A Short Rebuttal of Hobbes

Freedom, Democracy and the Delusions of Power

For all his faults and the faults of the endeavour he was involved with, Jefferson was right on the essential point, in terms of political theory, which is the rebuttal that lays waste to Hobbes, the fantasy which still imprisons our minds and world, and that is: "If you can't trust men to govern themselves, how can you trust them to govern others?"

The core premise that I am addressing, the premise that you can't trust human beings, is the root of the Hobbsian fallacy. There are strong reasons to disagree with this premise, and I do, but let’s accept it for the moment for the sake of argument. Assuming, for the moment, that you can't trust people, who then, do you propose to govern people? The argument put forth by Hobbes, and accepted by so many scholars, politicians and business men, though it is clearly ridiculous, is this. You say you don't trust people, therefore you give some people enormous power. This should strike us as patently absurd, if not simply delusional. If you do not trust people with a little power, the power over their own lives, then why would you entrust them with overwhelming great power? Is not Lord Acton more sensible here? “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” I think there is a great deal of confusion surrounding the issues of power in society, and the implications - as we have seen in Germany, Italy, Portugal, Spain, China, Russia, Cambodia, and across the "Third World" in so many brutal, soulless, self-serving dictatorships - are extreme.

It seems to me that if you are afraid of people, if you take it as a basic assumption that you cannot trust people, then you have basically two choices - assuming there is no place to go to get away from people, or that you choose not to do so.

One choice, is the path of Hobbes: seek, cozy up to, or align yourself with some great power, in order to feel safe(r). But as we saw with Stalin, to name just one example, cozying up to power is no guarantee of protection, and as we see in all dictatorships or tyrannical regimes, of either right or left, seeking the protection of such powers leaves one in great danger from the very same powers. And seeking power oneself, when it is not a cozying up as a courtesan underling, or a mousy tugging at the coat tail for protection from above; when it is a grasping at the highest level of power, ie: becoming top dog oneself, this too is fraught with the greatest of danger, both from external and internal threats. The latter course leads generally to a life of paranoia, as it is always a reality that such power is impossible to guarantee, and even powerful emperors and empires fall to dust, invariably.

Therefore, the three variations on the first strategy - seek, serve/cozy up to, or align with a great power, is totally unreliable, and cannot ensure safety - far from it. In fact, this strategy opens the doors to even greater dangers.

The alternative to looking to power - your own or someone else's - to protect oneself, which is the essence of the Hobbesian hypnosis, or delusion, is to disarm - both oneself and others. This is what Jefferson aimed to do, I would say. And this is the basic premise of classical liberal democracy. (Jefferson was simply more coherent and consistent with regard to such views than many others at the time or since – though he too had his contradictions.)

To make an analogy: if you are afraid of people, you can get a gun - better yet, become a mob boss, a big gun - or you can lick the boots of the mob boss who has the guns, hoping he'll protect you, and won't get angry for some unforeseen reason one day and feed you to his dog. This is basically the power-seeking/power cozying-up/protect me mister powerful man set of patterns. Become a mob boss, or lick the boots, or whatever else is required, of the mob boss, and hope this strategy keeps you safe. It doesn't. And moreover, it should be repulsive to anyone to do either.

The alternative to becoming a mob boss, or licking the boots of the mob boss, is to eliminate the mob bosses - to disarm the threat. This is the basic gist of constitutional democracy, when intelligently applied, and particularly to that more robust form of constitutional democracy which is Jeffersonian democracy. Do not seek to gather power or align with centers of power, but rather, seek to distribute power and empower all, so that none have such excessive power that it could easily be abused.

To make another analogy, in a world where you perceive danger everywhere, as Hobbes did, you can start an arms race, hoping that great power will protect you, or you can work toward mutual disarmament. The former path is the one we have been on for some millennia now, and it has been a path of disaster. At this time, our weapons have grown so powerful that to continue down this path is a virtual guarantee of self-annihilation. The path of mutual disarmament is now the only viable path for human survival. This applies not only to the obvious aspects of disarmament, such as the universal elimination of all weapons of mass destruction, but to the more essential point of dissolving excessive concentrations of power in society, distributing power more broadly, and empowering all in equality, so that none have the means to terrorize or oppress others. Jefferson thus was far more sensible, more rational, and simply more sane than Hobbes.

Ultimately, the kind of elitist thinking which Plato and Hobbes represent, forms the basis of both feudal and fascist orders. Liberal democracy is antithetical to such notions, and libertarianism - left libertarianism, to be clear – is the most consistent application of this line of thinking which rejects elitist and authoritarian social structures. This is where Jefferson, for example, intersects with Chomsky. Jefferson understood the need to keep power decentralized politically in order to prevent its abuse, and understood equally well the need to place firm checks and limits on the powers of corporations, and what he called “the new monied aristocracy.” Jefferson, were he alive today, would be aligned with the libertarian left.

Chomsky put it remarkably succinctly when he said, ultimately, “you’re either an aristocrat or a democrat.” In other words, you either believe in rule by an elite, or you believe in rule by the people. The monarchies and aristocracies of feudal times were forms of elitist rule. The Caesars and Pharaohs and Babylonian kings represented forms of elitist rule. The theocracies of the Ayatollah Khomeini or the Taliban were forms of elitist rule. The reign of local thugs and war lords in parts of Africa is a form of elitist rule. The regimes of Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Mussolini and Hitler were forms of elitist rule. And the emerging de facto world government, as the leading business journal, the Financial Times calls it, seated in Davos, Switzerland, is of course another form of elitist rule. All of these are antithetical to democracy, antithetical to freedom, antithetical to human rights, and antithetical to human dignity. They are a crude form of barbarism, masking itself, as always, as the salvation of the world. And there is now a powerful and dominant faction of the world’s business elite who want to create a most thorough form of elitist and authoritarian rule. We should shudder, and of course, defeat all such adolescent and dangerous dreams of self-deification. It would be very unwise to think that such infantile grandiosity, delusions of grandeur, or fantasies of total power have gone away, are a thing of the past, or can be dismissed as minor concerns. There are always a few who dream of complete domination, and will go to the greatest of lengths to attain their goal.

Plato became disillusioned with democracy after the council of Athens sentenced his teacher, Socrates, to death. Famously, he advocated a society ruled by philosopher kings. It sounds good in principle, but in reality it has almost without exception turned into a nightmare. Elite rule has almost universally brought oppression, tyranny, irrationality, stupidity and destruction upon humanity – over and over again throughout five thousand years of recorded history. Shall we try again? Have we not repeated this pattern enough? At present, the global business elite is planning the same routine, once more, and working fiercely and consciously to create Plato’s dream. They have decided that they are the wise kings, and want a global rule, with them in full control. Sounds like a recipe for total disaster to me, as I’m sure it does to most people. Yet here we go again. If we do not oppose the current trend, that is, if we do not reclaim our power, we will have a global feudal fascist order, and soon.

It is time we dispensed with our Hobbesian delusions, and decentralized power. Authentic democracy, freedom, human rights, and even human survival, now requires mutual empowerment and the dissolution of excessive concentrations of power in society. This would mean greater power for individuals, families, communities, states and provinces, joined together in federations of shared power and mutual aid and protection; and diminished power for national governments and large corporations. It would require firstly, however, a dismantling or opting out of investor rights agreements which transfer real power to unaccountable and undemocratic transnational centers of power, namely the global business elite. NAFTA, CAFTA, FTAA, the WTO, IMF, World Bank and SPP all concentrate real power in society in the hands of a few international business elites, as does the current global monetary system. All of these therefore are anti-democratic and incompatible with a future of social justice, democracy or freedom.

In order to decentralize power and reduce the possibilities for power to be abused or become oppressive – as Jefferson advised and even urged - the power of the nation state and national democracies must first be strengthened however, for it is the power of the nation state and national democracies which are one of the powers potentially available to people to fend off and reverse the growing concentration of power in the hands of a global investment elite. To save democracy, the global business elite must first be put in check, their powers limited and rolled back to a level where they can no longer dominate national governments, communities and the lives of virtually all of humanity. Once this is accomplished, and it will be, then we can look to decentralizing power further, in order to take democracy and freedom to new levels of maturation and fullness. I think I’m safe in saying that three of the thinkers I respect most, Chomsky, Jefferson and Thoreau, would all agree on this. First reduce the power of the global business elite, and return power to national democracies. Then we can talk about a future of sanity, sustainability, justice and peace. Until then, we are on the road to serfdom and slavery, if not self-destruction. It is time to take the power back.

Thomas Paine was right. The central issues of power in society are not so very complicated. Ultimately, it is largely a matter of common sense. The primary obstacles are fear, disempowerment and illusion. The answers therefore are clear. They are courage, empowerment and a basic clarity of mind. These three elements are all within our reach.

The future is in our hands.

J. Todd Ring,

February 13, 2008

Essential reading:

The Chalice and the Blade – Rianne Eisler

The Ecology of Freedom – Murray Bookchin

Mutual Aid – Petr Kropotkin

Escape from Freedom – Eric Fromm

The Discourse on Voluntary Servitude – Etienne de la Boitie

On Civil Disobedience – Henry David Thoreau

The Pedagogy of the Oppressed – Paulo Friere

The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism – Max Weber

Powers and Prospects – Noam Chomsky

Year 501: The Conquest Continues – Chomsky

Necessary Illusions – Chomsky

Shock Doctrine – Naomi Klein

The End of America – Naomi Wolf

Trilateralism – Holy Sklar

The Collapse of Globalism – John Ralston Saul

The Great Turning – David C. Korten

HR 1955: The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act

What is HR 1955, and why should we be interested? Here is a short introduction. More than we may imagine rides on the peoples' response to this newest development in the war on democracy.

Passed by a Democratic-controlled House of Representatives with a vote of 404-6, October 23, 2007.

Freedom of speech, association and assembly will be illegal in the US once the Senate and President sign on – and neither oppose it.

With this law, dissent will be illegal.

The unmistakable import of this new law is the criminalization of dissent.

The FBI’s infamous Counter-Intelligence Program (COINTELPRO) stated clearly, in documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, that, “through counter-intelligence, it should be possible to pinpoint potential trouble makers (sic) and neutralize them.” J. Edgar Hoover said of his COINTELPRO operation that his intent was to “neutralize political dissidents.” The FBI’s COINTELPRO operated illegally. HR 1955 now makes legal the mechanisms for neutralizing dissent. Expressing an opinion or view that is not favourable to the current ruling powers may be met with repression. America is now officially a fascist state.

The bill is moving rapidly through Congress, and may be signed into law by February. Dissent and debate in the US House of Representatives was virtually non-existent. The media networks have been silent. Spread the news: the internet and face to face communication seem to be the only means to get this critical information out.

"Legislation such as this demands heavy-handed governmental action against American citizens where no crime has been committed," Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul stated to the House in December, after missing the vote while campaigning. "It is yet another attack on our constitutionally protected civil liberties. It is my sincere hope that we will reject such approaches to security, which will fail at their stated goal at a great cost to our way of life."

"It will no doubt prove to be another bureaucracy that artificially inflates problems so as to guarantee its future existence and funding," Paul predicted in his House speech. "But it may do so at great further expense to our civil liberties." It is, he concluded, an "unwise and dangerous solution in search of a real problem."

"If you understand what his bill does, it really sets the stage for further criminalization of protest," said Dennis Kucinich. "This is the way our democracy, little by little, is being stripped away from us."

“There is no way to overstate how crucial this piece of legislation is. We are at a turning point, and without the restoration of the rule of law the "blueprint" for what I have called a "fascist shift" -- the closing down of democracy -- calls for scarier recriminations against citizens, greater tightening of social controls -- the ever-growing, disturbingly political TSA watch list is, alarmingly, due to go from the airlines' administration to that of the TSA itself -- and more corruptions of the electoral process. Blackwater is a truly terrifying wild card. Without the rule of law we will be powerless as each of these assaults on liberty continue to escalate. With it we can fight back.” – Naomi Wolf, author of The End of America, and American Fascism, in 10 easy steps.

“The most pressing liberty Ron Paul, the ACLU, Dennis Kucinich and pretty much most left- and right-leaning organizations fear outright is a restriction on the right of internet access, since the House Subcommittee hearings and text of the resolution seized upon it with almost draconian intent. "The Web as a Weapon?" The question begs another: How do you disarm that weapon?” - Punishing Thought Crime: Would New Bill Make YOU a Terrorist?by Scott Thill, AlterNet. January 17, 2008.

Look at the definition of terrorism in this bill. It is defined "the use, planned use or threatened use of force or violence by a group or individual to promote the group or individual's political, religious or social beliefs." Note that the bill states that terrorism may be the use of violence or force to advance political goals. The bill then specifies that the use of “intellectual force” by way of “compelling logical argument” falls under the definition of terrorism. This should make us all shudder. Thought crime. This is the destruction of democracy, civil rights, the constitution and freedom of speech.

It is important to remember that violence is already illegal, and therefore this bill is not about dealing with violence. Hence, this bill is about the use of non-violent “force” – the force of opinion, intellectual force, the force of a logical argument. In short, the bill is designed to combat free speech, and further, to suppress any form of protest, through association, assembly or expression. There is no other way to describe such legislation in any milder terms: this is fascism.

HR 1955 marks the beginning of the police state in America. When this bill is signed into law, dissent will be punishable by arrest without trial, and indefinite incarceration in the detention centers which Haliburton is busy constructing across the “homeland,” not to mention torture, which the Military Commissions Act of 1996 already made legal. Speak now, while you can. (See Homeland Security Contracts for Vast New Detention Camps and YouTube - Olbermann: the beginning of the end of America.)

Write, speak, blog, send letters to your representatives, email the news outlets and let them know that this critical unfolding of events, designed deliberately to destroy democracy and constitutional rights and freedoms, including this latest and most heinous of fascist legislation.

Here are some contact listings for getting the word out.

totn@npr.org, morning@npr.org, atc@npr.org, letters@latimes.com, fair@fair.org, ireport@cnn.com, netaudr@abc.com, evening@cbsnews.com, ftn@cbsnews.com, today@nbc.com, letters@nytimes.com, nytnews@nytimes.com, editor@usatoday.com, wsj.ltrs@wsj.com, letters@newsweek.com, letters@washpost.com, letters@usnews.com, info@ap.org, zmag@zmag.org, countdown@msnbc.com, mail@democracynow.org

People of America, here is a coalition, across right and left, that is working to defend freedom, democracy and your constitutional rights. You might want to get involved. The hour is late.

the American Freedom Agenda

American Freedom Campaign

“This is the answer both to those who say "What we can do?" and to those who claim (actually, sometimes whine) "there is nothing we can do." And if we don't act on this now we will get the democracy we deserve -- which is no democracy at all.

“Put aside your partisan ideal world -- sometimes issues simply transcend partisanship -- and if ever there is an issue that is above and separate from party politics, it is the restoration of the democratic system we inherited. There are good people and passionate patriots across the political spectrum.

“Let's do it. There is no excuse now. The restoration of democracy is up to you -- as the Founders intended it should be.” – Naomi Wolf

Get informed, get involved. There is much to be done, and little time.

J. Todd Ring,
January 22, 2008

Declaration of War vs. The People

YouTube - Freedom of Speech and H.R. 1955 pt. 1

Thinking for Yourself is Now a Crime - Paul Craig Roberts

ZNet |Repression | The House of Reps Vote 404 to 6 to Pass the Bill that Legalizes COINTELPRO?

Punishing Thought Crime: Would New Bill Make YOU a Terrorist?

ZNet |U.S. | Congressional Shame and Duplicity

Naomi Wolf: Fascist America, in 10 easy steps | Special reports | Guardian Unlimited

*****“The End of America”: Naomi Wolf Warns U.S. in Slow Descent into Fascism - Democracy Now! |

The End of America: Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot - Naomi Wolf

America: A Fork In the Road - Writings of J. Todd Ring

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

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

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

Towing the Line with the Mainstream Media

"Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech."
- Benjamin Franklin

“The media serve the interests of state and corporate power, which are closely interlinked, framing their reporting and analysis in a manner supportive of established privilege and limiting debate and discussion accordingly.”

Noam Chomsky

As Chomsky accurately pointed out – merely stating what should be obvious – the major media set the boundaries of acceptable discussion. They serve the function, among others, of saying in effect, “Thus far, and no further.” To step outside these parameters is thus implicitly portrayed as stepping off the edge of the earth. Beyond these bounds we enter the irrational, lunatic fringe. However, as also should be obvious, the bounds of discussion are extraordinarily narrow. Five corporations control network media in the U.S., six in Canada. They share a common perspective and present an extremely narrow range of views. Major issues are framed within a common lens of spin, omission of certain critical, salient facts, and outright distortion. Other major issues are not covered at all, or buried on page 39, in a minor note, right next to a recipe for oatmeal porridge or some other riveting feature. It should go without saying that if we allow the corporate media to set the parameters of discussion, we are lost.

Any dictator would admire the uniformity and obedience of the media.

Noam Chomsky

It is now a matter of public record that the U.S. government has contracted out to Haliburton subsidiary KBR to build detention centers in America. KBR itself announced this in their own press release, stating that the contract is “open-ended” in terms of time-frame and scale. This should be worrisome. We remember that detention centers have been built – and used – before. In the U.S. and Canada during the second world war, the Japanese detention centers left a horrible and grotesque legacy. And of course, we have the chilling memory of the Nazi prison camps. When the U.S. government, already moving rapidly in the direction of fascism, as any sane observer recognizes, starts building detention centers, we should take this as noteworthy. This is newsworthy, or nothing is. But if the major media don’t cover it, then we all feel it is unacceptable to talk about it.

It is now a matter of public record – not theory – that the executive branches of the U.S., Canadian and Mexican governments, along with at least three extremely powerful corporate lobby groups, have begun, under the signed agreement called the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP), what is being called a “dialogue” to create “full regulatory harmonization” and “deep integration” within “Fortress North America” in “the new security environment.” This is a program that is far more broad and ambitious than NAFTA, CAFTA or the FTAA, yet it is being met with almost complete silence by the mainstream media. Are we to then accept that such a major program, which is being carried out without Congressional or Parliamentary oversight or debate, which will redefine the economies, military and security structures, laws, regulations, borders and political process of the three nations, is not fit for public discussion, is not a legitimate topic of debate or dialogue, is beyond the range of acceptable discourse? The answer is, of course - or should be - obvious.

If we concede to the major media setting the bounds of discussion, and thus accept that these are the limits to rational or legitimate dialogue, then we have conceded defeat. Must we accept such narrow and arbitrary terms on the bounds of sane and reasonable discourse? What are we, men and women, or cattle?

“Half the American population no longer reads
newspapers: plainly, they are the clever half.”
- Gore Vidal

“If words were invented to conceal thought,
newspapers are a great improvement of a bad invention.”
- Henry David Thoreau

“I find it so difficult to dispose of the few facts which to me are significant, that I hesitate to burden my attention with those which are insignificant. Such is, for the most part, the news in newspapers and conversation.” - Thoreau

“Trying to be a first-rate reporter on the average American newspaper is like trying to play Bach's St. Matthew Passion on a ukulele.” - Ben Bagdikian

“If you don't want to work, become a reporter. That awful power, the public opinion of the nation, was created by a horde of self-complacent simpletons who failed at ditch and shoemaking and fetched up journalism on their way to poorhouse.” - Mark Twain

“Newspapers are unable, seemingly, to discriminate between a bicycle accident and the collapse of civilization.” - G B Shaw

"The average newspaper, especially of the better sort, has the intelligence of a hillbilly evangelist, the courage of a rat, the fairness of a prohibitionist boob-jumper, the information of a high school janitor, the taste of a designer of celluloid valentines, and the honor of a police-station lawyer." - HL Mencken

“If you're not careful the media will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing.” - Malcolm X

“The most effectual engines for [pacifying a nation] are the public papers…[A despotic] government always [keeps] a king of standing army of newswriters who, without any regard to truth or what should look like truth, [invent] and put into the papers whatever might serve the ministers. This suffices with the mass of the people who have no means of distinguishing the false from the true paragraphs of a newspaper.”

- Thomas Jefferson, 1785

“I really look with commiseration over the great body of my fellow citizens who, reading newspapers, live and die in the belief that they have known something of what has been passing in the world in their time.” - Thomas Jefferson

“The man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them, inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he who’s mind is filled with falsehoods and errors. He who reads nothing will still learn the great facts, and the details are all false.” - Thomas Jefferson

As my father used to say, if everyone else jumped off a cliff, would you follow? Or more directly, if everyone else is content to eat shit sandwiches, do we have to do the same? Why do we tune into the corporate media at all? Surely we are more intelligent than this. I believe most are. And polls show that the great majority of people have a pretty clear sense of what’s going on; and further more, have a high degree of skepticism about the major media. Why then do we continue to tune in, to eat this stuff up, or to allow the mass media to define the parameters of debate and discussion? I have to guess, or conclude, that it is a matter of group think. Heaven forbid that we deviate from the herd.

“In matters of style, swim with the current;
in matters of principle, stand like a rock.”

- Thomas Jefferson

As every intelligent observer knows, mainstream media in Canada and the U.S. are either corporate owned or corporate dominated, due to dependency on advertising revenues. As such, we cannot be surprised to find a very narrow range of perspective and a remarkable commonality of spin across the mass media, with disinformation, distortion and omission of vital information being the norm.

The independent media in general do an excellent job of broadening the range of discussion and covering issues that are under-reported by the corporate media monopolies, but there are areas where the independent media also fall short. The SPP is one glaring example.

What I’d like to suggest is that we keep the obvious in mind at all times: if we are writers, bloggers, independent journalists or media workers, or for that matter, anyone who is involved with or interested in the actual goings on in our world, we must not allow the mainstream media to set the parameters of legitimate public discourse.

Nor can we allow the mainstream media – the corporate-dominated media – to set the tone. The tone in the mass media is tepid, timid, blasé, and not truly objective at all. The media gets itself worked up into a frenzy in order to vilify the proper enemies, or pronounce the corporate party line, but when it comes to reporting or commenting on the short-comings or failures of business as usual and the party line, the best they can muster is a valium stupor of spiritless, apathetic hand-wringing – and this only when the far more common response of rationalization, justification, spin and denial are not the reaction. Genocide in Africa, the race toward ecological self-destruction, risk of nuclear confrontation over Iran or other conflicts, the institutionalization of war crimes as defined by international law, the legalization and routine, systemic use of torture, the destruction of constitutional rights and liberties: these are just a few examples of subjects that demand more than a luke-warm response; at least, that is, if we are to retain our human decency, if we are to address ourselves to the issues in a sane or humane manner, or if we are to introduce into the debate and discussion any of these qualities.

Call it like it is. Euphemistic, wishy-washy reporting and commentary smacks of either intellectual timidity or simple laziness, as well as moral cowardice. The people I admire most in terms of writers are those who have a marked intelligence, or more simply, a basic clarity of mind, and far more importantly, a deep sense of compassion, combined with a willingness to frankly speak the truth, even when it is unpopular to do so. Chomsky, and even more so, Thoreau, come to mind along with others. What we need to hear more of is people speaking plainly and intelligently, with compassion, and also with spine. Journalism that sparks little more passionate response than three day old porridge is not what we need. The usual skirting of issues and bland hedging, is about as effectual at addressing the issues we face as is making love in a wet suit.

In either case, if we allow the mainstream media to set the parameters of debate, the framing of the issue, the bounds of discussion; or to set the tone of public discourse - then we are lost.

As should be self-evident, the relevant facts and evidence must be brought forth, even if this is outside the bounds of discussion as defined by the dominant corporate-controlled media; and the tone of our dialogue must be at least somewhat more impassioned than what is set as the norm of reasonable discussion by the same dominant media forces. To do otherwise is to lose before beginning.

Effective action, or even simple integrity, can be based only upon truth, and courage to speak the truth. It also requires a willingness to meet the issues of the day with more than a banal and blasé spiritlessness, pretending to objectivity, neutrality or “balance”. We need to break the barriers of the media monopolies, and firstly, within our own minds and discourse.

J. Todd Ring

April 10, 2007

Useful links:

Manufacturing Consent

Necessary Illusions

Thoreau's "On Civil Disobedience"

Amazon.com: Necessary Illusions: Thought Control in Democratic Societies: Books: Noam Chomsky

Democracy Now!

Free Speech TV

Big Picture TV

oneworld tv<

Project Censored

Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting

Who Owns The Media?"

Your Media: Preserve Freedom, Diversity, Independence

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

Iran: Oil, Nukes & War, Pretexts for Martial Law

On nukes in Iran – or rather, the second WMD pretext for mid-east war:

The U.S. Defense Intelligence estimate, as well as the analysis made by the CIA, tells us that Iran is 10 years away, at the earliest, from developing nuclear weapons. Why then the rush to set off a powder keg in the Middle East? Clearly this is another WMD scare tactic to create a pretext for war, as we saw in 2003 with Iraq. It was a lie then, and it is a lie now. The real motive is oil.

The biggest threat by far, with regards to nuclear weapons, is not from the few that Iran might possibly develop over the coming 10 years, but from the global conflict between already existing nuclear super-powers – the U.S., Russia and China – that might erupt as a result from a U.S. attack on Iran. If we are at all sane, we will do everything in our power to keep the U.S., Israel or NATO from attacking Iran and throwing a match into this powder keg. Any future danger posed by Iran pales completely in comparison to the danger we all face if the U.S. or Israel launches an attack. (See War on Iran: A Most Dangerous Gambit.)

If we are genuinely concerned with nuclear proliferation, there are far saner voices than those of Bush, Cheney and Rice. Military analyst Sergei Plekhanov is one. He warns that the most serious threat posed by Iran lies not in any future arms development in that nation, but in the aforementioned possibility of conflict between nuclear superpowers that may be set off by a U.S. attack on Iran. With Iran, Russia and China having formed a military and economic alliance, the danger is real. Joint military training maneuvers have already begun.

“When we think about the danger of nuclear war nowadays, the mind zeros in on North Korea and Iran and stays there, preoccupied with the fact that North Korea has a few nuclear bombs, while Iran may or may not build a few of its own in the next decade. The international community is tying itself in knots trying to respond to the colossal threats to world peace and security that these two countries present.

“Now, the reality is that of the world’s estimated 22,000 nuclear weapons, about 21,000 belong to the U.S. and Russia, each of the two possessing nearly equal numbers and keeping about 1,000 of them ready for launching within 30 minutes.

“If we should worry about the existence of nuclear weapons with their unique capacity to put an end to human life on this planet, it is odd that we overlook the thousands and peer at the murky single digits through a magnifying glass and tremble with fear.

“What happened to the clarity of mind that defined world thinking about nuclear weapons 20 years ago, when it was obvious that the really dangerous nukes were those in massive numbers that the Americans and the Russians trained on each other and were ready to use on a few minutes’ notice?

“The new U.S.-Russian relationship, as it is currently evolving, contains a potential for very serious threats to international security. In a major international crisis, conflict between the two major nuclear powers may escalate to extreme levels.”

- Sergei Plekhanov, Truthdig - The Nightmare Scenario

For a sane response to the question of nuclear weapons in the Middle East, we should listen less to Bush, Cheney and Rice, who are proven liars, and more to the people like Sergei Plekhanov and senior CIA veteran analyst Ray McGovern.

“Preaching to Iran and others about not acquiring nuclear weapons is, indeed, like the village drunk preaching sobriety — the more so as our government keeps developing new genres of nuclear weapons and keeps looking the other way as Israel enhances its own nuclear arsenal. Not a pretty moral picture, that. Indeed, it reminds me of the Scripture passage about taking the plank out of your own eye before insisting that the speck be removed from another’s.”

- Ray McGovern, senior veteran CIA analyst for 27 years,

from JFK through Bush I, co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity

“The ideal approach would, of course, be to destroy all nuclear weapons in the world and ban them for the future, with a very intrusive global inspection regime to verify compliance. A total ban is worth holding up as an ideal, and I think we must. But this approach seems unlikely to bear fruit over the next four years. So what then?

“How about a nuclear-free Middle East? Could the US make that happen? We could if we had moral clarity — the underpinning necessary to bring it about. Each time this proposal is raised, the Syrians, for example, clap their hands in feigned joyful anticipation, saying, “Of course such a pact would include Israel, right?” The issue is then dropped from all discussion by U.S. policymakers. Required: not only moral clarity but also what Thomas Aquinas labeled the precondition for all virtue, courage. In this context, courage would include a refusal to be intimidated by inevitable charges of anti-Semitism.

“The reality is that, except for Israel, the Middle East is nuclear free. But the discussion cannot stop there. It is not difficult to understand why the first leaders of Israel, with the Holocaust experience written indelibly on their hearts and minds, and feeling surrounded by perceived threats to the fledgling state’s existence, wanted the bomb. And so, before the Syrians or Iranians, for example, get carried away with self-serving applause for the nuclear-free Middle East proposal, they will have to understand that for any such negotiation to succeed it must have as a concomitant aim the guarantee of an Israel able to live in peace and protect itself behind secure borders. That guarantee has got to be part of the deal.

“That the obstacles to any such agreement are formidable is no excuse not trying. But the approach would have to be new and everything would have to be on the table. Persisting in a state of denial about Israel’s nuclear weapons is dangerously shortsighted; it does nothing but aggravate fears among the Arabs and create further incentive for them to acquire nuclear weapons of their own.

“A sensible approach would also have to include a willingness to engage the Iranians directly, attempt to understand their perspective, and discern what the United States and Israel could do to alleviate their concerns.

“To remember why the United States is no favorite in Tehran, one needs to go back at least to 1953 when the U.S. and Great Britain overthrew Iran’s democratically elected Premier Mohammad Mossadeq as part of a plan to insure access to Iranian oil. They then emplaced the young Shah in power who, with his notorious secret police, proved second to none in cruelty. The Shah ruled from 1953 to 1979. Much resentment can build up over a whole generation. His regime fell like a house of cards, when supporters of Ayatollah Khomeini rose up to do some regime change of their own.

““The crazies” are not finished. …In an immediate sense, with U.S. military power unrivaled, they can be seen as “crazy like a fox,” with a value system in which “might makes right.” Operating out of that value system, and now sporting the more respectable misnomer/moniker “neoconservative,” they are convinced that they know exactly what they are doing. They have a clear ideology and a geopolitical strategy, which leap from papers they put out at the Project for the New American Century over recent years.

“The very same men who, acting out of that paradigm, brought us the war in Iraq are now focusing on Iran, which they view as the only remaining obstacle to American domination of the entire oil-rich Middle East.

“Has everyone forgotten that deterrence worked for some 40 years, while for most of those years the U.S. and the USSR had not by any means lost their lust for ever-enhanced nuclear weapons?

“As was the case with Iraq two years ago, there is no imminent Iranian strategic threat to Americans — or, in reality, to anyone. Even if Iran acquired a nuclear capability, there is no reason to believe that it would risk a suicidal first strike on Israel. That, after all, is what mutual deterrence is all about; it works both ways.”

- CIA veteran Ray McGovern,

Attacking Iran: I Know It Sounds Crazy, But...

There is no rational basis for attacking Iran if our concern is the danger of nuclear warfare. This much should be obvious. What then are the real motives of the U.S.?

Peak Oil, Geopolitics & Imperial Warfare

Imperial warfare is, of course, not new to the U.S. or to the world, nor is it a recent invention of the Washington neo-conservatives. Economic interests and hegemony – first regional, then global – have been the primary and consistent over-riding objectives of U.S. foreign policy since the Indian Wars, the Mexican-American War, and the conquest of the gems of the Caribbean in 1898 during the Spanish-American War.

“We have about 50% of the world’s wealth but only 6.3% of its population… In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity without positive detriment to our national security. To do so, we will have to dispense with all sentimentality… We should cease to talk about vague and…unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of the living standards, and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts.”

- Chief long-term strategic planner for the U.S. National Security Council,
George F. Kennan, in a 1948 State Department Brief: the now-declassified NSC 68.

This is not new. Bush is only the latest of war criminals. He is the successor to empire - an empire that is in crisis and crumbling, desperate to shore itself up while it may still be possible.

“The Neo-conservative agenda under the Bush administration should be viewed as the culmination of a (bipartisan) “Post War” foreign policy framework, which provides the basis for the planning of the contemporary wars and atrocities including the setting up of torture chambers, concentration camps and the extensive use of prohibited weapons directed against civilians.

“From Korea, Vietnam and Afghanistan, to the CIA sponsored military coups in Latin America and Southeast Asia, the objective has been to ensure US military hegemony and global economic domination, as initially formulated under the “Truman Doctrine”. Despite significant policy differences, successive Democratic and Republican administrations, from Harry Truman to George W. Bush have carried out this global military agenda.

“What distinguishes the Bush administration in relation to the historical record of US sponsored crimes and atrocities, is that the concentration camps, targeted assassinations and torture chambers are now openly considered as legitimate forms of intervention, which sustain “the global war on terrorism” and support the spread of Western democracy.

“To reverse the tide of war requires a massive campaign of networking and outreach to inform people across the land, nationally and internationally, in neighborhoods, workplaces, parishes, mosques, schools, universities, municipalities, on the dangers of a US sponsored war which contemplates the use of nuclear weapons. The message should be loud and clear: It is not Iran which is a threat to global security but the United States of America.

“The corporate media also bear a heavy responsibility for the cover-up of US sponsored war crimes. Until recently these war preparations involving the use of nuclear weapons have been scarcely covered by the corporate media. The latter must also be forcefully challenged for their biased coverage of the Middle East war.

“What is needed is to break the conspiracy of silence, expose the media lies and distortions, confront the criminal nature of the US Administration and of those governments which support it, its war agenda as well as its so-called “Homeland Security agenda” which has already defined the contours of a police State.”

- Michel Chossudovsky, Professor of Economics, Ottawa University, founder and director of the Center for Research on Globalization

“Intelligent people realize that American claims to be a moral and democratic force are mere pretense behind which hides a policy of military aggression.”

- Paul Craig Roberts, former associate editor, Wall Street Journal

Imperial warfare has always been primarily about securing resources - land and labour being the first and most primary, followed closely by minerals and other resources. Control of energy resources - whether they be in the form of feudal land-holdings, slave holdings, serfs, forests, or more recently, the energy source the industrial world runs on, oil – has always been central to the objectives of empire.

The politics of oil, in this context, is the politics of empire, in one particular and very central facet. Peak oil simply adds to the urgency of controlling world oil reserves. With world oil production near or at its peak, oil prices will rise dramatically, the era of cheap energy will soon be over, demand will outstrip supply, and controlling world oil reserves, more than ever before, will mean holding global economic hegemony. The stakes are high for the seekers of empire; as they are high for the rest of us, due to the risks and bloodshed involved in such maneuvers for control.

The Real Threats We Face

We should bear in mind a few things. One, the CIA and Defense Intelligence have stated that Iran will not develop nuclear weapons for another 10 years. Two, the risk posed by Iran anytime in the near future is negligible compared to the extreme risks entailed in an attack on Iran. Three, the Bush administration lied repeatedly, and in much the same way, to get the American people to accept war on Iraq – which by all honest accounts has been a disaster, not to mention an atrocity. Four, both “pre-emptive war” and regime change are acts of aggression, and as such are war crimes under both international law and the U.S. Constitution. Five, with the nuclear proliferation pretext so manifestly a deceit, the objective of war on Iran is clearly control of the fourth largest oil reserves in the Middle East – which the neocons’ PNAC documents state clearly and explicitly. Six, such an attack would entail mass murder, and for no less vulgar reasons than control of energy reserves, economic hegemony, and imperial ambition.

Finally, a last consideration, and a very serious one, is the risk entailed in the pretext to war, and not simply in the act or war or the ensuing fall-out. This is, aside from the real possibility of WW III, one of the greatest dangers of an attack on Iran. The neocon “crazies” - as many apparently referred to them during the 1980’s and `90’s, before they came to the center of power in Washington - have made it clear in their “Project for a New American Century” (PNAC) planning and strategy papers, that their objectives of “full spectrum dominance” cannot be achieved in any short time, unless there is a “catalyzing event” of sufficient magnitude, another Pearl Harbour-type event. We had one such horrific event, but that may not be enough to expand the “Global War on Terror” at home or across the Middle East. A further pretext may be needed, and an unlikely source has warned of just that.

Former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinksi warned the Senate this February 1 of just such an “event.” Read the following carefully. Better yet, read “Zbig”’s statement, then watch the video clip as he emphasizes his stark warning.

“[A] plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran [is]… Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks, followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure, then by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the US blamed on Iran, culminating in, quote/unquote, ‘defensive’ US military action against Iran…”
- Zbigniew Brzezinski, before the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, February 1, 2007

YouTube - Brzezinski predicts provoking war with Iran.

A second 9/11 attack, possibly of greater magnitude, would be a horror in itself. But when we also consider General Tommy Franks statements on such an event, the horror becomes an even greater nightmare. Former NATO Supreme Allied Commander General Tommy Franks has stated that the next terrorist attack would likely be the end of democracy: the Constitution would be suspended, martial law declared, and Congress probably not reconvened.

The implications of what is unfolding are almost unthinkable. Yet, we would be wise to give them due thought. If there is no resistance to the madness being orchestrated, we may see a very dark time ahead. Fortunately, there is great, broad and world-wide popular resistance to this grim direction of what can only honestly be called Machiavellian imperial ambition. The resistance now must be galvanized. We may be in for a serious challenge ahead.

“If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.”

~ James Madison

“The spirit of this country is totally adverse to a large military force.”
- Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) 3rd American President

“Force is the vital principle and immediate parent of despotism.”
- Thomas Jefferson

“If there is one principle more deeply rooted in the mind of every American, it is that we should have nothing to do with conquest.” - Thomas Jefferson

J. Todd Ring

April 5, 2007

YouTube - Brzezinski predicts provoking war with Iran.

* White House brushes off CIA report on Iran: report | Top News | Reuters.com

Former CIA Analyst Ray McGovern: British Sailors the Justification for War against Iran?

The War on Iran - Michel Chossudovsky

Attacking Iran: I Know It Sounds Crazy, But...

Alex Jones Interviews Scott Ritter

Appetite for Oil Fuels America’s Warmongering

Smoking Gun:The CIA’s Interest in Peak Oil

Democracy Now! | Target Iran: Former UN Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter and Investigative Journalist Seymour Hersh on White House Plans for Regime Change

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

Truthdig - Interviews - Pentagon Whistle-Blower on the Coming War With Iran

Chomsky on Iran - It all comes down to control

Gangsters for Capitalism

A Timeline of CIA Atrocities

ZNet |Foreign Policy | American Empire For Dummies « Dissident

ZNet |Foreign Policy | We Had a Democracy Once , But You Crushed It

Iraq War Timeline: Lie by Lie

Truthdig - The Nightmare Scenario

War on Iran: A Most Dangerous Gambit.

Nuclear Bunker Buster Bombs againt Iran: This Way Lies Madness

Brzezinski: Avoid disaster with Iran

Evidence of US coercion of IAEA members against Iran revealed

Looking for a Gulf of Tonkin-like Incident

Why is the US press silent on Brzezinski’s warnings of war against Iran?

The Pentagon’s “Second 911″

The Other 9/11

***The Police State Is Closer Than You Think - by Paul Craig Roberts « Dissident

MSNBC's Keith Olbermann: U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights, Gone

Olbermann: Bush Signs Military Commissions Act

Olbermann: The Death of Habeas Corpus

Harvard Law Students Hold Funeral for US Constitution

Impending Police State in America: Interview with Professor Francis Boyle

Texas Congressman Urges Repeal of Neo-Fascist Laws

Bush and the Forbidden C-Word by Rev. William Alberts

The Criminalization of US Foreign Policy

Bill Moyers: The Secret Government - PBS Video

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

Bill Moyers: Media, Democracy and Pillage by the Elite - Part 1

Mind Control - History Chanel Video Documentary

*** Even Conservatives Hate Republicans Now

Dems' Big Middle Finger to the American Voter

Empire v. Democracy: Why Nemesis Is at Our Door - by Chalmers Johnson and Tom Engelhardt

US generals ‘will quit’ if Bush orders Iran attack

America’s nuclear ticking bomb

Peak Oil intro - CBC 2min.

‘Living on an illusion’ - CNN video on oil depletion

How to avoid oil wars, terrorism, and economic collapse | EnergyBulletin.net | Peak Oil News Clearinghouse

Peak Oil alert - Houston Business Journal:

An Open Letter to Greg Palast on Peak Oil

Will The End of Oil Mean The End of America?

We Were Warned: Tomorrow’s Oil Crisis - CNN

The Oil Factor: Behind the War on Terror

The War for Oil - BBC - Part 1/3

War for Oil - BBC - Part 2/3

War for Oil - BBC - Part 3/3

Video - Robert Newman History of oil - Google Video

The Power of Community: How Cuba Survived Peak Oil - order video

Making Sweden an OIL-FREE Society

Oil Wars or Adaptation?

Iran attack would cause market chaos - The Business - London's First Global Business Magazine

OPEC sells the Dollar

Digital Journal - Tehran Times: Iran Has Started Substituting Euros for Dollars in Oil Sales

* Hysteria Over Iran and a New Cold War with Russia: Peak Oil, Petrocurrencies and the Emerging Multi-Polar World « Dissident

ZNet |Economy | China and the Dollar

ZNet |Economy | Dollar Crisis and American Empire

Crouching Chinese Tiger, Tumbling US Economy

Paul Craig Roberts:The Vicious Downward Cycle of the American Economy

War, Neoliberalism & Empire – Chomsky

YouTube - Eisenhower warns us of the military industrial complex .

Eisenhower's Worst Nightmare Now Harsh Reality For U.S. « Dissident

YouTube - Bob Dylan - Masters Of War - full version

YouTube - Texas Republican slams Bush "demented philosophy of conquest"

Gulf of Tonkin 2: Iran

Left-Right Alliance Against War? - by Jon Basil Utley

International Mobilization To Stop U.S. Attack on Iran « Dissident

StopIranWar.com

North America: Timeline to a Fascist State

Overview: Geopolitics 2006-2008

The Endgame is Unfolding

Whew, time for some good news

What Must Be Done: When corporatism and Leninism have both failed - part 1

What Must Be Done: When corporatism and Leninism have both failed - part 2

A Bit of Humour

Imperial Hubris and Brzezinski's Second Chance « Writings of J. Todd Ring