The Political 1% OF THE 1%

By The SunLight Foundation

The Sunlight Foundation took a look at the 2012 election and found that not a single candidate for federal office won without taking a donation from the 31,385 people who make up the top 1 percent of the top 1 percent of American politics. The median contribution from this group was $26,584 —  which is more than the median income of an average American family.

These top one percent of the one percenters are not representative of America, of course. They predominantly live in big cities and work for Fortune 500 companies. The minimum contribution to be in this group is $13,054 an election — and that number keeps growing.

Sunlight argues that the Citizens United decision, which paved the way for unlimited donations to PACs, is behind the rise — though 87.5 percent did not donate to any PACs at all. Winning congressional candidates on average received more money from these 31,385 top donors (17.1 percent) than all of their small donors combined (13 percent).

Both major parties benefit from these uber-donors, though they do tend to favor Republicans.

So why does this matter?

Lawrence Lessig says it makes for a “corruption” of our democracy, where only .5 percent of Americans truly have a say in how it works.

And there’s no better example of this than how we regulate Wall Street. Lessig writes:

The most important architectural feature of Dodd-Frank is that the most important regulations of Dodd-Frank were not actually in the bill. Instead, Dodd-Frank punted the guts of its potential reform to a multi-year regulatory process. Almost 400 rules were to be written by regulators (with the generous aid of lobbyists): a process, which five years after the crisis, has not yet come to an end.

It doesn’t take a PhD in game theory to understand what that design was about. By shifting the core of the regulations to a procedure stretched over years and dominated by bank lobbyists, the bankers could minimize the chance that this “change” would actually change anything real—and ensure that public and press attention would drift elsewhere as the new rules were worked out.

And that’s precisely what has happened.

Democrats eager to close the gap with those 31,385 top donors are eagerly listening to Wall Street’s advice when it comes to writing these regulations. And that’s music to the 1 percent of the 1 percent’s ears.

How The White House Was Won

Were American Voters Presented With A Real Choice?

This episode of Fault Lines takes viewers through a tour of the US 2012 presidential campaign, from the high and low moments, to the Spin Room, to the noisy campaign ads that blanketed swing states. 

We ask whether voters were presented with a real choice between the candidates, and whether the system truly is democratic.

United States Has Worst Election Process On Planet

JIMMY CARTER SAYS ELECTIONS CORRUPTED

By Pete Papaherakles,

Injecting billions of dollars into U.S. politics is a recipe for corruption, says former President Jimmy Carter. Placing the blame squarely on the Supreme Court for endorsing a corporate spending free-for-all in American politics, he said the justices gave unlimited freedom to special interest groups representing corporations and lobbyists to provide campaign funding through third parties that don’t have to disclose their donors.

“We have one of the worst election processes in the world right here in the United States of America,” he said, “and it’s almost entirely because of the excessive influx of money.

“You know how much I raised to run against Gerald Ford?” asked Carter in his latestConversation at the Carter Center. “Zero. You know how much I raised to run against Ronald Reagan? Zero. You know how much will be raised this year by all presidential, Senate and House campaigns? Six billion dollars. That’s 6,000 million.”

Carter did get public funding from the Democratic National Committee but received no money from private donors—corporate or individuals.

In contrast, Romney and Obama are both on their way to possibly raising an astonishing billion dollars each in campaign funds this year. By August 31 Romney had raised $669M while Obama had raised $766M. In the month of August Romney raised $112M and Obama brought in $114M, and the stakes keep getting higher until Election Day. These funds are a combination of public and private funds, with public funds comprising only about a quarter of the total money raised.

The Supreme Court justified its 5-4 Citizens United ruling on the basis that the First Amendment prohibits government from restricting independent political donations by corporations and unions. As a result, special interest groups have taken control of the election process making it “shot through with financial corruption that threatens [America],” according to Carter. He expressed his hope that “the Supreme Court will reverse that stupid ruling.”

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is, of course, the most powerful lobby in Washington. Along with other pro-Zionist lobbies, individuals and corporations, they dominate campaign funding, thus influencing the political platform, including foreign policy, for both candidates.

Carter prefers publicly financed elections, currently used by other countries.

Via: "American Free Press"

Malcolm X, The Elections and The Politics Of Empire

By Sohail Daulatzai,

With Guantanamo still open, drones still killing and anti-Muslim sentiment forming the rumbling bass line of empire, the upcoming US presidential elections have once again raised the spectre and threat of Islam and the Muslim third world to US national security and its interests.

to be black in America is enough to be deemed un-American, but to be black and Muslim is to be anti-American. While the "smearing" of Obama as a Muslim in the post-9/11 climate is informed by the threat posed by that thing called "al-Qaeda", Obama's blackness and his "proximity" to Islam is really a deeper seated anxiety around Malcolm X, who challenged American authority over not only the black past but also a black future, demanding that black people view themselves not as a national minority but as part of a global majority.

For Malcolm X, "Islam was the greatest unifying force of the Dark World", and the Muslim third world had a defining impact on Malcolm X's life and political vision, whether it was the spiritual centre Mecca or the anti-colonial struggles in Egypt, Algeria, Palestine, Iraq and elsewhere. But for Malcolm one didn't have to be a Muslim. What was important was the recognition of a racial reality to one's secular suffering that would view white supremacy as a global phenomenon and link black struggles with those in the third world.

In Cairo, Malcolm implored the heads of state not to be fooled by the "imperialist wolf" of the US or the State Department's attempts to use propaganda to convince African nations that the United States was making serious progress toward racial equality through Brown v Board and the passage of Civil Rights legislation. 

As Malcolm said, these measures were a "propaganda manoeuver" and "are nothing but tricks of the century's leading neo-colonialist power". Malcolm implored the gathering to heed his warning: "Don't escape from European colonialism only to become more enslaved by deceitful, 'friendly' American dollarism." 

In highlighting the use of propaganda and the managing of America's image abroad, Malcolm anticipated not only how after 9/11 the State Department would place Muslims in high profile positions in the arts and political realms to influence Muslim public opinion abroad, but also how the election of Obama and the rhetoric of "diversity" would be used to redefine America as inclusive, "post-racial" and progressive in order to mask the entrenchment of white power domestically and globally.  

And in tying domestic racial politics in the US to America's role as a "neo-colonial power" and the emergence of "American dollarism", Malcolm laid bare how race linked European colonialism and the emergence of the US as a global superpower. 

While Obama went to Egypt to co-opt this sacred city and put a benevolent face on American power, Malcolm had been there to strip away the veneer of benevolence and reveal the naked truth about US racial injustice and imperial ambition. This is why the legacy of Malcolm X is so important, as it sheds light on the racial dynamics that shape the global landscape today under US power.  

In the immediate aftermath of World War II, as the US replaced Europe as the dominant actor on the world's stage, President Truman declared "communism" public enemy number one, even viewing communism as a bigger threat than colonialism to the decolonising third world. As a result, the US and its allies in Europe believed that a liberated third world was the biggest threat to the post-War order that the US wanted to dominate, as it would create a vacuum of power that could be filled by Communism. 

Inside Story US 2012 - 'Fear of a Black Republican'

The real fear, as Malcolm and others like Lumumba, Fanon and Nkrumah understood, was the liberation and independence of the majority of the world that would have the potential to radically redistribute global power and wealth away from the white world.  

Instead, the US expanded its imperial footprint into the third world and extended the logic of colonial racism by using "anti-communism" as a means to justify intervention, the supporting of dictators, the overthrow of democratically elected leaders, assassinations and destabilisation throughout the third world (witness Mossadegh, Arbenz, Lumumba and so many others). As a result, US foreign policy used "anti-communism" as a proxy for race by undermining the decolonisation of the third world.

Malcolm emerged out of this Cold War crucible where Civil Rights activists embraced an American identity and argued that Jim Crow violence was an Achilles' heel that would undermine America's global ambitions to a third world already hostile to white supremacy. Malcolm was deeply critical of the Civil Rights establishment for domesticating black struggle within American frameworks and supporting the logic of "anti-communism".  

For Malcolm and others, by not understanding the global nature of white supremacy, the Civil Rights establishment was not going to even make domestic gains on race. Instead of tying their fate to the decolonising third world to systemically undo white power, the Civil Rights mandate only masked white power through a reformist posture domestically, while facilitating its entrenchment throughout the world by assuming the flawed logic of "anti-communism". 

In 1964, Malcolm X made his infamous "The Ballot or the Bullet" speech and challenged the Civil Rights establishment by asserting the futility of black voting as a means toward gaining equality in the United States. Instead, he argued, black people needed to internationalise their struggles and link them to the struggles taking place throughout the third world of Africa, Asia and Latin America. 

As Malcolm said, "you don't take your case to the criminal, you take the criminal to court". For Malcolm X, the move from "civil rights" to "human rights" would place the plight of black peoples in America into a broader forum that would force the US to undergo scrutiny and challenge from the third world and that might tilt the balance of power to the dark nations, as it would reveal US hypocrisies, undermine the country's foreign policy objectives in the third world and expose the country's own brutal extension of European colonial racism. 

As part of his radical internationalism and in profound contrast to the Civil Rights establishment, Malcolm supported the Palestinians against Zionism, likened the ghettos of Harlem under racist segregation to the Casbah in Algiers under French colonial rule, praised Nasser's stand against England, France and Israel, celebrated the Bandung Conference and saw it as a model for unifying black political culture during the Cold War, supported the Mau Mau rebellion against British colonialism and the Vietnamese against French rule, met with Fidel Castro, lauded Lumumba as the "greatest Black man who ever walked the African continent", and like Fanon, gave ethical sanction to the possibility of armed struggle, fundamentally challenging the Cold War consensus. 


With the hyper-nationalism of the post-9/11 era fuelling America's war with the Muslim third world, Malcolm's legacy of resistance that combined black internationalism with the politics of the Muslim third world provides a blueprint to challenge the imperial consensus that has characterised the post-9/11 era. 

American racism 'on the rise'

Just as "anti-communism" was a proxy for race during the Cold War, "anti-terrorism" has become the new proxy for race and the re-entrenching of white supremacy by justifying US intervention abroad while also containing dissent domestically, as the logic of "terrorism" is used to determine who is a citizen and who is an enemy, who is human and who is not, and who is to be killed and who is allowed to live. 

Forged out of the Cold War, Malcolm's legacy can challenge the embrace by minority communities (including Muslims) of the rhetoric of "terrorism" by recognising its racially coded roots and how "anti-terrorism" is used to not only police dissent, but also allows for the violent expansion of US empire. For not only does the logic of "anti-terrorism" play into the racist logic of "moderate" and "radical" Muslims, it also fails to give dignity to challenges to US state power around the world. 

While many activists, artists, scholars and organisations are infusing the ideas of Malcolm within their work, it's important that black and Muslim communities, as well as other communities of colour, continue to draw the deep internationalist connections that Malcolm did. 

The linking of these struggles isn't some romantic vision of solidarity. It's rooted in a deeper understanding of how profoundly connected these violent forces really are. And it is a recognition that the persistence of racism here in the United States is precisely because white supremacy is deeply woven into the very fabric of US statecraft and is perpetually given life through the everyday functioning of how the US conducts its affairs, whether here or abroad.  

It's the recognition that the logic of mass incarceration in the US that has destroyed black political possibility and contained dissent through local policing and counter-insurgency is also what drives the US military and its imperial imprisonment in Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, Bagram and other places. It's the recognition that the plight of migrants across the heavily militarised US-Mexico border resembles the conditions that contain and destroy Palestinian lives and livelihood. And it's the recognition that the neoliberal economic policies that have destroyed the social wage and witnessed the emergence of the warfare state in the US is deeply rooted in the exploitation of the third world through global finance capital and war. 

To only talk about domestic anti-racism and not see white supremacy as a global problem, or to only make tepid critiques of US foreign policy around tactics and strategies and not its fundamentally racist posture rings hollow and misses the boat entirely. For it fails to recognise that white supremacy is rooted in the very structure of global relations that the US helped bring into being - a set of relationships where diplomacy, trade, political manoeuvering, war and questions of sovereignty are played out on a radically uneven playing field where the US and Europe exert overwhelming diplomatic leverage, political power and brutal military might.  

To ignore this falls into the worst forms of liberal internationalism that presume the US to be a force for good in the world, and it replicates the very problem that Malcolm X heroically struggled against, and was ultimately killed for.  

Though the bullets finally caught up with Malcolm, he left an indelible imprint on generations of artists and activists. But his legacy is under attack, and even erasure, as the Obama presidency and the triumphalist narrative of Civil Rights seeks to make black internationalist impulses irrelevant and outdated. 

While there are those who claim that voting for Obama is the practical thing to do and that to either vote for a third party or to not vote at all is "impractical" and "misguided", Malcolm might turn the tables and ask how "practical" is it to vote for either major party when the violent forces that define them are so intractable and resistant to change, let alone transformation? 

And when confronting such forces, and recognising the others in the past who have tried so valiantly, how practical is it to continue to invest and commit to this process and expect something different? Isn't that "impractical" and the path to irrelevance? 

Via: "Al-Jazeera"

Plotting For A Permanent Republican Presidency

By STEVEN JONAS MD,
Courtesy Of "Truth-Out"

Karl Rove was dreaming of what he called “The Permanent Republican Majority.”   That is he thought that he could achieve a majority vote among the 50% or so of US eligible voters who actually vote, for the Republican candidates for the Presidency, on a permanent basis.  In the 2000 election (1) he had achieved less than a majority of the popular vote (47.9% to Gore’s 48.4%, the rest going to minor candidates [mainly the spoiler Ralph Nader]), and had managed a majority of the electoral vote only by getting, as is very known, a one vote majority on the Supreme Court.  But Karl had a big dream.  For 2004 he would construct a true majority, among those actually voting that is, by pulling “his people” to the polls in numbers out of proportion to their proportion among the eligible.

He did that that year by getting anti-gay marriage initiatives of one sort of another onto the ballots in 12 states where pulling homophobes to the polls in numbers out-of-proportion to their numbers in the general population would boost the vote total for George Bush.  The strategy did work in one sense.  Bush did get 50.7% of the popular vote (2).  

But John Kerry actually won the electoral vote, except that Ohio had been rigged by the Republican Secretary of State, who just happened to also be the Ohio chair for Bush-Cheney(!) (3).

(In fact, Kerry had anticipated such a possible outcome and had prepared a $15,000,000 war chest for legal action.  For unknown reasons he chose not to use it [leaving John Edwards, to whom he had promised he would, in a rage.  Of course, Edwards was not a paragon of ethical behavior either, as it turned out, but that’s another story.]  But Rove knew which end was up.  

And the full Ohio vote-count rigging story would have come out a couple of years later if the man at the technical center of it had not somehow been killed in a light plane crash on his way to testify at a hearing on the matter, for which he had indicated that he was going to tell the truth (3).  [It is interesting to note that Senators Paul Wellstone and Mel Carnahan had some years earlier died the same way.])

Given the closeness of both the popular and electoral vote totals, following the 2004 election it became very apparent that he was no longer focusing on a Permanent Republican Majority.  It was too risky if one wanted to keep GOP control of the Federal government.  For the one thing, the proportion of eligible voters actually voting could go up, and they might go to the other side.  That was the lesson of 2008.  For another, how many times could one put homophobe-philic initiatives or similar ones on state ballots?  No, another strategy had to be developed.  And so instead of the Permanent Republican Majority, Rove and his cohorts came up with the concept of the Permanent Republican Presidency.

The strategy has six major components, built up over time.  And if one has been watching GOP actions since the middle of the last decade one can discern them fairly easily. 

First is the cementing of the vote of the Religious Rightists without going to the lengths of coming up with ballot initiatives and similar.  You simply convert the GOP into what Howard Fineman of MSNBC and The Huffington Post has called “The American Faith Party” (4).  

Second, you fake stories of sex and corruption which manage to take down the principal organization whose principal focus is on registering low-income voters, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) (5).  

Third, following the 2008 election (which you hardly minded losing, given the economic pit into which the country was falling due to the policies enacted by your party --- let the other guy take the blame for the outcomes, which blame the GOP is shoveling on him by the truckload this year) you focus on organizing the right-wing vote at the state level through the very well-funded so-called “Tea Party” movement. 

Fourth, once having taken over both Executive and Legislative branches of a number of state governments, with the very active help of the Fox”News”Channel you make the  practice of “voter fraud” the tool through which you enact a series of state laws designed to achieve wide-spread voter suppression.  Since there have been a series of successful court challenges to those laws, it remains to be seen just how successful they will be this time around.  But Rove and his people are on for the long haul.  

Then (fifth) of course there is “Citizens United” and the “Super-PACs.” Thom Hartmann to the contrary notwithstanding, they have not made a qualitative difference in the owning-class control of the state apparatus in the United States which goes back to the days of the Slave Power.  But they surely have made a quantitative difference in the amount of money the Right-wing has to spend on assuring electoral outcomes to their liking.  

Finally (sixth) there is the widespread cheating which began in earnest in 2004 with the substitution of electronic voting, run by GOP corporate allies, for paper or manual machine voting (3). 

Third, following the 2008 election (which you hardly minded losing, given the economic pit into which the country was falling due to the policies enacted by your party --- let the other guy take the blame for the outcomes, which blame the GOP is shoveling on him by the truckload this year) you focus on organizing the right-wing vote at the state level through the very well-funded so-called “Tea Party” movement. 

It remains to be seen how this will play out in this year’s election.  Until the first Presidential debate, Romney had been far enough behind so that cheating in such states under GOP control as Ohio and Florida would have become fairly obvious.  Following the President’s miserable performance in the first debate, Romney started to catch up and gave himself a chance to win even without cheating and with limited voter suppression.  

With Obama’s strong performance in the second debate, the GOP may have to fall back on cheating to secure victory.  But one can be sure, if they are within striking distance of victory for Romney, and cheating will seal the deal they will surely do what it takes, for them (3).

-

1. 2000 General Election Results, http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=2000

2. 2004 General Election Results, http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=2004

3. Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman, The Free Press | News Analysis, Tuesday, 16 October 2012, “Will Bain-Linked E-Voting Machines Give Romney the White House?” Republished on Truthout, Oct. 16, 2012, http://truth-out.org/news/item/12130-will-hig-owned-e-voting-machines-give-romney-the-white-house.

4. Fineman, H., "Rise of Faith within the GOP has created America's First Religious
Party," The Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/05/republican-
party-religion-first-religious-party_n_1322132.html.

5. Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_Community_Organizations_for_Reform_Now.

Money Is Speech

A Musical History Of Campaign Finance

Act I: Brown Paper Bags

“I made my mistakes, but in all my years of public life, I have never profited [from public service]. I’ve earned every cent.” (Richard Nixon)

“Money is speech.” (Jeff Greenfield)
“The more speech the better.” (Antonin Scalia)
“Money is speech.” (Jeff Greenfield)
“I’ve earned every cent.” (Richard Nixon)
“Money is speech.” (Jeff Greenfield)
“The more speech the better.” (Antonin Scalia)
“I don’t like all the influence of money in politics.” (Mitt Romney)

When people think of Watergate they think of a break-in
But they don’t mention the money that Nixon was taking
From wealthy donors to help him get reelected
Nixon paid them back in favors just like they expected

To battle corruption Congress passed a new law
Capping contributions to a candidate’s haul
The source of the donations had to be disclosed too
And the FEC was formed to enforce the new rules

Some who felt the law went against the Constitution sued
Saying limits on money limited free speech too
So the courts kept the cap on how much you can donate
But said spending was unlimited by an outside group or candidate

That meant no more spending limits to promote a cause
Or to point out a rival campaign’s flaws
So while candidates once snuck around with brown paper bags 
From then on they raised money publicly or left it to PACs

“Money is speech.” (Jeff Greenfield)
“The more speech the better.” (Antonin Scalia)
“Money is speech.” (Jeff Greenfield)
“I’ve earned every cent.” (Richard Nixon)
“Money is speech.” (Jeff Greenfield)
“The more speech the better.” (Antonin Scalia)
“I don’t like all the influence of money in politics.” (Mitt Romney)

Act II: Soft Money

“We should also curb the role of big money in elections by capping the cost of campaigns…” (Bill Clinton)

In the 80s and 90s, there was a new gimmick:
“Soft money” that’s disclosed but had no limits
It’s supposed to cover each party’s expenses
But guys like Clinton used it to help their election chances

There was just one problem, Clinton’s party was broke
So he asked for more money every time he spoke
And in return for the 100 million dollar cash-in
He let donors use the Lincoln Bedroom to crash in

Then the “scandal and reform” cycle happened again
And legislation was proposed by Feingold and McCain
It capped donations to parties, ending soft funds
And banned corporate/union issue ads right before elections

But with each new reform comes new loopholes
Tax exempt “527s” arose
Because they weren’t explicit about whom they supported
Many still raised money without limits to thwart them

“Money is speech.” (Jeff Greenfield)
“The more speech the better.” (Antonin Scalia)
“Money is speech.” (Jeff Greenfield)
“I’ve earned every cent.” (Richard Nixon)
“Money is speech.” (Jeff Greenfield)
“The more speech the better.” (Antonin Scalia)
“The rules are what they are…” (Jay Carney)

Act III: Super PACs and Non-Profits

“I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests.” (Barack Obama)

But the most outside money was yet to be spent
Some argued spending limits broke the first amendment
“Corporations and unions are entitled to free speech”
They took it to court, the Supreme Court agreed.

Super PACs can raise as much money as they want
They can also use union and corporate funds
The only rule is they cannot coordinate
With a specific party or a specific candidate

But reform opponents weren’t quite done yet
They found new uses for 501(c)(4) non-profits
Which are a lot like Super PACs with more mystery
They haven’t had to disclose donors ever in history

Whether Republican or Democrat you might believe
That spending limits jeopardize our freedom of speech
But with each new cycle of deregulation
More money is being injected into our elections

Lyrics via: ProPublica

No Matter Who “Wins”, Humanity Loses

By Larry Chin,

On one side, the Obama administration, and the traditional brand of neoliberal imperialism and international consensus, and false domestic populism. On the other side with Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan, militant right-wing extremism, an apocalyptic war agenda and the politics of sadism at home.

The final choice will not be made by voters (who will be disenfranchised again, via electronic vote fraud and other manipulations), but by the criminal elements who seize final control of the apparatus over the final month of the “contest”.

The “children” are being allowed to fight it out amongst themselves. The side with ultimate command of the corporate media propaganda, the most effective back door deals, and the most effective dirty tricks and election night shenanigans, will prevail, the pre-determined result promptly encrypted into the software of controlled Diebold voting machines.

The Debate Charade
 

It is tempting but futile to dissect the theatrics of the debates, which are based on entirely on false premises to begin with. Not one exhaustively argued “talking point” addresses realities.

The carefully pre-selected issues assume a host of falsehoods, from the legitimacy of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the destabilizations of Iran and Syria, to the need for fiscal austerity.

These are rhetorical dog-and-pony shows without real differences, beyond timing, style, and method, by which they will execute similar agendas.

Both sides largely agree on foreign policy. Both sides proudly trumpet how best to inflict crippling economic warfare on “nuclear Iran”, and topple Syria. The only argument is whether the sequential multinational stranglehold (“diplomacy”) led by the Obama administration continues apace, or, if Romney/Ryan and the right will get what they really want: an all-out war with Iran.

Both sides agree on the same falsehoods regarding the national debt (without mentioning that the world war that they enthusiastically wage is the main expenditure) and the US financial crisis (ignoring the fact that the financial “crisis” and “bailout” was a manipulation that centralized the power for Wall Street constituents, the big banks, who support both sides equally, at the expense of US taxpayers). In terms of social programs (that will be cut in any case in order to pay for more war), the Romney/Ryan contingent calls for an immediate destruction of the entire social structure of the US—a swift draconian end to social programs such as Medicare and Social Security—while the Obama administration takes a more gradual approach.

Essentially, the candidates have already admitted that they do not serve the interests of most of humanity.

The media “analysis” of the election has been stomach-turning— nothing more than insanity heaped atop insanity. The chattering of talking heads over infantile nonsense, such as “who looks presidential”, who got more “gotchas” and “zingers”. A dumbed-down spectacle for a dumbed-down, manipulated populace.

Which Way To The Abyss?

There have never been real elections in contemporary America, and there will be no “election” this time either. There will, as always, be no real choice: war-mongering, mass-murdering imperialist “A” or war-mongering mass-murdering imperialist “B”.

America and the world must pay attention to which brand of fascism will ultimately be chosen, if only to properly prepare for what is to come. The marginal differences in method and style have ramifications, domestically and globally.

The quelling of increasingly large swaths of humanity is more important to the elite than ever before. The next White House occupant will spearhead the likely UN and NATO regime changes for Syria and Iran, both of which have been systematically destabilized by the CIA and its affiliates, and the “reconstruction” of the American social net.

Will it be more of the fist inside the velvet glove, or the hammer directly to the skull?

No matter who “wins”, humanity loses.

Via: "Global Research"

Democracy Is Not Freedom

By Jacob G. Hornberger
Thursday, May 24, 2012
Courtesy Of "The Future Of Freedom Foundation"

One of the ostensible goals of U.S. foreign policy is to spread democracy. Of course, the reality is the exact opposite. The U.S. Empire is one of the greatest lovers of nonelected dictatorships in the world, as manifested by its ardent support of such dictatorships as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Chile (under Pinochet), Guatemala (after ousting Arbenz), Iran (after ousting Mossadegh), Pakistan (under Musharraf), Yemen, Bahrain, and many others.

But the irony is that even if the U.S. Empire was the greatest democracy-spreader in the world, it still wouldn’t necessarily be spreading freedom by spreading democracy. The reason is a simple one: Democracy is not freedom.

In fact, as Ludwig von Mises pointed out, the only real advantage to democracy is that it enables people to peacefully change the administration of government.

Consider Syria, whose government is dictatorial in nature. Since Syria isn’t a democracy, the citizenry have but one way to oust the regime from power: violence — i.e., revolution.

But does a democratic system necessarily constitute a free society?

Absolutely not! A free society does not turn on whether people can peacefully change public officials. It instead turns on the extent of powers wielded by public officials, whether they are democratically elected or not.

Suppose people are living in a democratic society. Suppose also that whoever is elected president has the powers to force people to go to church, punish people for criticizing the government, confiscate weapons, and arrest, torture, and jail people for as long as he wants without a trial.

Would anybody consider that a free society, notwithstanding the fact that the president has been democratically elected? I think everyone would agree that that society is as far from being free as one could ever imagine.

It is not a coincidence that the word democracy is not mentioned one single time in the Constitution. The Framers understood that democratic regimes can be just as tyrannical as non-democratic regimes. Again, freedom turns on the powers that are wielded by public officials, whether they are democratically elected or not.

The Framers also understood that freedom is one of the natural, God-given rights with which all people have been endowed. Such rights preexist government. As Thomas Jefferson observed in the Declaration of Independence, people call government into existence with the aim of protecting the exercise of people’s rights.

The problem, as Jefferson also observed, is that the natural propensity of governments, including democratically elected ones, is to infringe, suspend, and abridge the very rights that the government was called into existence to protect.

Thus, while the Constitution called the federal government into existence with the aim of protecting people’s fundamental rights, it simultaneously limited the powers of the federal government to the few powers enumerated in the document.

Immediately after the enactment of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights was enacted. It made it clear that the federal government was prohibited from abridging people’s natural, God-given rights. It also outlined the judicial procedures that had to be followed before the federal government could punish people with arrest, torture, incarceration, or execution.

Thus, while the United States was established as a system in which people could peacefully oust public officials from office and replace them with others, our ancestors understood that that wasn’t sufficient to establish a free society. A free society necessarily involved severe restrictions on the powers that democratically elected federal officials would be permitted to wield.

Of course, it’s no surprise that U.S. officials try their best to convince Americans that democracy is freedom. 

If Americans are convinced that democracy is freedom, then they’ll be satisfied with the fact that there is an electoral process. They might even participate in it by voting, making them feel even more free. The idea is that Americans will look on the United States as a free country because there are elections, even as public officials assume the power to seize people, torture them, incarcerate them indefinitely without trial, or execute them with a kangaroo tribunal rather than after a legitimate jury trial — i.e., the same powers wielded by Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Yemen, Cuba, and other non-democratic dictatorships around the world.

Jacob Hornberger is founder and president of the Future of Freedom Foundation.

Hornberger’s Blog Archives

Race and The Paradox Of America

In criticising Obama for turning Trayvon Martin's death into a "racial issue", Gingrich looked like he was merely spewing raw racism [AFP]


Newt Gingrich Is A "Cagey Propagandist" Whose Objective Is Merely "To Hint and Wink At Falsehoods", Writes Stoehr.

By John Stoehr
Last Modified: 05 Apr 2012 09:44
Courtesy Of "Al-Jazeera"

New Haven, CT - Newt Gingrich's candidacy is ending with a whimper, not with a bang. It's a just fate for his kamikaze bid for the White House. Even so, his allure among the Republican elite is hardly diminished. Given his performance during the GOP debates and his remarks on the death of Trayvon Martin, Gingrich may have fashioned a new role for himself as a propagandist of white supremacy. This may sound like an outlandish thing to say, and maybe it is, but there's a reason for it.

As you know, Martin was a Florida teen killed by a neighbourhood watch volunteer. Police did not arrest the shooter, because they misinterpreted a state law that puts the burden of proof on the victim. Called "Stand Your Ground", the law was lobbied for by American Legislative Exchange Council, a group that strives for the privatisation of public services, like prisons and schools. President Barack Obama called for an investigation and said that if he had a son, "he'd look like Trayvon".

Gingrich's billionaire backer

Gingrich regaled Fox News Radio with curlicues of tortured logic: "It's not a question of who that young man looked like. Any young American of any ethnic background should be safe, period. We should all be horrified no matter what the ethnic background... Is the president suggesting that if it had been a white who had been shot, that would be OK because it didn't look like him?... It would have been a tragedy if he had been Puerto Rican or Cuban or if he had been white or if he had been Asian-American of if he'd been a Native American... When things go wrong to an American, it is sad for all Americans. Trying to turn it into a racial issue is fundamentally wrong. I really find it appalling."

Belief In Falsehoods

Where to begin… well, maybe the claim that Obama is turning Trayvon Martin's death into a "racial issue". It was already a "racial issue". The shooter, George Zimmerman, suspected Martin of wrongdoing, because he was a black kid buying candy in a small town in the Florida suburbs. Therefore, he was shot, because he was black. 

He died, like so many in American history, because he was black. As for Gingrich's question - "Is the president suggesting…" Any honest person could see Obama wasn't saying that if Martin had been white, his death would be OK. 

Of course, Gingrich isn't an honest person. That's why he resigned in disgrace as Speaker of the House and was virtually run out of Washington. But he is a cagey propagandist whose objective is merely to hint and wink at falsehoods. These falsehoods, in turn, may affect credulous voters - and their belief in falsehoods (or anything that's not the truth) may end up being beneficial to the power elite.

What power elite and what does that have to do with Martin's death? 

First, let's recall the meaning of racism, historically speaking. It's the institutionalisation of white supremacy at the point of a gun. But it must also be remembered that white supremacy had practical value. As Ida B Wells famously reported, lynch mobs had a financial incentive to murder - to protect white markets from black competition. Obviously, lynch mobs are gone, but there still remains plenty of financial incentive to disempower black Americans. 

The group that pushed hard for the "Stand Your Ground" law, the American Legislative Exchange Council, is funded by conservative billionaires and corporations, notably Charles and David Koch and Exxon Mobile. 

Among other things, ALEC lobbies state legislators to make laws that benefits corporations that run state prisons. The higher the rates of incarceration, the higher the potential for profit. As Paul Krugman noted: "The penal-industrial complex… has a financial stake in anything that sends more people into the courts and the prisons."

Gingrich has been a frequent speaker at ALEC conferences. In 2010, after the mid-term elections, he said: 

"ALEC has done many, many things to move America toward more rational, more affordable and more effective government." Earlier this year, he co-authored an op-ed in the Washington Post calling for wider prison reform. "Reform" has been a keyword in the corporatisation of the public sphere.

The Stream - #TrayvonMartin's death raises questions about race in the US

Spewing Raw Racism

In criticising the president for turning Trayvon Martin's death into a "racial issue", Gingrich looked like he was merely spewing raw racism, as when he said child labour laws are "truly stupid", that poor children have no values and that Obama is a "food-stamp president".

Anything is fair game when you're running for the United States presidency. But given his relationship to ALEC, the political ideology of ALEC's benefactors and the role of white supremacy in widening the profit-margins of tax-funded prison corporations, Gingrich's remarks appear to be more sinister.

"If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon Martin," Obama said. It was a touching moment, but it could be seen as symbolising an American paradox - that the first black president in American history is powerless against a system of corporate interests, laws and social norms from destroying the life of a black American. 

If Americans came to realise that their country works best for white property owners and not best for everyone else, they might feel inspired to work together to effect positive change for all, change that would endanger the corporate interests of the power elite. So Gingrich works his magic - bobbing and weaving, suggesting Obama would approve of a white dude getting popped every now and then. As I said, his future looks bright as the chief spokesman for white supremacy. 

Anything to distract Americans from what really matters.

John Stoehr is the editor of the New Haven Advocate and a lecturer at Yale.