Print this article
Dear Editor,
This is my latest article, entitled: No Checkpoints in Heaven, written in the memory of my father, who passed away recently in Gaza.
Thanks and regards
Ramzy Baroud
+++++
No Checkpoints in Heaven
By Ramzy Baroud
I still vividly remember my father’s face - wrinkled, apprehensive, warm - as he last wished me farewell fourteen years ago. He stood outside the rusty door of my family’s home in a Gaza refugee camp wearing old yellow pyjamas and a seemingly ancient robe. As I hauled my one small suitcase into a taxi that would take me to an Israeli airport an hour away, my father stood still. I wished he would go back inside; it was cold and the soldiers could pop up at any moment. As my car moved on, my father eventually faded into the distance, along with the graveyard, the water tower and the camp. It never occurred to me that I would never see him again.
I think of my father now as he was that day. His tears and his frantic last words: “Do you have your money? Your passport? A jacket? Call me the moment you get there. Are you sure you have your passport? Just check, one last time…”
My father was a man who always defied the notion that one can only be the outcome of his circumstance. Expelled from his village at the age of 10, running barefoot behind his parents, he was instantly transferred from the son of a landowning farmer to a penniless refugee in a blue tent provided by the United Nations in Gaza. Thus, his life of hunger, pain, homelessness, freedom-fighting, love, marriage and loss commenced.
The fact that he was the one chosen to quit school to help his father provide for his now tent-dwelling family was a huge source of stress for him. In a strange, unfamiliar land, his new role was going into neighbouring villages and refugee camps to sell gum, aspirin and other small items. His legs were a testament to the many dog bites he obtained during these daily journeys. Later scars were from the shrapnel he acquired through war.
As a young man and soldier in the Palestinian unit of the Egyptian army, he spent years of his life marching through the Sinai desert. When the Israeli army took over Gaza following the Arab defeat in 1967, the Israeli commander met with those who served as police officers under Egyptian rule and offered them the chance to continue their services under Israeli rule. Proudly and willingly, my young father chose abject poverty over working under the occupier’s flag. And for that, predictably, he paid a heavy price. His two-year-old son died soon after.
My oldest brother is buried in the same graveyard that bordered my father’s house in the camp. My father, who couldn’t cope with the thought that his only son died because he couldn’t afford to buy medicine or food, would be found asleep near the tiny grave all night, or placing coins and candy in and around it.
My father’s reputation as an intellectual, his obsession with Russian literature, and his endless support of fellow refugees brought him untold trouble with the Israeli authorities, who retaliated by denying him the right to leave Gaza.
His severe asthma, which he developed as a teenager was compounded by lack of adequate medical facilities. Yet, despite daily coughing streaks and constantly gasping for breath, he relentlessly negotiated his way through life for the sake of his family. On one hand, he refused to work as a cheap labourer in Israel. “Life itself is not worth a shred of one’s dignity,” he insisted. On the other, with all borders sealed except that with Israel, he still needed a way to bring in an income. He would buy cheap clothes, shoes, used TVs, and other miscellaneous goods, and find a way to transport and sell them in the camp. He invested everything he made to ensure that his sons and daughter could receive a good education, an arduous mission in a place like Gaza.
But when the Palestinian uprising of 1987 exploded, and our camp became a battleground between stone-throwers and the Israeli army, mere survival became Dad’s new obsession. Our house was the closest to the Red Square, arbitrarily named for the blood spilled there, and also bordered the ‘Martyrs’ Graveyard’. How can a father adequately protect his family in such surroundings? Israeli soldiers stormed our house hundreds of times; it was always him who somehow held them back, begging for his children’s safety, as we huddled in a dark room awaiting our fate. “You will understand when you have your own children,” he told my older brothers as they protested his allowing the soldiers to slap his face. Our ‘freedom-fighting’ dad struggled to explain how love for his children could surpass his own pride. He grew in my eyes that day.
It’s been fourteen years since I last saw my father. As none of his children had access to isolated Gaza, he was left alone to fend for himself. We tried to help as much as we could, but what use is money without access to medicine? In our last talk he said he feared he would die before seeing my children, but I promised that I would find a way. I failed.
Since the siege on Gaza, my father’s life became impossible. His ailments were not ‘serious’ enough for hospitals crowded with limbless youth. During the most recent Israeli onslaught, most hospital spaces were converted to surgery wards, and there was no place for an old man like my dad. All attempts to transfer him to the better equipped West Bank hospitals failed as Israeli authorities repeatedly denied him the required permit.
"I am sick, son, I am sick," my father cried when I spoke to him two days before his death. He died alone on March 18, waiting to be reunited with my brothers in the West Bank. He died a refugee, but a proud man nonetheless.
My father’s struggle began 60 years ago, and it ended a few days ago. Thousands of people descended to his funeral from throughout Gaza, oppressed people that shared his plight, hopes and struggles, accompanying him to the graveyard where he was laid to rest. Even a resilient fighter deserves a moment of peace.
-Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers and journals worldwide. His latest book is The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle (Pluto Press, London).
QuestionItNow Voices
Dear America,
This week marks the fifth anniversary of the war in Iraq, but you might not have seen much about it on TV recently. Just 3% of the news in February was dedicated to the war and fewer than one in three Americans know how many American troops have died in Iraq. Believe it or not, a study just released by the Pew Research Center shows that press coverage of the war is at the lowest point since the war began.
Please take a minute now to sign an open letter to the media and demand that major networks increase their coverage of the Iraq war.
The economy and the presidential campaigns are both important stories, but news of the ongoing wars shouldn't fall by the wayside. The media must demonstrate that they can walk and chew gum at the same time. Over 80% of Americans are aware that Oprah Winfrey endorsed Senator Barack Obama for president, while just 28% know how many troops have died in Iraq- even though we are rapidly approaching 4,000 casualties.
An unprecedented detachment between the American public and the men and women at war makes the media's coverage of the conflicts more vital than ever. Just because the coverage has waned doesn't mean our troops aren't facing daily dangers or major issues once they return home.
Men and women continue to serve in Iraq, though you might not realize that just from watching the news. Please sign this open letter and honor the sacrifice of those who have served in the past five years by making sure they remain in the public eye.Please sign this open letter and honor the sacrifice of those who have served in the past five years by making sure they remain in the public eye.
Thank you for your continued support.
Sincerely,
Paul Rieckhoff
Iraq Veteran
Executive Director
Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America
As an aside, the American public can easily track the depressing statistics of the Iraqi civilian dead at IRAQ BODY COUNT. As of this evening, the five year anniversary total is estimated between 82,249 and 89,760.
Happy Anniversary President Bush!
QuestionItNow
Senate Floor Statement on the Army Field Manual Provision in the Intelligence Authorization Conference Report:
02/13/08
I urge my colleagues to support the Intelligence Authorization conference report which includes a requirement that all government agencies, including the CIA, comply with the Army Field Manual on Interrogations in the treatment and interrogation of detainees.
The result will be a single standard of treatment for detainees, a standard consistent with American values and international standards. The Army Field Manual is consistent with our obligations under Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, which prohibits subjecting detainees to "cruel treatment and torture." This is the standard to which our soldiers are trained and which they live by.
Consistent with this standard, the Army Field Manual specifically prohibits certain interrogation techniques. These include:
* Forced nudity;
* "Waterboarding," that is, inducing the sensation of drowning;
* Using military working dogs in interrogations;
* Subjecting detainees to extreme temperatures; and
* Mock executions.
Unfortunately, the Bush Administration has insisted that it reserves the right for the CIA to engage in certain "enhanced interrogation techniques." It has been reported that these CIA techniques include "waterboarding." While this Justice Department continues to refuse to say one way or the other, let there be no doubt: waterboarding is torture.
The Judge Advocates General of all four services have told us unequivocally that waterboarding is illegal. Requiring that all government agencies comply with the standards of the Army Field Manual is not mushy intellectualism. It’s hard-headed pragmatism. When we fail to live up to our own standards for humane treatment, we compromise our moral authority. Our security depends on the willingness of others to work with us and share information, information which could prevent the next attack. When we project moral hypocrisy, we lose the support of the world in the fight against the extremists. Requiring a single standard for the treatment of detainees consistent with the Army Field Manual protects our men and women in uniform, should they be captured. It strengthens our hand in demanding that American prisoners be treated humanely, consistent with values embodied in the Field Manual. I urge my colleagues to support the Intelligence Authorization conference report with the provision that standards in the Army Field Manual for treatment of detainees will apply to all elements of the intelligence community.
- Michigan Senator Carl Levin
QuestionItNow
02/13/08
I urge my colleagues to support the Intelligence Authorization conference report which includes a requirement that all government agencies, including the CIA, comply with the Army Field Manual on Interrogations in the treatment and interrogation of detainees.
The result will be a single standard of treatment for detainees, a standard consistent with American values and international standards. The Army Field Manual is consistent with our obligations under Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, which prohibits subjecting detainees to "cruel treatment and torture." This is the standard to which our soldiers are trained and which they live by.
Consistent with this standard, the Army Field Manual specifically prohibits certain interrogation techniques. These include:
* Forced nudity;
* "Waterboarding," that is, inducing the sensation of drowning;
* Using military working dogs in interrogations;
* Subjecting detainees to extreme temperatures; and
* Mock executions.
Unfortunately, the Bush Administration has insisted that it reserves the right for the CIA to engage in certain "enhanced interrogation techniques." It has been reported that these CIA techniques include "waterboarding." While this Justice Department continues to refuse to say one way or the other, let there be no doubt: waterboarding is torture.
The Judge Advocates General of all four services have told us unequivocally that waterboarding is illegal. Requiring that all government agencies comply with the standards of the Army Field Manual is not mushy intellectualism. It’s hard-headed pragmatism. When we fail to live up to our own standards for humane treatment, we compromise our moral authority. Our security depends on the willingness of others to work with us and share information, information which could prevent the next attack. When we project moral hypocrisy, we lose the support of the world in the fight against the extremists. Requiring a single standard for the treatment of detainees consistent with the Army Field Manual protects our men and women in uniform, should they be captured. It strengthens our hand in demanding that American prisoners be treated humanely, consistent with values embodied in the Field Manual. I urge my colleagues to support the Intelligence Authorization conference report with the provision that standards in the Army Field Manual for treatment of detainees will apply to all elements of the intelligence community.
- Michigan Senator Carl Levin
QuestionItNow
Last night my wife and I watched a re-run of Robin Williams in "Man of the Year." Watching his performance reminded me how brilliant and insightful this comedian is. Williams hits the nail on the head about so many issues in his rapid-fire delivery it is tough to keep up with him. Still, his performance reminds that too often the American political landscape is littered with influence peddling and shameless hypocrisy.
The recent wins of Barrack Obama, and Mike Huckabee in Iowa, along with the record turnout have the analysts pointing to a growing American hunger for change. Yet, the questions remain ‘will things truly change?’ Will the common good trump the special interests? Will America elect a government that will be focused on the issues that affect the lives, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of everyday Americans?
Interestingly America seems ready to finally discard the Bush/Cheney era politics of fear. The evidence lays in the smack-down of fear monger #1 Rudy Giuliani. The fire-fighter foe scored less than half as well as the self-proclaimed change-agent Ron Paul. Paul took ten percent, and remains within striking distance of the unsettled, and bitterly divided republican field.
Joel Hirshorn has his own take on these recent events and how they relate to Ron Paul in particular:
Change Yes, Ron Paul No
Joel S. Hirschhorn
Ron Pauls obnoxious supporters like more traditional political activists can spin and delude themselves about election results. But the Iowa caucus results could not be clearer: The vast national desire for political change is manifesting itself through support for both Democratic and Republican change-candidates. Despite Paul being flush with money and having a large number of workers in Iowa, he was solidly rejected as the leading change agent.
Even with a huge historic turnout of about 348,000 participants, Paul did not attract significant numbers of independents that could easily participate in the Republican caucuses. They went to Obama, Edwards and Huckabee.
On the Democratic side, of some 232,000 people that turned out for the caucuses, nearly doubling what it was four years ago, about 70 percent wanted change and went for Obama and Edwards, roughly 150,000 participants.
On the Republican side, of the 116,000 participants, about 40,000 change-voters went for Huckabee, compared to 11,600 that chose Paul, giving him fifth place. That 10 percent for Paul was very close to the 9 percent found in a Des Moines Register poll of likely caucus voters (margin of error 3.5 points). Interestingly, like Paul, Huckabee also wants to eliminate the federal income tax.
In both parties, change-voters totaled about 200,000. So Paul received just 6 percent of that large fraction, and just 3 percent of the total of all caucus participants in Iowa. Paul was first in only one county, Jefferson, with 36 percent
Edwards was absolutely correct when he summed things up this way: The one thing that is clear from the results in Iowa tonight is the status quo lost and change won.
With all the hoopla from Paul supporters about younger people being for Paul, thats not what the Iowa results showed. Younger people seeking change and inspiration flocked to Obama, in particular. There was no demographic in Iowa that overwhelmingly went for Paul. Sure, Paul beat Giuliani, but Pauls effort in Iowa was much bigger than Giulianis.
None of these results will impact Pauls supporters nationwide. Earl Ofari Hutchinson wrote a great article on Alternet.org: Ron Paul is Scary, But Those Who Cheer Him Are Even Scarier. He was right when he said: The scariest thing about GOP presidential contender Ron Paul is not his fringe, odd-ball racial views. It is that people take him seriously. But now Iowa has thankfully shown that the vast majority of Americans, especially those seeking political change, reject Paul.
After losing badly in Iowa Paul said: The other candidates talk about tinkering with the status quo. We dont want to tinker; we want to change the status quo. He said that his campaign is on the upswing and gaining support among independents, frustrated Republicans and unhappy Democrats. Just one very big problem: The Iowa results show that all these people are much more likely to vote for other Democratic and Republican change-candidates.
Pauls supporters claim that he will do much better in New Hampshire where Libertarian Party members hold a number of offices. I dont think so. Several polls taken before the Iowa results found Paul at just 5 to 9 percent. Will Paul get a big boost from Iowa? I dont think so. Paul had predicted he could finish in third place in Iowa, and many of his supporters think he will do that in New Hampshire. I dont think so. Paul will likely finish fifth in New Hampshire, in large part because more independents will go to Obama and McCain.
When Paul first ran for president as the Libertarian Party candidate in 1988, he won just 0.54 percent of the vote. Iowa shows that his second presidential bid will not produce much better results. Paul is definitely not tapping in a major way into the national populist movement, major desire for political change, anti-status quo sentiment, or even the anti-Iraq war issue. Clearly, other Democratic and Republican change-candidates are doing much better. This reality will not affect Pauls passionate, cult-like followers that are solidified like cement in their belief that Paul can and should be our next president, something that Paul himself probably never really believed.
[Joel S. Hirschhorn can be reached through www.delusionaldemocracy.com.]
QuestionItNow
The recent wins of Barrack Obama, and Mike Huckabee in Iowa, along with the record turnout have the analysts pointing to a growing American hunger for change. Yet, the questions remain ‘will things truly change?’ Will the common good trump the special interests? Will America elect a government that will be focused on the issues that affect the lives, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of everyday Americans?
Interestingly America seems ready to finally discard the Bush/Cheney era politics of fear. The evidence lays in the smack-down of fear monger #1 Rudy Giuliani. The fire-fighter foe scored less than half as well as the self-proclaimed change-agent Ron Paul. Paul took ten percent, and remains within striking distance of the unsettled, and bitterly divided republican field.
Joel Hirshorn has his own take on these recent events and how they relate to Ron Paul in particular:
Change Yes, Ron Paul No
Joel S. Hirschhorn
Ron Pauls obnoxious supporters like more traditional political activists can spin and delude themselves about election results. But the Iowa caucus results could not be clearer: The vast national desire for political change is manifesting itself through support for both Democratic and Republican change-candidates. Despite Paul being flush with money and having a large number of workers in Iowa, he was solidly rejected as the leading change agent.
Even with a huge historic turnout of about 348,000 participants, Paul did not attract significant numbers of independents that could easily participate in the Republican caucuses. They went to Obama, Edwards and Huckabee.
On the Democratic side, of some 232,000 people that turned out for the caucuses, nearly doubling what it was four years ago, about 70 percent wanted change and went for Obama and Edwards, roughly 150,000 participants.
On the Republican side, of the 116,000 participants, about 40,000 change-voters went for Huckabee, compared to 11,600 that chose Paul, giving him fifth place. That 10 percent for Paul was very close to the 9 percent found in a Des Moines Register poll of likely caucus voters (margin of error 3.5 points). Interestingly, like Paul, Huckabee also wants to eliminate the federal income tax.
In both parties, change-voters totaled about 200,000. So Paul received just 6 percent of that large fraction, and just 3 percent of the total of all caucus participants in Iowa. Paul was first in only one county, Jefferson, with 36 percent
Edwards was absolutely correct when he summed things up this way: The one thing that is clear from the results in Iowa tonight is the status quo lost and change won.
With all the hoopla from Paul supporters about younger people being for Paul, thats not what the Iowa results showed. Younger people seeking change and inspiration flocked to Obama, in particular. There was no demographic in Iowa that overwhelmingly went for Paul. Sure, Paul beat Giuliani, but Pauls effort in Iowa was much bigger than Giulianis.
None of these results will impact Pauls supporters nationwide. Earl Ofari Hutchinson wrote a great article on Alternet.org: Ron Paul is Scary, But Those Who Cheer Him Are Even Scarier. He was right when he said: The scariest thing about GOP presidential contender Ron Paul is not his fringe, odd-ball racial views. It is that people take him seriously. But now Iowa has thankfully shown that the vast majority of Americans, especially those seeking political change, reject Paul.
After losing badly in Iowa Paul said: The other candidates talk about tinkering with the status quo. We dont want to tinker; we want to change the status quo. He said that his campaign is on the upswing and gaining support among independents, frustrated Republicans and unhappy Democrats. Just one very big problem: The Iowa results show that all these people are much more likely to vote for other Democratic and Republican change-candidates.
Pauls supporters claim that he will do much better in New Hampshire where Libertarian Party members hold a number of offices. I dont think so. Several polls taken before the Iowa results found Paul at just 5 to 9 percent. Will Paul get a big boost from Iowa? I dont think so. Paul had predicted he could finish in third place in Iowa, and many of his supporters think he will do that in New Hampshire. I dont think so. Paul will likely finish fifth in New Hampshire, in large part because more independents will go to Obama and McCain.
When Paul first ran for president as the Libertarian Party candidate in 1988, he won just 0.54 percent of the vote. Iowa shows that his second presidential bid will not produce much better results. Paul is definitely not tapping in a major way into the national populist movement, major desire for political change, anti-status quo sentiment, or even the anti-Iraq war issue. Clearly, other Democratic and Republican change-candidates are doing much better. This reality will not affect Pauls passionate, cult-like followers that are solidified like cement in their belief that Paul can and should be our next president, something that Paul himself probably never really believed.
[Joel S. Hirschhorn can be reached through www.delusionaldemocracy.com.]
QuestionItNow
"They have rights who dare maintain them...
New occasions teach new duties; Time makes ancient good uncouth;
They must upward still, and onward, who would keep abreast of Truth..."
- James Russell Lowell (1819–1891)
QuestionItNow
On Romney, Mormonism and IslamBy: Ramzy Baroud
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney's speech on December 6th - in which he tried to 'explain' his Mormon faith - was met with a mostly sympathetic reception at George Bush Library in Texas.
The speech has been long anticipated, not so much for its relevance to the pressing debate on the defining role of religion in American politics, and how this undermines the very meaning of secular democracy. It was awaited simply because Romney belongs to the wrong faith. Recent polls indicate that one out of every three Republicans will not vote for Romney because he is a Mormon.
The whole affair has done much to reveal the hypocrisy of institutional democracy in the United States. While every presidential candidate, Republican or Democrat, has unreservedly uttered lip service to democratic ideals, very few have dared push the boundaries by actually explaining their personal views on what separation of church and state means.
Given the Republicans' reservations on Romney and the fact that the religious vote has long been shown to be a formidable factor in determining who claims the throne of the Oval Office, one can easily deduce that religion is hardly a personal matter in the American political milieu. Imagine, for instance, the sort of chances a presidential candidate would have as a dedicated atheist, or worse, as a devout Muslim.
It might be a long time - if ever - before the possibility of a Muslim candidate representing a major party is put to the test. But one need not wait that long to appreciate the narrow-mindedness of the media and politicians, and how this influences public opinion.
While the urgency of 'responding' to Islamic fundamentalism has been consistently highlighted in the ongoing presidential campaign, very little has been said about Christian, Jewish or other religious fundamentalisms. Rarely has a candidate – with the exception of Democrat Dennis Kucinich – dared to examine the relationship between Christian fundamentalism and the Iraq war, or Jewish fundamentalism and the Israeli occupation of Palestine. Religious fanaticism and fundamentalism are rarely discussed as perilous phenomena in their own right; if it's not 'Islamic' it simply doesn’t count.
Such short-sightedness has wide-ranging and deeply harmful implications. All that a volunteer for Senator Hilary Clinton's presidential campaign needed to do to temporarily disrupt the recent gains of Barack Obama's campaign was to distribute an email suggesting that Obama was a Muslim intent on 'destroying' the United Sates. As laughable as this may sound, one cannot underestimate the impact that such rumours have on voters filled with fear and disdain for everything Muslim. Of course, Christian fundamentalist President George W. Bush’s wholesale destruction of a Muslim country, Iraq, is not a mere rumour. That this is not considered noteworthy is most telling. Chances are Obama will do his utmost to distance himself from the rumour – as he has done in the past - which could reinvigorate the old accusation that he spent time studying at a Muslim school. Obama previously responded by vowing to respond severely to Muslim terrorism, going so far as to say he would bomb Pakistan if necessary. Whether he will upgrade further his hostile language to show his worthiness to lead America is yet to be seen.
Although Islam and Muslims were hardly relevant to Romney’s speech, Naomi Schaefer Riley of the conservative Wall Street Journal couldn't prevent herself from shoving Islam into the picture, predictably in an unfavorable light. In her article, 'What Iowans Should Know About Mormons' (December 7), Riley cites a recent Pew poll which shows that "only 53% of Americans have a favourable opinion of Mormons." She then observes: "That's roughly the same percentage who feel that way toward Muslims. By contrast, more than three-quarters of Americans have a favorable opinion of Jews and Catholics."
Riley then gets to her main and vindictive point: "Whatever the validity of such judgments, one has to wonder: Why does a faith professed by the 9/11 hijackers rank alongside that of a peaceful, productive, highly educated religious group founded within our own borders?"
Not only did Riley isolate 9/11 from the pre and post 9/11 contexts (again conveniently neglecting the fact that nearly a million Iraqis were killed by those who mostly profess the Christian faith), she also implicitly indicated that Mormonism is everything that Islam is not. The latter religion is thus hostile, unproductive, backward and alien.
Riley was hardly satisfied with selectively linking a religion professed by over a billion people of all colors and ethnicities worldwide - including millions of Americans - to a few hijackers. She used the rest of her inadequate 'analysis' to inappropriately bring Islam to a discussion from which it should have been entirely spared.
One can understand the urge of the faithful of any religion to make preferences for presidential candidates on the basis of their faith. One can thus also understand why politicians cater to the religious sensibilities of their constituents, even if this means resorting to untruths. But one cannot in any way sympathize with the mainstream media – perceived largely as 'liberal' – for failing to realign the debate by bringing it back to its proper boundaries: that of equitable democracy vs religious prejudices, looking at Romney as a man who can do good, or bad for America rather than a man who professes a 'wacky' or 'cult-like' faith.
It's odd that in the first decade of the 21st century, the media still validates the same religious thoughtlessness that had prevailed in America when Catholic John F. Kennedy made his famous statement in 1960 asserting that the Pope would not sway his presidency. Indeed, the media should have chastised the entire debate which ranks potential presidents based on whose God is best, or whether comparative religion should be discussed at all. Needless to say mediocre journalism like that of Riley should have never made it to print in the first place.
-Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers and journals worldwide. His latest book is The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle (Pluto Press, London).
QuestionItNow
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Disappoints
Joel S. Hirschhorn
RFK, Jr. has disappointed millions of liberals, progressives and environmentalists by endorsing Hillary Clinton.
RFK, Jr. once said: "the Republicans are 95 percent corrupt and the Democrats are 75 percent corrupt." This has been widely quoted because of its honest assessment of the corrupt two-party system.
He has also pointed out: "While communism is the control of business by government, fascism is the control of government by business. The biggest threat to American democracy is corporate power. Our most visionary political leaders have warned the American public against the domination of government by corporate power. That warning is missing in the national debate right now. Because so much corporate money is going into politics, the Democratic Party itself has dropped the ball. They just quash discussion about the corrosive impact of excessive corporate power on American democracy."
Those these statements were made some time ago, a few days ago on November 28 he talked about the impact of industry on environmental agencies: "It’s been a revolving door of plunder." Kennedy saved special scorn for "the negative and indolent press of this country," which he said has become controlled by corporate interests in the last 20 years. "Americans have become the best-entertained, least-informed people on earth," Kennedy said. He also said five companies control 80 percent of newspapers and almost all radio, and those corporations are not in business to tell news thoroughly or fairly. "The only ideology they represent is their own pockets," Kennedy said. So his criticism of the corporate plutocracy seems as strong as ever.
Such honest views of the sad state of America have made Kennedy the darling of many people independents, liberals, progressives and environmentalists.
But the news that this esteemed honest liberal has endorsed the candidacy of Hillary Clinton was startling. Now he says: "Hillary Clinton has the strength and experience to bring the war in Iraq to an end and reverse the potentially devastating effects of global warming. Hillary will inspire the real change America needs." That Kennedy can see Hillary as an agent of change is a betrayal of all the good will that Kennedy has built up over many years.
Kennedy said he feels "very uncomfortable" about the amount of corporate money flowing into Clinton's campaign, "But I also think you can't come into this race with one arm tied behind your back." How’s that for convenient rationalization? There is no reason why any sane American should be very comfortable about the poisonous and corrupting amount of corporate money dumped into Clinton’s campaign.
In examining media coverage of Kennedy’s endorsement of Clinton I could find no references to his earlier critical remarks of Democrats and the corporatist plutocracy. But people commenting on the New York Times article often were aghast at his endorsement, noting that it would have made much more sense for him to endorse Obama or Edwards. Bloggers, so far, have also not been critical of the Kennedy endorsement. The progressive community seems frozen by self-delusion and unwilling to criticize their adored Kennedy.
Here is my take: Hillary Clinton represents the worst of the Democratic contenders. She is totally committed to take all the corporate money she can get and pay whatever that eventually costs, should she become president. She really is a hawk when it comes to the Iraq war and even voted the wrong way recently when it comes to Iran. She is incredibly dishonest and phony. The reason why there are millions of Hillary haters is that she inspires distrust. A Hillary presidency would pursue corporate globalization and the terrible trade policies of her husband that has done so much to destroy America’s middle class. Her views on universal health coverage do not seem focused on getting rid of all the insurance industry involvement.
Kennedy’s endorsement of Hillary just shows how the status quo political establishment can rig the system to get what it wants. What has Bobby been promised? Head of the US EPA? Support for replacing Hillary in the Senate? Who knows? But his endorsement stinks and puts a big blemish on his credibility and reputation.
[Reach Joel S. Hirschhorn through www.delusionaldemocracy.com.]
QuestionItNow Blogs
Joel S. Hirschhorn
RFK, Jr. has disappointed millions of liberals, progressives and environmentalists by endorsing Hillary Clinton.
RFK, Jr. once said: "the Republicans are 95 percent corrupt and the Democrats are 75 percent corrupt." This has been widely quoted because of its honest assessment of the corrupt two-party system.
He has also pointed out: "While communism is the control of business by government, fascism is the control of government by business. The biggest threat to American democracy is corporate power. Our most visionary political leaders have warned the American public against the domination of government by corporate power. That warning is missing in the national debate right now. Because so much corporate money is going into politics, the Democratic Party itself has dropped the ball. They just quash discussion about the corrosive impact of excessive corporate power on American democracy."
Those these statements were made some time ago, a few days ago on November 28 he talked about the impact of industry on environmental agencies: "It’s been a revolving door of plunder." Kennedy saved special scorn for "the negative and indolent press of this country," which he said has become controlled by corporate interests in the last 20 years. "Americans have become the best-entertained, least-informed people on earth," Kennedy said. He also said five companies control 80 percent of newspapers and almost all radio, and those corporations are not in business to tell news thoroughly or fairly. "The only ideology they represent is their own pockets," Kennedy said. So his criticism of the corporate plutocracy seems as strong as ever.
Such honest views of the sad state of America have made Kennedy the darling of many people independents, liberals, progressives and environmentalists.
But the news that this esteemed honest liberal has endorsed the candidacy of Hillary Clinton was startling. Now he says: "Hillary Clinton has the strength and experience to bring the war in Iraq to an end and reverse the potentially devastating effects of global warming. Hillary will inspire the real change America needs." That Kennedy can see Hillary as an agent of change is a betrayal of all the good will that Kennedy has built up over many years.
Kennedy said he feels "very uncomfortable" about the amount of corporate money flowing into Clinton's campaign, "But I also think you can't come into this race with one arm tied behind your back." How’s that for convenient rationalization? There is no reason why any sane American should be very comfortable about the poisonous and corrupting amount of corporate money dumped into Clinton’s campaign.
In examining media coverage of Kennedy’s endorsement of Clinton I could find no references to his earlier critical remarks of Democrats and the corporatist plutocracy. But people commenting on the New York Times article often were aghast at his endorsement, noting that it would have made much more sense for him to endorse Obama or Edwards. Bloggers, so far, have also not been critical of the Kennedy endorsement. The progressive community seems frozen by self-delusion and unwilling to criticize their adored Kennedy.
Here is my take: Hillary Clinton represents the worst of the Democratic contenders. She is totally committed to take all the corporate money she can get and pay whatever that eventually costs, should she become president. She really is a hawk when it comes to the Iraq war and even voted the wrong way recently when it comes to Iran. She is incredibly dishonest and phony. The reason why there are millions of Hillary haters is that she inspires distrust. A Hillary presidency would pursue corporate globalization and the terrible trade policies of her husband that has done so much to destroy America’s middle class. Her views on universal health coverage do not seem focused on getting rid of all the insurance industry involvement.
Kennedy’s endorsement of Hillary just shows how the status quo political establishment can rig the system to get what it wants. What has Bobby been promised? Head of the US EPA? Support for replacing Hillary in the Senate? Who knows? But his endorsement stinks and puts a big blemish on his credibility and reputation.
[Reach Joel S. Hirschhorn through www.delusionaldemocracy.com.]
QuestionItNow Blogs
Sane Bush Hatred
Joel S. Hirschhorn
The Wall Street Journal gave the top half of its opinion page yesterday to a long essay by Peter Berkowitz titled "The Insanity of Bush Hatred." If anything, it deserves a gold medal for political propaganda – make that political lies. What caught my attention immediately was the frequent use of the word "progressive" to describe the people Berkowitz was attacking. It was used ten times. In other words, progressives were attacked for hating Bush.
There is a major lie of omission. No mention was made of the vast number of Americans that certainly do not call themselves progressives that hate Bush. Surely there are many millions of sane independents, moderates, libertarians, conservatives and liberals that rightfully hate Bush. To ignore all these Americans betrays the intellectual legitimacy of the article and its arguments.
Here are the few core reasons given by Berkowitz for condemning Bush hatred:
It is not a rational force in politics. It clouds and impairs political judgment. It subverts sound thinking. It has addled minds. It damages the intellect. It reduces "complicated events and multilayered issues to simple matters of good and evil." It "blinds to the other sides of the argument, and constrains the hater to see a monster instead of a political opponent."
There is no detailed analysis of all the ways that the Bush administration has betrayed our Constitution. No mention, for example, of Bush signing statements that self-justifies not obeying the laws passed by Congress. No mention that the Bush claim of not using torture is so obviously a lie. No mention of using illegal surveillance of Americans and lying about it. No mention of countless lies used to get us into the absurd and costly Iraq war. No mention of the enormous amount of evidence showing that 9/11 was not solely an operation by foreign terrorists, but involved the federal government. And on and on.
The only rational and sane conclusion is that hating Bush is justified and completely sane.
There is some truth to the opening statement: Hating the president is almost as old as the republic itself. But the growing consensus that George W. Bush will go down in history as the nation’s worst president is a much larger truth. It is perfectly reasonable for ALL Americans to hate Bush for squandering the lives of the many people in our armed forces, for squandering the nation’s wealth, and for squandering our nation’s good name and reputation. Bush is a national embarrassment and disgrace, and for that he deserves to be hated.
All those with a clear and sound intellect, rational objectivity, sensible judgment, and the ability to know evil when they see it should hate Bush. Hating Bush is nothing to be ashamed of. The real challenge is moving beyond Bush hatred to seeing the need for deep political reforms that restores American democracy. We must convert the national Bush-hatred-energy into rebellious action. We must re-establish our constitutional checks and balances and removing the unlawful and excessive powers of the presidency. How do we achieve reforms? That is the right question.
As to insanity: I say we must stop doing the same thing and expecting different results. That same thing is voting for Democrats or Republicans. We must remember that virtually all the evil and corrupt things Bush has done could not have been accomplished without the tacit or explicit support of Democrats in Congress. The two-party partnership also deserves our hatred. It has removed political competition and the ability of third party candidates from winning national office. To let Bush hatred result in knee-jerk support for Democrats is a mistake.
The only way to restore American democracy is to remove the legitimacy and credibility of the two-party-controlled political system. The way to do that is through a voter boycott in the 2008 elections for the president and members of Congress. Neither Democrats nor Republicans faithfully represent the interests of the public and that makes our representative democracy a sham. To keep playing the game and voting for any candidates that are members of the vast two-party criminal conspiracy is plain stupid. If Americans keep sustaining this corrupt and dishonest two-party system, then they will continue to witness the decay of our society.
[Joel S. Hirschhorn can be reached through www.delusionaldemocracy.com.]
QuestionItNow Blogs
Joel S. Hirschhorn
The Wall Street Journal gave the top half of its opinion page yesterday to a long essay by Peter Berkowitz titled "The Insanity of Bush Hatred." If anything, it deserves a gold medal for political propaganda – make that political lies. What caught my attention immediately was the frequent use of the word "progressive" to describe the people Berkowitz was attacking. It was used ten times. In other words, progressives were attacked for hating Bush.
There is a major lie of omission. No mention was made of the vast number of Americans that certainly do not call themselves progressives that hate Bush. Surely there are many millions of sane independents, moderates, libertarians, conservatives and liberals that rightfully hate Bush. To ignore all these Americans betrays the intellectual legitimacy of the article and its arguments.
Here are the few core reasons given by Berkowitz for condemning Bush hatred:
It is not a rational force in politics. It clouds and impairs political judgment. It subverts sound thinking. It has addled minds. It damages the intellect. It reduces "complicated events and multilayered issues to simple matters of good and evil." It "blinds to the other sides of the argument, and constrains the hater to see a monster instead of a political opponent."
There is no detailed analysis of all the ways that the Bush administration has betrayed our Constitution. No mention, for example, of Bush signing statements that self-justifies not obeying the laws passed by Congress. No mention that the Bush claim of not using torture is so obviously a lie. No mention of using illegal surveillance of Americans and lying about it. No mention of countless lies used to get us into the absurd and costly Iraq war. No mention of the enormous amount of evidence showing that 9/11 was not solely an operation by foreign terrorists, but involved the federal government. And on and on.
The only rational and sane conclusion is that hating Bush is justified and completely sane.
There is some truth to the opening statement: Hating the president is almost as old as the republic itself. But the growing consensus that George W. Bush will go down in history as the nation’s worst president is a much larger truth. It is perfectly reasonable for ALL Americans to hate Bush for squandering the lives of the many people in our armed forces, for squandering the nation’s wealth, and for squandering our nation’s good name and reputation. Bush is a national embarrassment and disgrace, and for that he deserves to be hated.
All those with a clear and sound intellect, rational objectivity, sensible judgment, and the ability to know evil when they see it should hate Bush. Hating Bush is nothing to be ashamed of. The real challenge is moving beyond Bush hatred to seeing the need for deep political reforms that restores American democracy. We must convert the national Bush-hatred-energy into rebellious action. We must re-establish our constitutional checks and balances and removing the unlawful and excessive powers of the presidency. How do we achieve reforms? That is the right question.
As to insanity: I say we must stop doing the same thing and expecting different results. That same thing is voting for Democrats or Republicans. We must remember that virtually all the evil and corrupt things Bush has done could not have been accomplished without the tacit or explicit support of Democrats in Congress. The two-party partnership also deserves our hatred. It has removed political competition and the ability of third party candidates from winning national office. To let Bush hatred result in knee-jerk support for Democrats is a mistake.
The only way to restore American democracy is to remove the legitimacy and credibility of the two-party-controlled political system. The way to do that is through a voter boycott in the 2008 elections for the president and members of Congress. Neither Democrats nor Republicans faithfully represent the interests of the public and that makes our representative democracy a sham. To keep playing the game and voting for any candidates that are members of the vast two-party criminal conspiracy is plain stupid. If Americans keep sustaining this corrupt and dishonest two-party system, then they will continue to witness the decay of our society.
[Joel S. Hirschhorn can be reached through www.delusionaldemocracy.com.]
QuestionItNow Blogs
Ron Paul Reality Check
Joel S. Hirschhorn
As self-professed champion of the Constitution presidential candidate Ron Paul has missed a monumental opportunity to educate Americans about the criminal behavior of Congress in violating their oath of office. Even more important, he has not taken advantage of his 15 minutes of fame to promote the nation’s first-time use of what the Founders gave us in the Constitution in case the public lost confidence in the federal government - the Article V convention option.
Paul clearly recognizes the many failures of the federal government. Maybe as a member of Congress he just does not have the courage to confess that he too has been part of a long-standing refusal by Congress to obey Article V of the Constitution. Why don’t passionate Paul supporters see his lack of integrity, guts and consistency?
Support for using the Article V convention option should be a litmus test for any presidential candidate, which is reasonable considering that Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt supported it.
First, let’s be clear that Paul has no problem in seeing the need for constitutional amendments. For example, he has been a proponent of an amendment that would not allow children born in the USA from illegal parents to become citizens. Second, he has maintained throughout his career his love and respect for our Constitution. Third, he has carefully refused to publicly state his views on the provision in Article V of the Constitution for the use of a convention of state delegates to make proposed amendments as the alternative to Congress proposing amendments (the only procedure used for 220 years). Fourth, he has made no attempt to pass any law that would modify, clarify or expand the single requirement now in Article V for a convention. How can a champion of the Constitution remain so silent on Congress’ refusal to honor over 500 applications from all 50 states for a convention that more than satisfies the one and only requirement in Article V?
Anyone who studies the history of attempts to get the first Article V convention will learn that it has consistently been opposed by people and groups on the political left and right that are part of the nation’s elitist political status quo establishment. So here is Ron Paul, supposedly an honest non-elitist political maverick that does not fit into the political establishment, yet too cowardly to stand up to the political establishment by backing the use of the Article V convention option. Paul has had virtually no real impact on what Congress has done, yet he does not support the convention option that would circumvent the power of Congress. What does he have to lose?
Of course, if all the passionate supporters of Paul would spend more time investigating all his congressional activities, they would find a lot more to seriously question. A chief example is that he has routinely inserted earmarks for pork spending to make constituents in his district happy. Then he hides behind his votes against the spending bills containing his earmark spending items. But those earmarks remain in those spending bills passed by Congress. Tell me, is that really virtuous behavior? His earmarks increase federal activities and spending. Many have been for projects by the Army Corps of Engineers, many to funnel money to the Texas Department of Transportation (including one for repairs to the Galveston Trolley system), and one for Texas A&M University/Galveston Campus to convert the Texas Clipper for educational purposes; maybe this was the $30 million for the Texas Maritime Academy to refurbish a ship. And then there was the $8 million for the marketing of wild American shrimp and $2.3 million to pay for research into shrimp fishing. This seems like pretty conventional Republican politics. This year Paul has requested about $400 million worth of federal spending for his district – not exactly consistent with Paul’s rhetoric on reducing federal spending and taxing. His duty is to inform his constituents about the wrongness of earmarks, not capitulate to their requests.
There is still time for Paul to search his soul and find the courage to either to support use of the Article V convention as the route to achieving deep political reforms that Congress itself will never have the integrity to propose through constitutional amendments, or to step up and make the case for an amendment that would remove the never-used Article V convention option.
Here is some irony: With our thoroughly corrupt and rigged political system Ron Paul has absolutely zero chance of becoming the Republican presidential nominee, regardless of his high level of grassroots support. Odd then that Paul has not supported the one and only route to profoundly changing this awful political system. It is the method our Founders gave us with the Article V convention option. Indeed, his lack of support for using the Article V convention option seems to makes him a part of the political establishment, which is consistent with his recent announcement that if he does not get the Republican nomination he will not run as a third party candidate.
[Joel S. Hirschhorn can be reached through www.delusionaldemocracy.com and is a co-founder of Friends of the Article V Convention at www.foavc.org.]
QuestionItNow Blogs
Joel S. Hirschhorn
As self-professed champion of the Constitution presidential candidate Ron Paul has missed a monumental opportunity to educate Americans about the criminal behavior of Congress in violating their oath of office. Even more important, he has not taken advantage of his 15 minutes of fame to promote the nation’s first-time use of what the Founders gave us in the Constitution in case the public lost confidence in the federal government - the Article V convention option.
Paul clearly recognizes the many failures of the federal government. Maybe as a member of Congress he just does not have the courage to confess that he too has been part of a long-standing refusal by Congress to obey Article V of the Constitution. Why don’t passionate Paul supporters see his lack of integrity, guts and consistency?
Support for using the Article V convention option should be a litmus test for any presidential candidate, which is reasonable considering that Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt supported it.
First, let’s be clear that Paul has no problem in seeing the need for constitutional amendments. For example, he has been a proponent of an amendment that would not allow children born in the USA from illegal parents to become citizens. Second, he has maintained throughout his career his love and respect for our Constitution. Third, he has carefully refused to publicly state his views on the provision in Article V of the Constitution for the use of a convention of state delegates to make proposed amendments as the alternative to Congress proposing amendments (the only procedure used for 220 years). Fourth, he has made no attempt to pass any law that would modify, clarify or expand the single requirement now in Article V for a convention. How can a champion of the Constitution remain so silent on Congress’ refusal to honor over 500 applications from all 50 states for a convention that more than satisfies the one and only requirement in Article V?
Anyone who studies the history of attempts to get the first Article V convention will learn that it has consistently been opposed by people and groups on the political left and right that are part of the nation’s elitist political status quo establishment. So here is Ron Paul, supposedly an honest non-elitist political maverick that does not fit into the political establishment, yet too cowardly to stand up to the political establishment by backing the use of the Article V convention option. Paul has had virtually no real impact on what Congress has done, yet he does not support the convention option that would circumvent the power of Congress. What does he have to lose?
Of course, if all the passionate supporters of Paul would spend more time investigating all his congressional activities, they would find a lot more to seriously question. A chief example is that he has routinely inserted earmarks for pork spending to make constituents in his district happy. Then he hides behind his votes against the spending bills containing his earmark spending items. But those earmarks remain in those spending bills passed by Congress. Tell me, is that really virtuous behavior? His earmarks increase federal activities and spending. Many have been for projects by the Army Corps of Engineers, many to funnel money to the Texas Department of Transportation (including one for repairs to the Galveston Trolley system), and one for Texas A&M University/Galveston Campus to convert the Texas Clipper for educational purposes; maybe this was the $30 million for the Texas Maritime Academy to refurbish a ship. And then there was the $8 million for the marketing of wild American shrimp and $2.3 million to pay for research into shrimp fishing. This seems like pretty conventional Republican politics. This year Paul has requested about $400 million worth of federal spending for his district – not exactly consistent with Paul’s rhetoric on reducing federal spending and taxing. His duty is to inform his constituents about the wrongness of earmarks, not capitulate to their requests.
There is still time for Paul to search his soul and find the courage to either to support use of the Article V convention as the route to achieving deep political reforms that Congress itself will never have the integrity to propose through constitutional amendments, or to step up and make the case for an amendment that would remove the never-used Article V convention option.
Here is some irony: With our thoroughly corrupt and rigged political system Ron Paul has absolutely zero chance of becoming the Republican presidential nominee, regardless of his high level of grassroots support. Odd then that Paul has not supported the one and only route to profoundly changing this awful political system. It is the method our Founders gave us with the Article V convention option. Indeed, his lack of support for using the Article V convention option seems to makes him a part of the political establishment, which is consistent with his recent announcement that if he does not get the Republican nomination he will not run as a third party candidate.
[Joel S. Hirschhorn can be reached through www.delusionaldemocracy.com and is a co-founder of Friends of the Article V Convention at www.foavc.org.]
QuestionItNow Blogs
Joel emailed the following article submission on the first of the month. I have had an internal debate regarding posting it. No doubt he brings up a very controversial idea: Is our political system so polluted that the only way to call attention to the impurity is to decline participation?
Personally, I am not convinced that our votes do not make a difference, particularly during the primaries and on local elections. I have recently been involved in local politics and believe that if we all spend more energy on bringing change at the local level eventually we can bring some level of transparency and accountability to state and national politics.
Still, Joel - as always - brings up some intriguing thoughts.
Time to Boycott Voting
Joel S. Hirschhorn
After many years of political disappointment, more progressives, liberals and conservatives – and certainly moderates and independents – know in their hearts that voting for Democrats or Republicans is a waste. Just imagine if voter turnout was cut to 25 percent or less! Let the whole world see Americans boycotting a broken and corrupt political system and rejecting what has become a delusional democracy. To keep voting in an unjust political system makes us willing political slaves that the rich and powerful elites exploit.
Just leaving the major parties is not good enough and, besides, most Americans are not party members. We need a bolder strategy. We must humiliate the political elites in both major parties and the corporate interests that support both of them. We can send a shock wave throughout the political establishment by not voting in the 2008 presidential election.
Stop playing THEIR game. Take back control. Take back YOUR nation. Time to boycott voting. This strategy is consistent with the thinking of Gandhi and King: peaceful resistance to political tyranny that can bring the corrupt system to its knees. Ultimately, the most effective protest is through civil disobedience – to visibly and stubbornly refuse to respect what has become a corrupt, untrustworthy system. Before it can be fixed it must be deconstructed and then rebuilt. Taxation with MISrepresentation means we need a Second American Revolution; it must begin – not with violent action – but with massive withdrawal by citizens that have seen the light. We have a good head start with about half of eligible voters already so turned off that they don’t vote. Obviously that has not been sufficient to change the system.
There will be negative, defensive knee-jerk reactions to this audacious strategy. Let’s examine them:
Many will think that taking such action violates our responsibility as citizens. But taking that responsibility seriously as engaged citizens in the Jeffersonian sense must reflect that there is still a valid contract between citizens and their government. When we vote we have the right to a political system that respects we the people and gives us an authentic representative democracy. We have a right to a constitutional republic operating under the rule of law. But we have elected representatives that no longer have the public interest as their primary commitment, nor truly honor and respect our Constitution.
They have been corrupted by corporate and other special interests that fund their campaigns to get the laws, loopholes and largesse they want. They have been corrupted by power and the perks of office. They are political cowards and mostly intellectual midgets. The two major parties have a stranglehold on our political system that no longer merits our participation in their crooked game. Political parties are not part of our Constitution and the two-party duopoly has demonstrated that both Democrats and Republicans put their own interests above those of we the people, our nation and our democracy. We cannot vote our way out of our current, dreadful political system.
Whether you are on the political left or right, you will fear that not voting will help put in office people that support policies your abhor. But decades of objective political reality tell us that even people from the party that we align with do not, when elected, fulfill their promises and our hopes. Sadly, most Americans have become lesser-evil voters, deluding themselves that this is the best, least worse, yet awful choice. Instead of feeling bad about voting for candidates that we know in our hearts are not worthy of our votes and public office, we must have the courage to say "enough is enough; I will not play in this shameful game any longer." We must stop legitimizing and abetting our disgraceful government.
Many may fear that not voting sets a terrible example to children. But isn’t it more important to tell America’s children that true patriotism must reveal itself by rejecting a political system that no longer merits respect? Thomas Jefferson believed in periodic rebellion. Now is the time for all good Americans to come to the rescue of their nation, peacefully by boycotting elections.
The small number of third party members may be screaming: yes, don’t vote for Democrats and Republicans; come over and join us! I have been a strong third party supporter, but we must face the painful truth. The two major parties have so rigged the political system in their favor and against third parties that voting for third party candidates for federal office is a futile action. We must first boycott voting to create sufficient pressure to open the system to genuine political competition. That requires a number of electoral reforms, possible if the nation gets its first Article V convention (see www.foavc.org). With reforms we can increase voter turnout to over 90 percent, as routinely seen in other democracies.
False patriotism may cause some to think that we must not show anti-American nations and terrorists that our government no longer has the trust of its citizens. But that has already been widely disseminated by endless polls and surveys, including the recent Zogby poll that found a record-low 11 percent support for Congress. Better to show our enemies that we the people have finally awakened and decided to re-assert our sovereignty and restore American democracy. Loyalty to country, yes; loyalty to government, no. Our populist American insurgency must begin with a boycott of voting.
Proof that this extraordinary strategy can work is that by now diehard Democrats and Republicans reading this are squirming in discomfort. So spread the word, if you have not deluded yourself about voting the nation into a far, far better place. Time to boycott voting. Join the picket line; admit that none of the above is the only rational decision when the choices the two major parties give us for federal officials are not worth a dime.
Voting in a delusional representative democracy is as harebrained as voting even though you know votes will not be honestly counted – which many fear may be true. We may have lost control of our government, but we still control our voting. Time to walk away from the brainwashing and fiction that it really matters which Democrat or Republican you vote for in primaries and general elections for federal office. Power elites want us to believe that. They collude with the corporate mainstream media that make tons of money from campaigns and want you to stay glued to suspenseful horse races. Loud-mouth political pundits that narrate the races are democracy’s enemies. We must stop watching and listening to the political entertainment designed to keep us obediently mesmerized, as if the game is honest. Without an audience, these phony races and media circus will disappear.
Don’t be fooled by the large number of candidates in the Democratic and Republican presidential primaries. It is a sham – a scheme to keep spectators glued to the illusory competition. Ron Paul has as much chance of being the Republican nominee as Dennis Kucinich has of being the Democratic nominee. With power elites controlling both major parties, zero chance for them and the other minor candidates, regardless of their grassroots support. Reflect on how both major parties accept lots of candidates in televised debates in the primary season. But come the general election with prime time televised presidential debates they keep out third party candidates that desperately need that exposure to rally meaningful support. Such is the hypocrisy and disdain of the two-party duopoly.
Come Election Day in 2008 we should party and celebrate (with TVs turned off) our populist boycott of voting and enjoy the camaraderie of fellow patriots. We must help them resist any late urge to vote, because by then millions of dollars will be spent by many special interests to make us feel guilty and ashamed if we do not vote. I can hear Paul Revere now: The liars are coming! The liars are coming! All that advertising and pundit-screaming to herd us back into the voting booths will verify that our boycott strategy works.
With having the votes of only a small minority of the electorate, whoever becomes president will have no public mandate except major, systemic political reforms that satisfy the will of the people. Either that or accept being the president of a fake democracy on the world scene.
Be brave. Stick together. Save voting for a reformed political system worthy of respect and participation.
[Joel S. Hirschhorn is the author of Delusional Democracy – Fixing the Republic Without Overthrowing the Government that presents many electoral and other reforms; he can be contacted through www.delusionaldemocracy.com. Formerly, he was a senior official at the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment and the National Governors Association.]
QuestionItNow Blogs
Personally, I am not convinced that our votes do not make a difference, particularly during the primaries and on local elections. I have recently been involved in local politics and believe that if we all spend more energy on bringing change at the local level eventually we can bring some level of transparency and accountability to state and national politics.
Still, Joel - as always - brings up some intriguing thoughts.
Time to Boycott Voting
Joel S. Hirschhorn
After many years of political disappointment, more progressives, liberals and conservatives – and certainly moderates and independents – know in their hearts that voting for Democrats or Republicans is a waste. Just imagine if voter turnout was cut to 25 percent or less! Let the whole world see Americans boycotting a broken and corrupt political system and rejecting what has become a delusional democracy. To keep voting in an unjust political system makes us willing political slaves that the rich and powerful elites exploit.
Just leaving the major parties is not good enough and, besides, most Americans are not party members. We need a bolder strategy. We must humiliate the political elites in both major parties and the corporate interests that support both of them. We can send a shock wave throughout the political establishment by not voting in the 2008 presidential election.
Stop playing THEIR game. Take back control. Take back YOUR nation. Time to boycott voting. This strategy is consistent with the thinking of Gandhi and King: peaceful resistance to political tyranny that can bring the corrupt system to its knees. Ultimately, the most effective protest is through civil disobedience – to visibly and stubbornly refuse to respect what has become a corrupt, untrustworthy system. Before it can be fixed it must be deconstructed and then rebuilt. Taxation with MISrepresentation means we need a Second American Revolution; it must begin – not with violent action – but with massive withdrawal by citizens that have seen the light. We have a good head start with about half of eligible voters already so turned off that they don’t vote. Obviously that has not been sufficient to change the system.
There will be negative, defensive knee-jerk reactions to this audacious strategy. Let’s examine them:
Many will think that taking such action violates our responsibility as citizens. But taking that responsibility seriously as engaged citizens in the Jeffersonian sense must reflect that there is still a valid contract between citizens and their government. When we vote we have the right to a political system that respects we the people and gives us an authentic representative democracy. We have a right to a constitutional republic operating under the rule of law. But we have elected representatives that no longer have the public interest as their primary commitment, nor truly honor and respect our Constitution.
They have been corrupted by corporate and other special interests that fund their campaigns to get the laws, loopholes and largesse they want. They have been corrupted by power and the perks of office. They are political cowards and mostly intellectual midgets. The two major parties have a stranglehold on our political system that no longer merits our participation in their crooked game. Political parties are not part of our Constitution and the two-party duopoly has demonstrated that both Democrats and Republicans put their own interests above those of we the people, our nation and our democracy. We cannot vote our way out of our current, dreadful political system.
Whether you are on the political left or right, you will fear that not voting will help put in office people that support policies your abhor. But decades of objective political reality tell us that even people from the party that we align with do not, when elected, fulfill their promises and our hopes. Sadly, most Americans have become lesser-evil voters, deluding themselves that this is the best, least worse, yet awful choice. Instead of feeling bad about voting for candidates that we know in our hearts are not worthy of our votes and public office, we must have the courage to say "enough is enough; I will not play in this shameful game any longer." We must stop legitimizing and abetting our disgraceful government.
Many may fear that not voting sets a terrible example to children. But isn’t it more important to tell America’s children that true patriotism must reveal itself by rejecting a political system that no longer merits respect? Thomas Jefferson believed in periodic rebellion. Now is the time for all good Americans to come to the rescue of their nation, peacefully by boycotting elections.
The small number of third party members may be screaming: yes, don’t vote for Democrats and Republicans; come over and join us! I have been a strong third party supporter, but we must face the painful truth. The two major parties have so rigged the political system in their favor and against third parties that voting for third party candidates for federal office is a futile action. We must first boycott voting to create sufficient pressure to open the system to genuine political competition. That requires a number of electoral reforms, possible if the nation gets its first Article V convention (see www.foavc.org). With reforms we can increase voter turnout to over 90 percent, as routinely seen in other democracies.
False patriotism may cause some to think that we must not show anti-American nations and terrorists that our government no longer has the trust of its citizens. But that has already been widely disseminated by endless polls and surveys, including the recent Zogby poll that found a record-low 11 percent support for Congress. Better to show our enemies that we the people have finally awakened and decided to re-assert our sovereignty and restore American democracy. Loyalty to country, yes; loyalty to government, no. Our populist American insurgency must begin with a boycott of voting.
Proof that this extraordinary strategy can work is that by now diehard Democrats and Republicans reading this are squirming in discomfort. So spread the word, if you have not deluded yourself about voting the nation into a far, far better place. Time to boycott voting. Join the picket line; admit that none of the above is the only rational decision when the choices the two major parties give us for federal officials are not worth a dime.
Voting in a delusional representative democracy is as harebrained as voting even though you know votes will not be honestly counted – which many fear may be true. We may have lost control of our government, but we still control our voting. Time to walk away from the brainwashing and fiction that it really matters which Democrat or Republican you vote for in primaries and general elections for federal office. Power elites want us to believe that. They collude with the corporate mainstream media that make tons of money from campaigns and want you to stay glued to suspenseful horse races. Loud-mouth political pundits that narrate the races are democracy’s enemies. We must stop watching and listening to the political entertainment designed to keep us obediently mesmerized, as if the game is honest. Without an audience, these phony races and media circus will disappear.
Don’t be fooled by the large number of candidates in the Democratic and Republican presidential primaries. It is a sham – a scheme to keep spectators glued to the illusory competition. Ron Paul has as much chance of being the Republican nominee as Dennis Kucinich has of being the Democratic nominee. With power elites controlling both major parties, zero chance for them and the other minor candidates, regardless of their grassroots support. Reflect on how both major parties accept lots of candidates in televised debates in the primary season. But come the general election with prime time televised presidential debates they keep out third party candidates that desperately need that exposure to rally meaningful support. Such is the hypocrisy and disdain of the two-party duopoly.
Come Election Day in 2008 we should party and celebrate (with TVs turned off) our populist boycott of voting and enjoy the camaraderie of fellow patriots. We must help them resist any late urge to vote, because by then millions of dollars will be spent by many special interests to make us feel guilty and ashamed if we do not vote. I can hear Paul Revere now: The liars are coming! The liars are coming! All that advertising and pundit-screaming to herd us back into the voting booths will verify that our boycott strategy works.
With having the votes of only a small minority of the electorate, whoever becomes president will have no public mandate except major, systemic political reforms that satisfy the will of the people. Either that or accept being the president of a fake democracy on the world scene.
Be brave. Stick together. Save voting for a reformed political system worthy of respect and participation.
[Joel S. Hirschhorn is the author of Delusional Democracy – Fixing the Republic Without Overthrowing the Government that presents many electoral and other reforms; he can be contacted through www.delusionaldemocracy.com. Formerly, he was a senior official at the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment and the National Governors Association.]
QuestionItNow Blogs
Next Step to 9/11 Justice
Joel S. Hirschhorn
Everyone thinks of terrorism and homeland security for lessons learned from 9/11. There is another opportunity. Make our government trustworthy and truthful. (How about More Competent? - asks REB 84)
The 9/11 truth movement is stronger than ever, though it is generally derided by politicians and ignored by the mainstream media. It is fueled by people passionate about alternative explanations to the official 9/11 story. Understandable, considering that the co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission admitted: "We were set up to fail."
In 2006 Time magazine said: "The population of [the 9/11 truth movement] is larger than you might think. A Scripps-Howard poll of 1,010 adults last month found that 36% of Americans consider it ‘very likely’ or ‘somewhat likely’ that government officials either allowed the attacks to be carried out or carried out the attacks themselves. Thirty-six percent adds up to a lot of people. This is not a fringe phenomenon. It is a mainstream political reality."
A 2006 Zogby International poll found that 42% of Americans more likely agree with people who believe that "the US government and its 9/11 Commission concealed or refused to investigate critical evidence that contradicts their official explanation of the September 11th attacks, saying there has been a cover-up."
This year Zogby found that 31 perecent of likely voters do not buy the official 9/11 story [72 percent for ages 18 to 24 and nearly 60 percent for Hispanics and singles]; 51 percent still await a congressional investigation of Bush's and Cheney's actions before, during and after the 9/11 attacks [88 percent for ages 18 to 24 and 77 percent for Hispanics and singles]; and 67% fault the 9/11 Commission for not investigating the anomalous and still unexplained collapse of World Trade Center building 7.
So, six years later, a large fraction of Americans question the government’s official 9/11 story. Countless groups and websites sustain the 9/11 truth movement with many conferences held nationwide. There have been several best-selling books and many well known political, military, law enforcement and academic persons publicly support alternative theories of 9/11 and/or the need for a new investigation. Yet being a 9/11 truth seeker exposes one to ridicule as a conspiracy nut by those brainwashed by establishment propaganda and lies, or afraid to face the painful truth, or too lazy to think for themselves.
Writing recently in the Guardian, Peter Tatchell made important points: "The 9/11 Commission was hamstrung by official obstruction. It never managed to ascertain the whole truth of what happened on September 11 2001. …What happened on 9/11 is fundamentally important in its own right. But equally important is the way the 9/11 cover-up signifies an absence of democratic, transparent and accountable government. Establishing the truth is, in part, about restoring honesty, trust and confidence in American politics."
In other words, the truth movement has set the stage for taking their passion to a higher political level that even more Americans can support – government reform.
Specifically, waiting is a reform mechanism as old as the Constitution itself. Few Americans realize they have a constitutional right to a national convention of state delegates that can propose constitutional amendments. Once convened, delegates can debate and propose amendments without government review, but like amendments proposed by Congress, still must meet the tough ratification requirements of Article V. Though all 50 states have applied for a convention, well in excess of the 34 required by the Constitution, Congress has refused to call one. The nonpartisan Friends of the Article V Convention at www.foavc.org seeks the nation’s first Article V convention.
The Framers of our Constitution created the convention option because they feared one dark day the public would lose confidence in the federal government. With record-low approval of Congress – just 11 percent - and so little truth about 9/11, that day has crashed our democracy. Unsurprisingly, just like a new 9/11 investigation, Congress fears what may come out of an Article V convention. The truth is not politically popular.
The nexus between the 9/11 truth movement and the Article V convention effort is this: When a sizable fraction of the population wants a more comprehensive and credible government investigation into a matter of great public concern, but Congress and the Executive Branch refuse, a new legal mechanism is needed. Considering how the Bush administration used 9/11 to start the insane Iraq war, the public has profoundly good reasons for a new option for obtaining trustworthy information. Surely there will be other events and issues in the future that raise the same need for reliable analysis and conclusions independent of the usual web of government circles and tricks.
A new constitutional amendment can establish a framework for citizens to petition and seek “redress” from their federal government without going through elected representatives adept at ignoring them. Here is a possible approach. The highly respected and independent General Accountability Office could be given constitutional responsibility for collecting citizen petitions for investigations. If a threshold number is reached, then GAO would conduct a nonpartisan investigation using its staff and any other persons deemed necessary. This would be a taste of direct democracy, akin to a national referendum. The threshold might be one million citizen requests, with at least 10,000 coming from each of at least two-thirds of the states.
The intense 9/11 truth movement has a historic opportunity to seek a permanent means to counter bipartisan government intransigence and untrustworthiness that now is the rule, not the exception.
I urge 9/11 truth seekers to join Friends of the Article V Convention, recognizing that Congress’ refusal to re-investigate 9/11 is matched by its refusal to permit an Article V convention. Our common goal is to compel the federal government to be accountable to the Constitution, federal law and the people. 9/11 truth seekers must become government reform seekers to achieve their objectives through smart political strategy.
Other political strategies also merit support, notably the current effort in New York City to obtain a ballot initiative to establish a new independent commission and investigation: www.nyc911initiative.org.
Consider what Mark Twain wisely observed: "In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot." Our patriotic crusade for 9/11 truth and systemic government reform is still at the first stage. Courage is needed to persevere. Truth does not come easy.
[Joel S. Hirschhorn is a member of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, a co-founder of Friends of the Article V Convention, former full professor of engineering at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, and senior staffer at the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment and the National Governors Association, and author of Delusional Democracy – Fixing the Republic Without Overthrowing the Government at delusionaldemocracy.com.]
QuestionItNow
Joel S. Hirschhorn
Everyone thinks of terrorism and homeland security for lessons learned from 9/11. There is another opportunity. Make our government trustworthy and truthful. (How about More Competent? - asks REB 84)
The 9/11 truth movement is stronger than ever, though it is generally derided by politicians and ignored by the mainstream media. It is fueled by people passionate about alternative explanations to the official 9/11 story. Understandable, considering that the co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission admitted: "We were set up to fail."
In 2006 Time magazine said: "The population of [the 9/11 truth movement] is larger than you might think. A Scripps-Howard poll of 1,010 adults last month found that 36% of Americans consider it ‘very likely’ or ‘somewhat likely’ that government officials either allowed the attacks to be carried out or carried out the attacks themselves. Thirty-six percent adds up to a lot of people. This is not a fringe phenomenon. It is a mainstream political reality."
A 2006 Zogby International poll found that 42% of Americans more likely agree with people who believe that "the US government and its 9/11 Commission concealed or refused to investigate critical evidence that contradicts their official explanation of the September 11th attacks, saying there has been a cover-up."
This year Zogby found that 31 perecent of likely voters do not buy the official 9/11 story [72 percent for ages 18 to 24 and nearly 60 percent for Hispanics and singles]; 51 percent still await a congressional investigation of Bush's and Cheney's actions before, during and after the 9/11 attacks [88 percent for ages 18 to 24 and 77 percent for Hispanics and singles]; and 67% fault the 9/11 Commission for not investigating the anomalous and still unexplained collapse of World Trade Center building 7.
So, six years later, a large fraction of Americans question the government’s official 9/11 story. Countless groups and websites sustain the 9/11 truth movement with many conferences held nationwide. There have been several best-selling books and many well known political, military, law enforcement and academic persons publicly support alternative theories of 9/11 and/or the need for a new investigation. Yet being a 9/11 truth seeker exposes one to ridicule as a conspiracy nut by those brainwashed by establishment propaganda and lies, or afraid to face the painful truth, or too lazy to think for themselves.
Writing recently in the Guardian, Peter Tatchell made important points: "The 9/11 Commission was hamstrung by official obstruction. It never managed to ascertain the whole truth of what happened on September 11 2001. …What happened on 9/11 is fundamentally important in its own right. But equally important is the way the 9/11 cover-up signifies an absence of democratic, transparent and accountable government. Establishing the truth is, in part, about restoring honesty, trust and confidence in American politics."
In other words, the truth movement has set the stage for taking their passion to a higher political level that even more Americans can support – government reform.
Specifically, waiting is a reform mechanism as old as the Constitution itself. Few Americans realize they have a constitutional right to a national convention of state delegates that can propose constitutional amendments. Once convened, delegates can debate and propose amendments without government review, but like amendments proposed by Congress, still must meet the tough ratification requirements of Article V. Though all 50 states have applied for a convention, well in excess of the 34 required by the Constitution, Congress has refused to call one. The nonpartisan Friends of the Article V Convention at www.foavc.org seeks the nation’s first Article V convention.
The Framers of our Constitution created the convention option because they feared one dark day the public would lose confidence in the federal government. With record-low approval of Congress – just 11 percent - and so little truth about 9/11, that day has crashed our democracy. Unsurprisingly, just like a new 9/11 investigation, Congress fears what may come out of an Article V convention. The truth is not politically popular.
The nexus between the 9/11 truth movement and the Article V convention effort is this: When a sizable fraction of the population wants a more comprehensive and credible government investigation into a matter of great public concern, but Congress and the Executive Branch refuse, a new legal mechanism is needed. Considering how the Bush administration used 9/11 to start the insane Iraq war, the public has profoundly good reasons for a new option for obtaining trustworthy information. Surely there will be other events and issues in the future that raise the same need for reliable analysis and conclusions independent of the usual web of government circles and tricks.
A new constitutional amendment can establish a framework for citizens to petition and seek “redress” from their federal government without going through elected representatives adept at ignoring them. Here is a possible approach. The highly respected and independent General Accountability Office could be given constitutional responsibility for collecting citizen petitions for investigations. If a threshold number is reached, then GAO would conduct a nonpartisan investigation using its staff and any other persons deemed necessary. This would be a taste of direct democracy, akin to a national referendum. The threshold might be one million citizen requests, with at least 10,000 coming from each of at least two-thirds of the states.
The intense 9/11 truth movement has a historic opportunity to seek a permanent means to counter bipartisan government intransigence and untrustworthiness that now is the rule, not the exception.
I urge 9/11 truth seekers to join Friends of the Article V Convention, recognizing that Congress’ refusal to re-investigate 9/11 is matched by its refusal to permit an Article V convention. Our common goal is to compel the federal government to be accountable to the Constitution, federal law and the people. 9/11 truth seekers must become government reform seekers to achieve their objectives through smart political strategy.
Other political strategies also merit support, notably the current effort in New York City to obtain a ballot initiative to establish a new independent commission and investigation: www.nyc911initiative.org.
Consider what Mark Twain wisely observed: "In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot." Our patriotic crusade for 9/11 truth and systemic government reform is still at the first stage. Courage is needed to persevere. Truth does not come easy.
[Joel S. Hirschhorn is a member of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, a co-founder of Friends of the Article V Convention, former full professor of engineering at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, and senior staffer at the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment and the National Governors Association, and author of Delusional Democracy – Fixing the Republic Without Overthrowing the Government at delusionaldemocracy.com.]
QuestionItNow
One thing that I have been thinking about is my personal feeling that since our boomer generation is in control of Congress, the Presidency, the Courts and just about everything else that counts, is that we, as a generation have utterly failed our children and grandchildren.
I have been thinking about who we, through our elected "leaders" have sent to war on the flimsiest of excuses, when it is our duty to our children and our country to avoid war at all costs, to use military power as the LAST alternative, not the first.
We have failed our kids. Instead of putting a visions in their heads of America leading the world to a better place, a place where disease, famine, pestilence are being eradicated, where war becomes obsolete as a means of settling disputes, where our military might is used to keep the peace, not to intimidate those who disagree with us.
The vision we get from our "leaders" is we should be scared, that the only way to make living in America without risk is to threaten peace around the world.
The vision we need is that we are all working together to make the world a better place, a place where everyone who is hungry is fed, where all who fall ill can be cured or at least comforted, and all who aspire can aspire and achieve great things. We need a world vision that war became obsolete in the 1900's and that the world is big enough to accommodate people of all faiths, and that faith based war is unnecessary.
I trust the long term cure for terrorism is to put food in everyone's belly, and make it possible for all who seek work to find work. A person with a full stomach and a job is unlikely to opt for terrorism. A nation not at war can work for peace.
Why aren't our politicians and leaders espousing this kind of positive thinking on a consistent basis? Why does one party still think the only way to maintain their grip on power is to instill fear, and to promote the loss of our precious freedoms that one million Americans have paid for with their lives? Is this how we honor theirs, and their families sacrifice? I don't think so.
QuestionItNow
I have been thinking about who we, through our elected "leaders" have sent to war on the flimsiest of excuses, when it is our duty to our children and our country to avoid war at all costs, to use military power as the LAST alternative, not the first.
We have failed our kids. Instead of putting a visions in their heads of America leading the world to a better place, a place where disease, famine, pestilence are being eradicated, where war becomes obsolete as a means of settling disputes, where our military might is used to keep the peace, not to intimidate those who disagree with us.
The vision we get from our "leaders" is we should be scared, that the only way to make living in America without risk is to threaten peace around the world.
The vision we need is that we are all working together to make the world a better place, a place where everyone who is hungry is fed, where all who fall ill can be cured or at least comforted, and all who aspire can aspire and achieve great things. We need a world vision that war became obsolete in the 1900's and that the world is big enough to accommodate people of all faiths, and that faith based war is unnecessary.
I trust the long term cure for terrorism is to put food in everyone's belly, and make it possible for all who seek work to find work. A person with a full stomach and a job is unlikely to opt for terrorism. A nation not at war can work for peace.
Why aren't our politicians and leaders espousing this kind of positive thinking on a consistent basis? Why does one party still think the only way to maintain their grip on power is to instill fear, and to promote the loss of our precious freedoms that one million Americans have paid for with their lives? Is this how we honor theirs, and their families sacrifice? I don't think so.
QuestionItNow
Why does Ron Paul not speak of Article V?
Open Letter to Congressman Ron Paul
Joel S. Hirschhorn
There are numerous reasons to admire you, as I have for many years. Clearly you are running for president as a Republican, rather than a third party candidate, for the purpose of getting richly deserved media and public attention not available to those outside the two-party duopoly. In last night’s debate among Republican presidential candidates you proudly described yourself as a "champion of the Constitution." However, you are missing a major opportunity to demonstrate your courage and allegiance to our constitutional republic.
You have acknowledged the appropriateness of amending the Constitution. In fact, you introduced legislation for an amendment that would stop giving automatic citizenship to babies born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents. You said: "Our founders knew that unforeseen problems with our system of government would arise, and that’s precisely why they gave us a method for amending the Constitution. It’s time to rethink birthright citizenship by amending the 14th amendment."
Personally, I endorse this particular amendment. More important, however, I am disappointed that you have never latched on to the long history of Congress’ failure to honor and obey the part of Article V of the Constitution that gives Americans the right to a convention for the purpose of proposing amendments to the Constitution – an alternative to Congress proposing amendments. Interestingly, the particular amendment that you favor will probably never emerge from Congress, but might have a better chance through an Article V convention.
Why have you failed to acknowledge that Congress has ignored over 500 applications from state legislatures from all 50 states for an Article V convention? As a champion of the Constitution, surely you know that the one and only requirement explicitly stated in Article V is that two-thirds of state legislatures ask for one. And surely you know that Congress has never passed any law that expands or modifies this single explicit constitutional requirement. So, I ask you Congressman Paul: Why have you remained silent on the Article V issue?
If you do not believe that Congress should honor Article V’s provision for a convention, why not say so publicly? If you believe that it should never be used, then why not call for an amendment to delete it from our Constitution?
Please Congressman Paul, as a champion of the Constitution, do not behave like other members of Congress and silently veto a crucial part of the Constitution that the Framers wisely gave us. They anticipated that eventually Americans could lose confidence in the federal government. You clearly have earned the respect and support of millions of Americans because you object to so many policies and actions of the federal government. Thus, you, more than virtually any other member of Congress, should appreciate the wisdom of the Framers in giving us the Article V convention option.
I beg you to speak up and demonstrate just how much of a champion of the Constitution you really are by bringing national attention to the Article V convention issue and supporting its use. As a founder of Friends of the Article V Convention I invite you to play a leading role in giving the United States of America its first Article V convention.
[The author had the pleasure of a private meeting with Congressman Paul about a year ago to discuss his book Delusional Democracy – Fixing the Republic Without Overthrowing the Government: www.delusionaldemocracy.com. He serves as National Press Secretary of Friends of the Article V Convention: www.foavc.org.]
Joel S. Hirschhorn
QuestionItNow
Open Letter to Congressman Ron Paul
Joel S. Hirschhorn
There are numerous reasons to admire you, as I have for many years. Clearly you are running for president as a Republican, rather than a third party candidate, for the purpose of getting richly deserved media and public attention not available to those outside the two-party duopoly. In last night’s debate among Republican presidential candidates you proudly described yourself as a "champion of the Constitution." However, you are missing a major opportunity to demonstrate your courage and allegiance to our constitutional republic.
You have acknowledged the appropriateness of amending the Constitution. In fact, you introduced legislation for an amendment that would stop giving automatic citizenship to babies born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents. You said: "Our founders knew that unforeseen problems with our system of government would arise, and that’s precisely why they gave us a method for amending the Constitution. It’s time to rethink birthright citizenship by amending the 14th amendment."
Personally, I endorse this particular amendment. More important, however, I am disappointed that you have never latched on to the long history of Congress’ failure to honor and obey the part of Article V of the Constitution that gives Americans the right to a convention for the purpose of proposing amendments to the Constitution – an alternative to Congress proposing amendments. Interestingly, the particular amendment that you favor will probably never emerge from Congress, but might have a better chance through an Article V convention.
Why have you failed to acknowledge that Congress has ignored over 500 applications from state legislatures from all 50 states for an Article V convention? As a champion of the Constitution, surely you know that the one and only requirement explicitly stated in Article V is that two-thirds of state legislatures ask for one. And surely you know that Congress has never passed any law that expands or modifies this single explicit constitutional requirement. So, I ask you Congressman Paul: Why have you remained silent on the Article V issue?
If you do not believe that Congress should honor Article V’s provision for a convention, why not say so publicly? If you believe that it should never be used, then why not call for an amendment to delete it from our Constitution?
Please Congressman Paul, as a champion of the Constitution, do not behave like other members of Congress and silently veto a crucial part of the Constitution that the Framers wisely gave us. They anticipated that eventually Americans could lose confidence in the federal government. You clearly have earned the respect and support of millions of Americans because you object to so many policies and actions of the federal government. Thus, you, more than virtually any other member of Congress, should appreciate the wisdom of the Framers in giving us the Article V convention option.
I beg you to speak up and demonstrate just how much of a champion of the Constitution you really are by bringing national attention to the Article V convention issue and supporting its use. As a founder of Friends of the Article V Convention I invite you to play a leading role in giving the United States of America its first Article V convention.
[The author had the pleasure of a private meeting with Congressman Paul about a year ago to discuss his book Delusional Democracy – Fixing the Republic Without Overthrowing the Government: www.delusionaldemocracy.com. He serves as National Press Secretary of Friends of the Article V Convention: www.foavc.org.]
Joel S. Hirschhorn
QuestionItNow
One million American servicemen and women have paid for the freedoms all Americans enjoy, and indeed have a right to, with their lives. Countless thousands have paid with their blood, and tens of millions of Americans have sacrificed in every way imaginable to protect and defend these freedoms.I for one am unwilling to, in the name of fighting terrorists to give up the freedoms that tens of millions, including myself, have fought, died, and sacrificed for.
Trampling the right of all Americans to due process of law, court protection from unreasonable search and seizure, denial of habeas corpus, long term detention without charge or counsel violate the fundamental elements of American freedom.
I can say without reservation that the biggest threat to the freedom of all Americans does not come from al Qaeda. It comes from a government cloaked in secrecy, one which seeks to hide its actions from view, one that claims for itself the power to spy, detain, detain without charges, torture, cause Americans to Disappear via Rendition to states which not only support, but openly practice torture of prisoners.
No declaration of war exists. Congress did not authorize anything except the ability of the president to use military force necessary to punish and prevent future terrorist attacks on our soil and interests abroad. This in no way gives the president or those in his administration the statutory or constitutional authority to restrict the freedom of Americans to be Americans, and to waive the rights so many have died for.
I will NEVER give up my freedom in the sheep's clothing of protecting me. To give up our rights in the name of a false safety is a far greater risk to America than any terrorist can bring. Our government must never become our enemy. We will not let it.
One more thing. Each year 3 million Americans die of all causes, old age, cancer, auto accidents, heart disease and so on. 3 million. It has been 6 years since 9/11 and 18,000,000 Americans have died of all causes, and not one of them was killed by a terrorist. I am willing to take my chances on getting killed by a terrorist, if the tradeoff is America's freedom, if it means losing our rights and constitution. This is not to say that we should not be concerned, and that reasonable measures should not be taken to prevent attacks, but again, an objective look at the facts would indicate that a national obsession with terrorism serves only the politicians who use the fear of terrorism to get elected.
QuestionItNow
I awakened in a time warp this morning.The president has warned Iran to quit doing stuff or that there would be "serious consequences". Cheney wants to bomb "limited targets", terrorist training camps.
Then I read that the president says that the reason there are so many bad mortgages is that the contracts signed by economically illiterate people are too complicated and that people should know what they are signing, i.e., blame the victim for the predatory lender's irresponsibility in lending sub-prime mortgages to people they knew could not afford the financial instruments being sold. He then said that the federal government should not intervene to provide liquidity to this market, i.e., provide easier credit to lenders so that they could reflect this in lower interest rates to people being forced into default.
See how this works. Corporate predators should be free to offer loans that are sure to fail at 20% of all originations, with contract language that is incomprehensible to the borrower. The disclosure at the closing barely meets legal muster, and the lender says, "well they knew what they were getting into, the signatures on the disclosure prove it". Then the bankruptcy laws were changed making it more difficult for a family in trouble to go to chapter 7, leaving foreclosure as the only pathway for the consumer and banks to work things out. Finally the president says it is the fault of the borrower, many of whom can't read beyond 8th grade level to try to figure out contract language that would be a challenge for a Philadelphia Lawyer.
Next the president says that a gas tax to fix infrastructure is off the table despite the fact that there are 27,000 bridges rated as structurally deficient in America, despite the fact that the total bill to fix all deficient and obsolete infrastructure in America is estimated to be $180 B (equal to 4 months bill for the war in Iraq). Of course if the Highway Trust Fund was actually used to build and maintain our highway infrastructure, which it is not, were to be used for its intended purpose, maybe the existing gas tax would have been sufficient to have fixed the bridges and roads anyway.
Then the president says that the way to fix America and make our businesses competitive in the global marketplace is to, ta ta, reduce American corporate tax rates!
So I awoke this morning to read my local paper, and I find that the problems with mortgages is that the victims are to blame.
Then I read that Iran is really the reason there is an insurgency in Iraq, and that if Iran would only quit being the bad guy, Iraq would be free to become a democratic oasis in the desert, a beacon of hope to the entire middle East. And we need only throw a few bombs at Iran to solve that problem.
Then we would not turn to the logical source of funding to fix our functionally obsolete infrastructure, fees on the users of that infrastructure to keep it safe and in good repair.
Then we find out that the way to fix America is to give big corporate more tax breaks, which then shifts a measurably larger share of the tax burden to the middle class or since pay go is not in order in America, to our children and grandchildren, in effect, a generation skipping tax burden on your progeny and the middle wage earner.
For 7 long years, this has been the Bush mantra. We really are in a time warp.
QuestionItNow
"The best servants of the people, like the best valets, must whisper unpleasant truths in the master's ear. It is the court fool, not the foolish courtier, whom the king can least afford to lose."- Walter Lippmann
QuestionItNow
Seeking Political Reform Through SolidarityJoel S. Hirschhorn
All over the Internet are sincere efforts to reform and improve America’s political- government system. The downside is fragmentation of the subpopulation that has escaped brainwashing, cultural distraction, and self-delusion. Strategy solidarity is missing, but is possible.
Millions of discontent, dissident and truly patriotic Americans see our federal government as corrupt and untrustworthy, disrespectful of our Constitution, under the grip of moneyed interests, subservient to corporate and globalization elites, unresponsive to the needs of ordinary people, and very much on the wrong track. But they are not united.
This subpopulation no longer believes that electing different Democrats or Republicans will turn around the nation. Many have stopped voting. Some believe violent revolution is necessary. Some think that only national economic disaster will produce necessary change. Most find hope in a particular reform strategy that has attracted their attention and respect. However, so many reform efforts reduce prospects for success.
I am talking about political-government reforms, not party reforms. Many successful websites often described as “progressive” seek changes in the Democratic Party. On the political right others hope to reform the Republican Party. Party reform is not the same as reversing the many declines in American democratic institutions. Devotees of popular sites like dailykos.com, moveon.org and huffingtonpost.com, for example, still believe that electing different Democrats is the solution, while true dissidents have given up on that. Being passionately anti-Bush/Cheney does not change their loyalty to the two-party system.
For the dissident subpopulation, fragmentation impedes building a critical mass that can precipitate a tipping point for revolutionary change that solves systemic national problems. Fragmentation results in large measure because of the ease of creating new groups with their own websites. Dissidents align with some web group (and sometimes several), hoping and perhaps praying for success, even if they admit the probability is low.
Admittedly, our monumentally negative and complex national situation will not receive some quick magic-bullet solution. And many will argue that we need multiple strategies and that many of them are complementary. Yet the fragmentation-critical mass issue must not be ignored any longer. Especially when we acknowledge the myriad, powerful forces supporting our ugly, oppressive status quo system and their demonstrated capability over many decades to beat back serious reform attempts. Success requires solidarity. If we do not take the fragmentation problem seriously, untold numbers of micro-reform groups will remain marginalized. Just what status quo forces want.
Realistically, reaching consensus will be resisted by many reform-groups that would not be selected as the priority, solidarity option. One cannot ignore the considerable egos of activists that have energetically created a web group, and that have attained supporters – though rarely in significant numbers. They sincerely believe that their strategy is the best one and having relatively few supporters does not deter them. Many are as opposed to alternative reform strategies as those in the status quo establishment, but not all. Most celebrate their long shot status with a religious zeal bordering on obsession. We need passion for a solidarity strategy.
This requires maturity and open-mindedness from entrepreneurial activists to acknowledge that some other strategy offers more promise of wide scale success. Joining together in common cause is necessary to save our nation.
Umbrella Strategy: What we can strive for is that many reform advocates can support another strategy that does not contradict or oppose their own one. In seeking a solidarity strategy, we want the capacity to serve as an umbrella movement that ultimately can assist others to succeed or at least fairly compete against each other for public support.
Unlikely Mass Action: The solidarity strategy should not be dependent on changing the behavior of enormous numbers of people. Many sincere groups believe that millions of converts will change more than their thinking or values – they will change their behavior. They trust that their information stimulus will produce their desired response. One group aims at convincing people to have only one child per couple as the planet-wide solution. Another preaches voting out incumbents. Another wants supporters for replacing our representative democracy with direct democracy – despite being antithetical to our constitutional republic framework. Such micro-movements hope that true believers will voluntarily choose to behave in the desired fashion. But how can one person confidently believe that millions of others will behave likewise? Such groups typically exist for years despite no objective evidence that their message is causing millions of people to behave similarly.
Unlikely Lawmaking: Many other groups, such as those pursuing specific electoral reforms, base success on Congress eventually passing the desired law. But if we are talking about profound reforms, passage is unlikely. Powerful moneyed interests spend whatever is necessary to preserve the status quo through lobbying and campaign funding. Getting dissidents to send letters to members of Congress, sign petitions and participate in street protests are tactics that rarely succeed against the corrupt power of money. Moreover, many of these groups pursue beneficial but narrow reforms that will not profoundly change our system. Note that I am not talking about worthy issue-specific actions that often mobilize large numbers, such as the recent success to kill the attempt to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants and as yet unsuccessful attempts to impeach Bush and Cheney, stop the Iraq war, and stop globalization.
It comes to this: Is there a solidarity strategy for achieving deep reforms? Yes. Some time ago I anguished over the decision to dedicate my time, energy and money to a movement that I had researched and concluded had the capacity to produce many major reforms. An Article V convention could be the successful solidarity strategy. The Framers of our Constitution created this option exactly because they anticipated the loss of public confidence in the federal government. That day has arrived.
This strategy is a clear constitutional right. An Article V convention, moreover, would provide a legal venue for consideration of many possible amendments. Indeed, when I examined countless reform groups, the clearer it became that many goals could be instituted through constitutional amendments – our ultimate lawmaking opportunity.
Why so many failed attempts to get an Article V convention? Powerful groups on the political left and right had opposed the convention. They wanted to retain their ability to greatly influence public policy and feared a convention that circumvented all three branches of the federal government. The great hypocrisy was that those professing to honor and love our Constitution opposed using exactly what our Constitution offers us.
I first wondered why Congress had not proposed an amendment to remove the convention option. But then I realized that Congress has chosen to conceal its opposition to a convention. But two of our greatest presidents backed it: Abraham Lincoln and Franklin D. Roosevelt.
I linked up with other conventionists and now we have a major web presence for Friends of the Article V Convention at
www.foavc.org. We are nonpartisan and will not endorse specific amendments. We have shown the potential for wide scale success by achieving remarkable rapid growth in membership in just a few months and have begun building state chapters.
If you are a true dissident looking for major political-government reforms come with an open mind to our website. Access a wealth of information and analysis that refute any fears you may have about a convention (because of propaganda from anti-conventionists). If you have a reform group or are committed to one and can envision a constitutional amendment to reach your goal, consider affiliate membership for your group.
In solidarity there is strength. Much strength is needed to meet our common reform goal of restoring American democracy and rebuilding a trustworthy government.
[Joel S. Hirschhorn is the author of Delusional Democracy and can be reached through www.delusionaldemocracy.com.]
QuestionItNow Blogs
The world now knows how seriously president Bush views treason (when committed by a friend of the family). By commuting Libby’s sentence for the treasonous act of covering up who revealed the identity of an undercover CIA operative to the "embedded" media. Make no mistake, this was an act of retaliation against Joe Wilson, a man who stood up to the Bush administration in the run-up to the war in Iraq and spoke the truth about the "weapons of mass destruction" lies being fed to the American people. Throughout this drama, the rad-con establishment has been deflecting attention from the real issue. The outing of a covert CIA agent was a criminal act that has made America less safe! Valerie Plame-Wilson was involved in helping to keep weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of America's enemies. Instead of standing up for out intelligence community, the right-wing talking heads have attacked the prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald by asserting - unchallenged by too many so-called news people - that he and his grand jury engaged in the "criminalization of politics."
It is to Mr. Fitzgerald's credit that, in this era of leaks to the press for political gain, his grand jury remained tight-lipped, right up until the Libby indictments were unsealed, leaving the rest of us to wonder and wait. A crime had been committed. Who would pay?
In case anyone is in doubt as to Scooter Libby’s lying ways, read the following excerpt from his testimony of an alleged conversation with Tim Russert of NBC News - during which Libby claimed Russert was the first person to inform him Valerie Plame Wilson was a CIA agent:
"I remember being taken aback by it. ... And I said, no, I don't know that. And, I said no. I don't know that intentionally because I didn't want him to take anything I was saying as in any way confirming what he said, because at that point in time I did not recall that I had ever known, and I thought that this was something that he was telling me that I was first learning. And I said, no, I don't know that because I want to be very careful not to confirm it for him, so that he didn't take my statement as confirmation for him."
Huh? Any parent who asks their kid if they did something wrong and gets a response like that will know their kid is not telling the truth.
This link provides the full text of the United States Department of Justice Indictment of I. Lewis Libby, also known as "Scooter Libby." Those who asserted that Patrick Fitzgerald engaged in the "criminalization of politics" and this is ‘the same thing Clinton did’ will be well served to read this, assuming they care about the democratic process and accountability.
QuestionItNow Blogs
Americans Unready to Revolt, Despite Revolting Conditions
- Joel S. Hirschhorn
The latest NBC/Wall Street Journal national poll results vividly show a population incredibly dissatisfied with their nation’s political system. In other countries in other times such a depressing level of confidence in government would send a signal to those running the government that a major upheaval is imminent. But not here in the USA. Why?
First, here are the highlights of the poll that surveyed 1,008 adults from June 8-11, with a margin of error of plus-minus 3.1 percentage points.
A whopping 68 percent think the country is on the wrong track. Just 19 percent believe the country is headed in the right direction - the lowest number on that question in nearly 15 years. And most of those with the positive view are probably in the Upper Class.
Bush’s approval rating is at just 29 percent, his lowest mark ever in the survey. Only 62 percent of Republicans approve, versus 32 percent who disapprove. Take Republicans out of the picture and a fifth or less of Americans have a positive view of Bush.
Even worse, only 23 percent approve of the job that Congress is doing. So much for that wonderful new Democratic control of Congress. Bipartisan incompetence is alive and well.
On the economic front, nearly twice as many people think the U.S. is more hurt than helped by the global economy (48 to 25 percent). Globalization does not spread wealth; it channels it to the wealthy, making billionaires out of millionaires.
I have long asserted that Americans live in a delusional democracy with delusional prosperity and these and loads of other data support this view. There is a super wealthy and politically powerful Upper Class that is literally raping the nation. Meanwhile, the huge Lower Class continues to lose economic ground while their elected representatives sell them out to benefit the Upper Class. Yet no rational person thinks that a large fraction of the population is ready to rise up in revolt against the evil status quo political-economic system that so clearly is not serving the interests of the overwhelming majority of Americans. Why not?
For a nation that was built on a revolt against oppressive governance by the British, something has been lost from our political DNA. We apparently no longer have the gene for political rebellion. It has been bred out of most of us. And those of us that urge a Second American Revolution are seen as fringe, nutty subversives.
Part of the genius of our contemporary ruling class elites is that they have engineering a state of political and economic oppression that paradoxically is still embraced by the Lower Class. The rational way to understand this is that ordinary, oppressed Americans are in a deep psychological state of self-delusion. Despite all the empirical, objective evidence of a failed government, they fail to see rebellion opportunities. Many still believe they live in the world’s best democracy. But across all elections considerably less than half the citizens even bother to vote anymore. Yet, as the new NBC/Journal poll results show, people are cognitively aware of just how awful the political-economic system is. Yet they are not feeling enough pain to seriously consider rebellion. And it is visceral pain that must drive people to the daring act of rebellion.
Why is there insufficient pain for revolution? This is a deadly serious issue. What is historically unique about America is that even the most oppressed and unfairly treated people are distracted by affordable materialism, entertainment, sports, gambling, and myriad other aspects of our frivolous, self-absorbed culture. Even failed school and health care systems do not drive people, paying enormous sums to fill up their SUVs, to rebellion. So, Americans are aware of their oppression, but the power elites have successfully drugged them with a plethora of pleasure-producing distractions sufficient to keep them under control. We are free to bitch, but too weak to revolt. The Internet has provided a release valve for some pent up anger and frustration. But it too has mostly become another source of distraction, rather than an effective tool for rebellion.
Though these new poll statistics make news, those in control of the political-economic system are not afraid that the population is on the verge of retaking their constitutionally guaranteed sovereign power and take back their nation. Thousands of people like me keep writing books and articles and creating protest groups and events. Those in power just find new, ingenious ways to keep the population distracted – if not through pleasure, then certainly through fear of terrorism. Growing economic insecurity also contributes to self-paralysis, as do never-ending political lies.
What a system.
Even as the population has growing awareness of the dire condition of their nation, the move by the politically powerful on the right and left continues to seek a new immigration law that will solidify the selling out of America. Business interests want more of those fleeing Mexico and other nations to keep wages low. Instead of Mexicans rising up in rebellion against their oppressive government and economic system they escape to the USA. But Americans have no such viable escape solution. Though global warming will certainly make Canada increasingly attractive.
So what do Americans have – other than a terribly bleak future? Where is hope in our dismal world?
In a bizarre twist of history that further illustrates just how impotent Americans have become, virtually all citizens are either unaware of or unreceptive to the ultimate escape route that the Framers of our Constitution gave us. They anticipated that Americans could become quite dissatisfied with the federal government. They feared that the political system could become incredibly corrupted by moneyed interests. They were right.
So here we sit over 200 years after our nation was created unwilling to use what is explicitly given to us in Article V of the Constitution – the option to have a convention outside the control of Congress, the President and the Supreme Court to make proposals for constitutional amendments. Do we really believe in the rule of law? If so, then we should understand that the supreme law of the land – what is in our Constitution – is the ultimate way to obtain the deep political and government reforms to restore true democracy and economic fairness to our society.
Make no mistake: an Article V convention has been stubbornly opposed by virtually all groups with political and economic power. This is most evidenced by the blatant refusal of Congress to obey the Constitution and give us an Article V convention, even though the single explicit requirement for a convention has been met. This fact alone should tell rational people that they are being screwed and oppressed. The rule of law is trumped by the rule of delusion. Our lawmakers are lawbreakers.
Come learn more about the effort to get an Article V convention at www.foavc.org and become a member. Do not keep witnessing the unraveling of American society, voting for lesser evil candidates, and believing the propaganda that putting different Democrats or Republicans in office will actually improve things for most of us. Choose peaceful rebellion by using what our Constitution gives us. Fight self-delusion.
[Joel S. Hirschhorn is the author of Delusional Democracy (www.delusionaldemocracy.com); and a founder of Friends of the Article V Convention (www.foavc.org).]
QuestionItNow Blogs
Tommorow we celebrate Memorial Day. This is a day to remember those who have paid the ultimate sacrifice to defend the American way of life. Giving one's life for one's country is what comes to mind when one speaks of the ultimate sacrifice.
However, Tammara recently posted something at TeamBio.org that caused me to question whether this is truly the ultimate sacrifice. Every day, Military families are stressed and strained by the ceaseless grind of war. The story that follows is a heartbreaking example of how one young soldier gives the ultimate sacrfice new meaning.
"Support for Our Troops- One at a Time
by tammara @ 6:48 pm
this is from the ED of Vets for Peace, and concerns his son shaun. micahel asks for letters of support for his son, and i certainly will send him one. i hope some of you can do same. it is heartbreaking to lose a child, and losing one you hardly knew due to being deployed to iraq when he was born, not being there when the baby was diagnosed with an illness that meant a death sentence, and only being able to spend 5 months with that baby before he died is enough for anyone to have on his plate. having to face a second deployment is too much.
please take a minute out of your busy day to write a quick note to this young man, to let him know that he is not forgotten, that indeed, we do support our troops.
Hello Everyone,
I wanted to update people on the status of my son SPC Shaun Manuel. For those who know nothing about him I will go through a quick explanation. My son joined the Army in late December 2003. His Military Occupation Specialty is supply 92A (Automated Logistical Specialist). He served a tour in Iraq with the 101st Airborne, September 2005 to September 2006. He participated in convoys to transport supplies. He also participated in sweeps. All in all Shaun returned from his Iraq experience intact but facing a few emotional challenges. I am not an expert, but I think he has a slight case of PTSD, anger management. Events concerning his second son Jeremiah exacerbate these challenges.
Jeremiah was born June 2006 while Shaun was still in Iraq. In November Jeremiah was diagnosed with Muscular Spinal Atrophy, a genetic disease. He died January 3, 2007. Since that time my son’s motivation has suffered. It appears his command has not been very supportive. His brigade is scheduled return to Iraq in July. Shaun does not think his head is in the right place to do another tour. I think he told his command sometime last month that he wanted to get out of the military. I am not clear on all the details, but I do know he missed a number of work days and formations. When he returned he was arrested for being AWOL. He has been in jail since April 27.
We hope to have him out soon. He is set to face a summary court martial where he can receive 30 days jail time, hopefully time served. He will probably be chaptered out with a less than honorable discharge. His unit is currently in the field training for the deployment and will not be back to Fort Campbell until the 17th. I have visited him in jail. He seems in fair spirits considering his situation. Of course this has put tremendous stress on his wife Lanisha. She seems to be holding up well with his oldest son Justin acting his age of two. I admire Lanisha’s strength to handle this crisis.
If possible please write my son a few words of encouragement. I think a number of letters will help sustain him through this ordeal. It would also subtly inform the jail and his command that there are people aware of this situation and watching. Fort Campbell does not have a jail so he is the Christian County, Hopkinsville, KY jail.
SPC Shaun Manuel
C/O Christian County Jail
410 West 7th Street
Hopkinsville, KY 42240
Lanisha Manuel
952 Norman Drive
Clarksville, TN
I would like to thank several people for helping with legal support, Marti and Luke Hiken of Military Law Task Force, Elizabeth Stinson of the Peace and Justice Center of Sonoma County CA, and David Gespass in Birmingham AL.
Thank you everyone for all your support and I will keep you informed as things change. Please circulate as you think best.
Michael T. McPhearson
Veterans For Peace
Executive Director
314 725-6005
peace: One step at a time."
QuestionItNow
However, Tammara recently posted something at TeamBio.org that caused me to question whether this is truly the ultimate sacrifice. Every day, Military families are stressed and strained by the ceaseless grind of war. The story that follows is a heartbreaking example of how one young soldier gives the ultimate sacrfice new meaning.
"Support for Our Troops- One at a Time
by tammara @ 6:48 pm
this is from the ED of Vets for Peace, and concerns his son shaun. micahel asks for letters of support for his son, and i certainly will send him one. i hope some of you can do same. it is heartbreaking to lose a child, and losing one you hardly knew due to being deployed to iraq when he was born, not being there when the baby was diagnosed with an illness that meant a death sentence, and only being able to spend 5 months with that baby before he died is enough for anyone to have on his plate. having to face a second deployment is too much.
please take a minute out of your busy day to write a quick note to this young man, to let him know that he is not forgotten, that indeed, we do support our troops.
Hello Everyone,
I wanted to update people on the status of my son SPC Shaun Manuel. For those who know nothing about him I will go through a quick explanation. My son joined the Army in late December 2003. His Military Occupation Specialty is supply 92A (Automated Logistical Specialist). He served a tour in Iraq with the 101st Airborne, September 2005 to September 2006. He participated in convoys to transport supplies. He also participated in sweeps. All in all Shaun returned from his Iraq experience intact but facing a few emotional challenges. I am not an expert, but I think he has a slight case of PTSD, anger management. Events concerning his second son Jeremiah exacerbate these challenges.
Jeremiah was born June 2006 while Shaun was still in Iraq. In November Jeremiah was diagnosed with Muscular Spinal Atrophy, a genetic disease. He died January 3, 2007. Since that time my son’s motivation has suffered. It appears his command has not been very supportive. His brigade is scheduled return to Iraq in July. Shaun does not think his head is in the right place to do another tour. I think he told his command sometime last month that he wanted to get out of the military. I am not clear on all the details, but I do know he missed a number of work days and formations. When he returned he was arrested for being AWOL. He has been in jail since April 27.
We hope to have him out soon. He is set to face a summary court martial where he can receive 30 days jail time, hopefully time served. He will probably be chaptered out with a less than honorable discharge. His unit is currently in the field training for the deployment and will not be back to Fort Campbell until the 17th. I have visited him in jail. He seems in fair spirits considering his situation. Of course this has put tremendous stress on his wife Lanisha. She seems to be holding up well with his oldest son Justin acting his age of two. I admire Lanisha’s strength to handle this crisis.
If possible please write my son a few words of encouragement. I think a number of letters will help sustain him through this ordeal. It would also subtly inform the jail and his command that there are people aware of this situation and watching. Fort Campbell does not have a jail so he is the Christian County, Hopkinsville, KY jail.
SPC Shaun Manuel
C/O Christian County Jail
410 West 7th Street
Hopkinsville, KY 42240
Lanisha Manuel
952 Norman Drive
Clarksville, TN
I would like to thank several people for helping with legal support, Marti and Luke Hiken of Military Law Task Force, Elizabeth Stinson of the Peace and Justice Center of Sonoma County CA, and David Gespass in Birmingham AL.
Thank you everyone for all your support and I will keep you informed as things change. Please circulate as you think best.
Michael T. McPhearson
Veterans For Peace
Executive Director
314 725-6005
peace: One step at a time."
QuestionItNow
"I am sickened by the way the media has handled this (Virginia Tech). What kind of cold heartless idiot sticks a mic in someone’s face who just lost a love one and asks 'How do you feel?" Now all the pundits are making this a Gun control debate…shut up already! Let people grieve!
On a more hopeful note, did you catch the PBS special on Being Muslim on America? It’s funny but people who grow up here tend not to 'radicalize' vs. Europeans who do. Most of those interviewed said that it was because of the way they are treated ... food for thought."
- Cal Trask
Cal,
That is a very insightful piece. You got to the essence of what is wrong with our profit driven, sensationalistic media. It seems the MSM just want to keep us in fear, in fear of each other. Fearful people are easier to control and more willing to buy products of media sponsors.
It is time people realizes we are one global community. As we do to each other, we do to ourselves. We need a renewed sense of community, now more than ever. I pray we are ready to work to make the world a better place.
I did not see that special about European Muslims being more radical than American Muslims. I wonder if they face less descrimination in the USA? Have you read "The World is Flat"?
God Bless you and yours,
REB 84
QuestionItNow
On a more hopeful note, did you catch the PBS special on Being Muslim on America? It’s funny but people who grow up here tend not to 'radicalize' vs. Europeans who do. Most of those interviewed said that it was because of the way they are treated ... food for thought."
- Cal Trask
Cal,
That is a very insightful piece. You got to the essence of what is wrong with our profit driven, sensationalistic media. It seems the MSM just want to keep us in fear, in fear of each other. Fearful people are easier to control and more willing to buy products of media sponsors.
It is time people realizes we are one global community. As we do to each other, we do to ourselves. We need a renewed sense of community, now more than ever. I pray we are ready to work to make the world a better place.
I did not see that special about European Muslims being more radical than American Muslims. I wonder if they face less descrimination in the USA? Have you read "The World is Flat"?
God Bless you and yours,
REB 84
QuestionItNow
Some self-proclaimed patriotic Americans would like us to believe that Canada is a socialistic country full of bleeding heart liberals. Some right- wing talking heads argue that Canada is 'weak on fighting terror' because most Canadians strongly disagree with the official American position on Iraq. Yet, these critics forget one very important point. Canada has been a loyal and trusted American ally in the real war on terror.This evening I read: KABUL (Reuters) - Six Canadian soldiers were killed and two wounded in southern Afghanistan on Sunday when their vehicle was blown up by a roadside bomb in the worst attack on 33,000-strong NATO multinational force fighting Taliban insurgents in several months. [more]
At a time when American politicians are debating the fate of America's overstretched military occupation of Iraq (our elective war) it is more fitting than ever to re-evaluate our real War on Terror strategy in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
The NATO force deployed in the region is a true "coalition of the willing." According to this article, "Last year saw the bloodiest fighting by Taliban insurgents since they were ousted from power in 2001. Most of the fighting has been in Helmand and neighboring Kandahar province, which provide the bulwark of support for the rebels.
Almost all NATO'S combat activities in Afghanistan are being conducted by U.S., British, Canadian and Dutch soldiers in the south and east, bordering Pakistan."
Meanwhile here in Detroit (aka HockeyTown) the NHL Playoffs are about to begin. We are saddened to learn that six hockey fans will not have an opportunity to see this year's Stanley Cup games, or their families ever again. War is hell. Thank you Canada for your support in the real war on terror. May the rest of America honor your sacrifice.
QuestionItNow
In an era of unprecedented government secrecy and an Orwelian manipulation of catch phrases such as Patriot, Support Our Troops, War on Terror, and Liberty it is helpful to look back in history and read what our founding fathers have to say about a government that chooses to keep the American people in the dark for its own ends.
"Liberty cannot be preserved without general knowledge among people, who have a right...and a desire to know; but besides this, they have a right, an indisputable, unalieanble, indefeasible, divine right to that most dreaded and envied kind of knowledge, I mean of the character and conduct of their rulers...Let us...cherish, therefore, the means of knowledge. Let us dare to read, think, speak, and write...Let every sluice of knowledge be opened and set a-flowing."
- John Adams
I was not familiar with the word indefeasible. So, I looked it up. indefeasible: not defeasabele; not to be annulled or made void; not forfeitable.
Too many Americans are ignorant about our government's activities by choice. Getting informed is hard work. Big media is content to feed this ignorance with sensationalistic stories and by repeating official talking points with too little analysis and minimal truth seaking. Still it is the duty of the American people to demand our rights. By allowing our government and media driven culture to manipulate our fears and cover themselves in a shroud of secrecy, have "We the People" forfeited our Right to Know?
QuestionItNow