely set aside its concerns about news and information. Instead, the CRTC focuses on “cultural” issues, i.e., policing Canadian content….

“As for media concentration and cross-media ownership, the current regulatory system offers little protection against particular adverse effects of ownership concentration on the diversity of voices….rules to prevent high levels of concentration of ownership of media properties, either in particular regions or within the country as a whole, do not exist....

“The media’s right to be free from government interference does not extend, however, to a conclusion that proprietors should be allowed to own an excessive proportion of media holdings in a particular market, let alone the national market. Yet the current regulatory regime in Canada does little to prevent such an outcome….

“As this report has pointed out several times, an important element of a free press is that there be a variety of different sources of news and opinion. This can only be guaranteed if there is a plurality of owners. The country will be poorly served if as few as one, two or three groups control substantial portions of the news and information media in particular markets or within the country as a whole….

“The Committee’s 40 recommendations are guided by the conviction that the more owners, the better. In the Committee’s view it is imperative that the Broadcasting Act and the Competition Act be amended. Without changes to these two pieces of legislation, it will be impossible to develop a mechanism that allows discussion of the public interest in media mergers…

It is impossible to have democracy without citizens and impossible to exercise meaningful citizenship without access to news, information, analysis and opinion. The core of this report addresses crucial factors related to the exercise of citizenship. The public interest in healthy and vibrant news media is as important as the public interest in the rights and freedoms of individual citizens."

- Final Report on the Canadian News Media,
Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications,
June 2006

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Thursday, January 25, 2007


Time for Action:


Canadian politics and the future of Canada as a nation


The long and the short of it is - I believe - unless we seriously address the macro-economic issues, we will not even have the option of meaningful parliamentary debate, much less effective action via parliament, for parliament will continue to be subsumed under corporate dominance. Whatever concerns or good ideas we may have would then be blocked from implementation, at least within the parliamentary process. We would then be left to plead from the sidelines - or bleat from the sidelines - having failed to tackle corporate rule, and thus having failed to reclaim our democracy and our nation.

I'd like to see the Green Party, the NDP, a new party, or a coalition that is created from elements of the existing parties - based on a shared set of principles, values and goals - address our current socio-economic, political and ecological situation in Canada systematically and boldly.

I'd like to see a party - any party - or a coalition of individuals derived from progressive elements of a number of parties - take on corporate globalism, the crisis of democracy, oil dependency and environmental issues, in a comprehensive, systematic, strategic and courageous manner, with vision and vigour.

This would entail a platform that communicated the realities of our current predicament to Canadians in a straight-forward, no-nonsense way - realities which polls show the great majority of Canadians already understand. And it would require the creation of a vision, a strategy and a platform for addressing these realities in a way that fits the seriousness of these issues, and not in a tepid or piecemeal way.

It would be a platform to take back Canada, to truly "stand up for Canada" (as Harper and the Conservatives promised, but promised insincerely) by reclaiming and renewing authentic democracy, and re-investing in our ability as Canadians to set our own independent social, economic, environmental and foreign policy values, goals and policies.

In order to accomplish this, we would have to form and implement a plan to reduce our economic dependence on the US, in terms of trade and economic policy, and we would have to take a courageous stand against corporate globalization and the defacto corporate rule which has emerged.

We would then, in terms of the details of such a strategy and vision to reclaim our nation, abrogate NAFTA, say no to the FTAA, deep integration and the SPP, gain control of our currency through capital controls and changes to monetary policy with the Bank of Canada, create a Tobin tax to deter financial speculation, repatriate the debt, and restructure our investment policies and regulations.

(For example, we could start by revising our investment policies so that tax credits are given for RRSP's only when the investment is in Canada, in Canadian companies or Canada savings bonds - which would go a long way both to strengthening the economy and toward gaining greater economic and thus political independence, and which also would provide a way to repatriate the debt, thus freeing us from dependency upon and manipulation (economic leverage, or simply blackmail) by international banks and financial institutions.)

A couple of points, at least, need to be realized, acknowledged, and acted upon. 1. Corporate-led globalization is not working for the vast majority - either in Canada or elsewhere in the world, does not benefit the vast majority, and is in fact destroying our social programs, quality of life, environment and democracy. We need to fundamentally re-orient our economic policies and strategy in order to create prosperity with both equity and sustainability. We urgently need to find or create, and to implement, an alternative to corporate globalization. 2. The U.S. economy is a sinking ship. We need to cease immediately our strategy of aligning ourselves ever more deeply with this failed state and empire at eclipse. We need to halt the rapid slide into deep integration with the U.S., and immediately begin to diversify and shift our trade alliances. While the U.S. is sinking economically, Europe, Latin America, India and China are rising fast. If we are intelligent, we will shift our trade and economic alliances in response to these rapidly changing global economic realities.

The EU and the BRIC alliance make far more sense as trade partners now, when the U.S. is in rapid decline, than does the teetering giant to the south. The BRIC alliance - Brazil, Russia, India and China, with many other Latin American and Asian countries joining - is the rising star. Given the choices between closer ties with the U.S. (via NAFTA and the SPP), or the EU and the BRIC alliance, smart money would certainly be on the latter. In fact, the smart money, and most of the big money, is already moving or has moved out of the U.S. We are very slow in the uptake if we as a country do not get this.

In terms of a rejection of corporate globalism, Chavez has shown what a bold approach to macro-economic and social policies can achieve, especially when backed by large oil reserves and the economic and political power that comes with these. There is no reason why Canada could not be even more bold: we hold more oil reserves than Venezuela, and have more resources and greater economic wealth and power than Venezuela.

We should be radically restructuring our tax and subsidy policies with regard to the oil and gas industry in Canada. With the increased tax revenue, we can do far more than has been done in Venezuela, Venezuela having comparably fewer resources and less economic power to work with. With this increased public revenue from the oil and gas industry we can adequately fund, protect and even enhance our social programs, expand dramatically our environmental programs, and get serious about the environmental and social issues we face. More importantly, we can gain and preserve a greater degree of economic, social, cultural and political independence: we can preserve our nation. Presently the Alberta government, presiding over the bulk of the nation's oil reserves, which it claims as its own, is charging an absurd 1% royalty rate on oil extraction. Meanwhile, the federal government actually subsidizes the oil companies, to the tune of multi-billions a year. Is this not just a little ridiculous?

There is no reason to let Exxon take a long straw from Texas and suck out our oil - at least not without the biggest part of the profits going to the Canadian people. Venezuela, under the leadership of Chavez, has increased the windfall profits tax on oil companies, reaping an additional USD $3 billion a year into the public purse. The oil industry in Venezuela now generates about one third of the nation's GDP, and approximately half of all government revenues. This windfall to the public purse is being used to eradicate poverty, fund education and public health care, and, in short, lift the quality of life for all people in the country. In Bolivia, President Evo Morales simply turned the profit distribution for the oil industry on its head. Before, oil companies took 80% of the profits, while 20% of the profits went to the people of Bolivia. Now the people of Bolivia get 80% of the profits, and the oil companies are happy to receive 20%. Are the oil companies leaving en masse? Of course not. They want the oil, and they can still make a hefty profit. The countries with oil have the upper hand. They can either concede to essentially giving away their oil, or they can insist that the bulk of the profits go to the people of the country, while leaving room for ample - though not extortionist - oil company profits. The difference is one of fair trade versus economic predation.

Who's oil is it anyway? The trans-national oil companies certainly have less of a legitimate claim to it than do the people of the country. The oil companies can still invest, operate, extract, and make a profit. They simply can't make a killing. If we had a party or a coalition that showed real leadership, this one act of socializing the oil industry - not expropriating it, but making 80% of the oil profits go to the Canadian people, and not the global oil companies - would make a dramatic difference in the lives of the Canadian people, and in this country. For one, there would be no crisis in our social programs - they would be amply funded. And not incidentally, a significant portion of the multi-billion dollar a year windfall to public coffers could go to investing in renewable energy and conservation. We give our oil away, and neither the environment nor the people of Canada benefit. How sensible is this?

Meanwhile, to site just one example:

"In 2005, Exxon reported third-quarter profits of $9.92 billion, 75% higher than its third-quarter earnings in 2004, and the largest quarterly profit ever reported by a US company.

"Exxon is reportedly giving its retiring chairman, Lee Raymond, a package worth nearly $400 million, in combined pension, stock options and other perks, including a $1 million consulting deal, the use of a corporate jet for professional purposes, 2 years of home security, and a car and driver.

"While testifying at a Congressional hearing last November, Raymond claimed that high gas prices were a result of supply and demand. "We're all in this together," he told members of Congress, "everywhere in the world."

""In 2004, Mr. Raymond," Senator, Barbara Boxer (D-CA), was quick to point out, "your bonus was over $3.6 million."

"After exhibiting a chart revealing the pay scale for each of the CEOs at the hearing, Senator Boxer told the oil executives: "Your sacrifice appears to be nothing."

"According to Exxon's filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Raymond's paycheck rose to $51.1 million in 2005."

- Evelyn Pringle, Will Big Oil Destroy the US Economy?


As with our oil industry, we are still currently shipping our forestry products out of the country with relatively little gained for the Canadian people. This is 19th century colonial thinking. We should immediately increase stumpage fees levied upon forestry corporations, and re-invest the money back into the forestry industry, supporting the growth of valued-added industries that take the raw logs and pulp, and turn them into high-value products for export. A log shipped to China is a gross waste of Canadian resources, and shipping lumber to the U.S. is little better. We can tax the rapacious cutting of our forests by big forestry companies, and feed the creation and support of value-added industries and sustained-yield ecological forestry in this country, thus creating a surge in jobs and tax dollars while preserving the long-term economic viability of the forestry industry and the ecological base which it rests upon. Instead of shipping logs, lumber and pulp, we would then be shipping furniture, musical instruments and other high value products, increasing our positive trade balance and public revenues enormously while protecting the forests from a senseless hack and slash model in the tunnel-visioned and myopic pursuit of short-term economic gain. Simply by making an intelligent shift in economic strategy with regard to these two giant industries - oil and forestry - we can bring profound and far-reaching benefit to the people of Canada. What we need is a bold approach that does not flinch when the corporate lobby flexes its muscle. Sorry MacBlo and Syncrude. The people of Canada come first.

Just as we need urgently to shift our international trade and economic strategies - away from reliance on and integration with the sinking U.S. empire, and away from excessive dependency upon and vulnerability to trans-national capital and international financial markets and institutions - we need to dramatically shift our economic policies and strategy domestically, at home.

We need to shift our basic macro-economic strategy: away from one of catering to big corporations, especially foreign-based multi-nationals, for whom we presently bend over obligingly, and whom we subsidize with massive tax breaks as well as direct and indirect subsidies; and toward funding and giving tax breaks to small and medium size businesses, the poor and the middle class. Small business is the engine of economic growth, the backbone of the economy, and the primary employer in the country, as elsewhere - as is widely acknowledged. It makes no sense to subsidize big corporations and tax small business to death. What makes sense is to reverse this pattern, reign in the corporate giants who now dominate the political process and receive huge tax breaks, and support small business. This would strengthen the economy, create jobs, increase our economic and political independence and sovereignty, and provide a functional, viable and prosperous, as well as more equitable alternative to corporate-dominated globalization.

***

Who would benefit from such a platform? Small and medium business, the poor, the middle class, students, children, the elderly - in short, the vast majority of Canadians. Who could we seek to support such a platform to truly "stand up for Canada"? The grassroots right - who voted in Harper and the Conservatives on the promise to stand up for Canada, who want tax cuts for the middle class, the poor and small business, who want a revitalized democracy, who want a strong economy and good jobs - and many authentic conservatives, who are not happy with the sell-out of the country to big business, financial institutions and foreign governments (ie: the U.S.). The left and centre, who want prosperity with equity, protection for and enhancement of social programs, expansion of environmental programs, a reduction of taxes on the poor and middle class, an alternative to corporate globalization - which 70% of Canadians say is not working in the public interest - and a preservation of our cultural, political and economic sovereignty. In short, across the political spectrum, support can be expected, if the platform is sufficiently bold and inspiring, and is communicated clearly enough.

There is no party currently offering such a platform or vision, no party that currently offers anything resembling a bold and inspiring vision for Canada. Should a party or coalition decide to offer such a vision, there could be a landslide of popular support that rises up in response. This is what I'd like to see happen.

If Chavez, Morales and Kirchner, in Venezuela, Bolivia and Argentina, can show leadership in throwing off the gross failure which is neo-liberalism, can assert authentic democracy in the face of decades of history with fascist regimes, imperial aggression and U.S.-backed coups, and present a viable, dynamic, moving, inspiring, wildly popular movement and vision for independence, solidarity and justice, what can we do in Canada with even more resources and economic strength at our disposal?

Sitting on the world's largest oil reserves - the tar sands - and with one of the world's resource-richest nations, one of the biggest economies in the world, a highly educated and literate populace and skilled and educated workforce, an infrastructure and technological base that has few rivals, and a history of social justice and peace that, while imperfect, is strong and runs deep, we in Canada are in a position not just to bemoan the social, economic, political and environmental difficulties that we face, but to take the lead. We can become the junior partner to a dying empire, and slide further into neo-fascist corporate rule, or we can break out of the mold, find solidarity with Europe and Latin America, as well the fast-rising star of India (the world's largest democracy, home to the world's largest middle class, with an economy that is set to out-pace China's in economic growth this year), and set a course for economic and socio-political independence, in solidarity with other nations that are sick and tired of imperial power games.

It is a choice that we are going to face rather soon, and with increasing urgency, for the realities of deep integration with what has become a fascist state - the Security and Prosperity Partnership with the United States - are about to hit us. We had better awaken from the American dream now. This dream is becoming a nightmare. We need to chart a new course - our own course. A Canadian course.

***

The initiatives outlined above are not in themselves sufficient to remedy our social or environmental problems, but they are a necessary first step. If we do not take serious action now, we will only see the further unraveling of our democracy, the further drift into full-fledged neo-fascist corporate rule, the further destruction of our social programs, and the further destruction of the environment. If we care about any of these things, if we care about having or creating a just society, a peaceful society, a sustainable society, or even a society where the quality of life for all is preserved and enhanced, rather than undermined, then we need to take serious steps to renounce corporate globalism and corporate rule, and to reclaim our democracy and our sovereignty. Piece meal efforts will not do. We must now boldly present and act upon a plan to reverse the dominance of the trans-national corporations over our economy and political process. We must regain control of our currency, economy and parliaments. If we do not, then our fine words and nice ideas will go nowhere. If we do not regain control of the helm, then we are a drifting ship of fools, and our pious words are all in vain.

If none of the political parties can take the necessary steps and do what needs to be done, then they should announce themselves as irrelevant, and close up shop. My hope is, however, that the Canadian people can create the movement necessary to get one of the political parties, a new party, or perhaps a coalition that is created from members of all parties, to step up to the plate and get the job done. However it gets done, we need to act now. Time is running out on our sovereignty, our democracy, even our existence as a nation. Time for action.

***

Now that it is outlined, as to what needs to be done, the question that remains is one of strategy: how do we do it? Political strategy in the era of corporate dominance of the political process, the media and the economy is a tricky question. When most political parties are indebted to big business for the funds that get them elected, when the mass media is either directly owned or else controlled by corporations - via dependency on corporate advertising money - the political process becomes mired in the politics of vested interest, democracy is in crisis, and even public debate and discussion is largely quashed. Creating a popular movement for bold and progressive social change requires communicating a vision that will rally popular support and empower collective action. But the means of communication are locked up by corporate controlled media, who have no interest in changing the status quo. Any movement, party or coalition that seeks to create an alternative to corporate rule, that seeks to reclaim, renew and revitalize genuine democracy, will no doubt meet with bad press, or no press, given the present media environment. Thus, in order to reach out to the people, the newest and the oldest of tools for political mobilization will be required: the internet and the street. To reach out to the people with a bold and inspiring vision, to even begin to form a movement for creative action and positive social change, will require the use of the new town hall - the web - and the old town hall - the face-to-face meetings that used to be the staple of politics, before the electronic age. In the age of mass-media electoral politics, the new medium of the internet is often overlooked, and the old medium of town hall-style public meetings is forgotten. But this is where the movement will begin. This is where it will succeed or fail.

In order to accomplish the goals of reclaiming our democracy, protecting our sovereignty, our social programs and our environment; to create a just and sustainable society, and to preserve and enhance the quality of life for all, it will be necessary to make a few simple but crucial steps. The above outline of a platform can be taken as a starting point for creating a vision. Without a vision there is no inspiration, and therefore no action. A small group of activists - ordinary individuals - can take the initiative. From there, the enlistment of support from a few prominent Canadians will do to encourage more involvement and get the ball rolling. After that, it is a matter of old-fashioned political organizing - from the grassroots up. Go to the people, city by city, town by town, hold public meetings in libraries and churches, schools and union halls, universities and workplaces, and utilize the internet to its fullest capacity to compliment the face-to-face engagement of citizens. From there, it is a matter of either forming a new party from this emerging grassroots movement, getting an existing party to find the courage to take on the challenge, or forming a coalition from members of existing parties as well as ordinary Canadians to take the movement to the next level: implementation.

The path is hard, but the time is ripe. The political landscape has, in some ways, never been more ready for such a groundswell of change. There is an opening now. And there is a need. The urgency is almost ear-shattering. The longing for meaningful, clear-headed, good-hearted change is almost palpable. The movement that can fill this need - recognize the opportunity and act to create the flow through that opening - is going to meet with resounding success. It is now that we must dispense with pious hand-wringing and defeatist pessimism. There is always more day to dawn. The time is ripe, the moment is now. Let us begin.

JTR

January 24, 2007

Time for Action: Canadian politics and the future of Canada as nation



The Sinking U.S. Economy:
Poor Choice for an Economic Partner in the 21st Century

America's Unsustainable Current Account Deficit

* The Dollar's Full-System Meltdown

Economic " Armageddon " Predicted

Dollar Catching Asian Flu - Asia Times

Arab central banks sell dollar

As Dollar Plunges, Watch for US Government Bonds Sell -off - DEBKAfile –

The War To Save The U.S. Dollar - Trinicenter.com –

Fears for dollar as central banks sell US assets

BBC NEWS | Business | Is the global economy set for trouble?

Collapse of the Petrodollar Looming

Iranian Oil Bourse Opens for Business: A Final Step Toward US Dollar Collapse & Preemptive Nuclear Strike



Deep Integration & the SPP:


* Secret Banff Meeting of CEOs and the Defense Establishment : Militarization and the Deconstruction of North America

CBC - Top secret: Banff security meeting attracted U.S., Mexico officials

* CNN Video: Lou Dobbs Slams CFR & North American Union

*** De Facto North American Government in the Making: "Canadians must take back Canada"

Deep Integration - The Council of Canadians

* North American Union/Testimony, Publications and Reports - SourceWatch

*** Paul Martin's Big Texas Adventure


Fascism in America:


*** Habeas Corpus Your words are lies Sir - YouTube - olbermann 10-18-06

***Bush Moves Toward Martial Law

Habeas Corpus, R.I.P. (12/15 - 2006)

General Tommy Franks calls for Repeal of US Constitution

Air Force chief : Test weapons on testy US mobs - Sep 12 ...

Ten Minutes to Midnight: The Emerging Police State - Z Store

Fascism watch

War on Terrorism Watch: CAUT Resource Website - Home Page

The Guardian article, "This war on terrorism is bogus: The 9/11 attacks gave the US an ideal pretext to use force to secure its global domination"

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,