Interesting Blogger

My letter to the editor (Time Magazine)

2011-09-05T11:18:00.004-04:00

While you wait for me to post another article, I found something you might like to read. My current article about the social movement on Wall Street is under way. Here's my Letter to the editor, which wasn't published in Time Magazine:

Ultranationalist Americans don’t exist

Joel Stein’s piece [“Joel vs. the volcano”, July 4th] was disconcerting. Stein writes about Iceland’s new constitution but also criticizes Americans. First he says that U.S. citizens would write U-S-A in big letters on a new constitution if it was proposed. I think Mr. Stein is not really being completely serious, but I still that that the premise that Americans are ill-informed is incorrect. Some people have good ideas like reforming government for the betterment of the people. On the other hand, many Americans don’t have the appropriate sources of information to become politically-literate citizens. Later in the column, Mr. Stein writes “I was totally right to have never read through our Constitution all the way through. Constitutions are boring.” Mr. Stein seems have a smart-alecy tone throughout the piece and he seems to think he is the only one who knows about the Constitution’s inner workings. That’s just not true. He does not seem to be a fair judge of the document. At the end of the column, he writes “America’s found[ers]…wrote a document…that prevents…direct democracy [that] could lead to people giving themselves ludicrously low taxes and insanely generous benefits.” Mr. Stein seems to not have faith in the American spirit and the American character to lead meaningful change. In conclusion, I believe Mr. Stein is mischaracterizing Americans as ignorant, incompetent and jingoist.

America needs another economic Andrew Jackson

2011-08-11T07:51:00.006-04:00

Most American politicians are not like President Andrew Jackson in all his political views relating to the economy which included abolishing the central bank at the time. In recent times, the Federal Reserve (the Fed) has come under attack by people across the political spectrum. You can't find many who criticize the rich across political lines. But the private banking group, the Fed, is always open to verbal attack if not people-power anger by some that even wants to abolish the Fed.[i] Some have even proposed to eliminate the national debt, like President Jackson. From articles I found online and other sources, I have found those that are like Mr. Jackson in U.S. politics. Before that, you have to look back at exactly what Mr. Jackson said about the precursor to the Federal Reserve, the Second Bank of the United States.

Two years after the founding of modern America in 1789, Congress passed a law that approved a charter for the Bank of the United States for 20 years. Thereafter, an economic plan was in place until 1841 with a five year gap (1811-1816) because of a Pennsylvania legislature that reauthorized the Second Bank of the United States’s charter in 1836 (even though it wasn’t a federal charter after it was vetoed two times by Mr. Jackson). The economic plan started with Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton who called for central bank. According to Digital History’s website: "Hamilton's...objective was to create a Bank of the United States…A national bank [that]would collect taxes, hold government funds, and make loans to the government and borrowers. One criticism directed against the bank was…it would encourage speculation and corruption…Thomas Jefferson and James Madison charged that a national bank was unconstitutional since the Constitution did not specifically give Congress the power to create a bank. Hamilton…argued that Congress had the power to create a bank because the Constitution granted the federal government authority to do anything "necessary and proper" to carry out its constitutional functions."[ii] Going back to that, Mr. Hamilton mentions the necessary and proper clause: "Congress shall have the power...To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."[iii] I believe that the bank was unconstitutional, not being necessary and proper in any way and could be easily corrupted since it only benefited the rich, for the most part.[iv] For the next 31 years, until President Andrew Jackson vetoed the charter of Bank of the United States, there wasn't enough opposition to stop the bank.

As part of his plan to eliminate the national debt, Andrew Jackson wanted to eliminate something that he believed gave too much power to the wealthy. That something was the Second Bank of the United States. When the bill that reauthorized its charter passed both houses of Congress, Mr. Jackson vetoed it. In a speech about the bill he stated:
"It is maintained by some that the bank is a means of executing the constitutional power "to coin money and regulate the value thereof." Congress have established a mint to coin money and passed laws to regulate the value thereof...But if they have other power to regulate the currency, it was conferred to be exercised by themselves, and not to be transferred to a corporation. If the bank be established for that purpose...Congress [has] parted with their power for a term of years, during which the Constitution is a dead letter. It is neither necessary nor proper to transfer its legislative power to such a bank, and therefore unconstitutional...It is not their public agency or the deposits of the Government which the States claim a right to tax, but...private emolument--those powers and privileges for which the [banks] pay a bonus...We may not pass an act prohibiting the States to tax the banking business carried on within their limits...The bank is professedly established as an agent of the executive branch of the Government, and its constitutionality is maintained on that ground...There is nothing in its legitimate functions which makes it necessary or proper. Whatever interest or influence, whether public or private...it can not be found either in the wishes or necessities of the executive department, by which present action is deemed premature, and the powers [given to the bank are] not only unnecessary, but dangerous to the Government and country...It is to be regretted that the rich and powerful too often bend the acts of government to their selfish purposes...when the laws undertake to add to...grant titles, gratuities, and exclusive privileges, to make the rich richer and the potent more powerful, the humble members of society--the farmers, mechanics, and laborers--who have neither the time nor the means of securing like favors to themselves, have a right to complain of the injustice of their Government...If we can not at once, in justice to interests vested under improvident legislation, make our Government what it ought to be, we can at least take a stand against all new grants of monopolies and exclusive privileges, against any prostitution of our Government to the advancement of the few at the expense of the many, and in favor of compromise and gradual reform in our code of laws and system of political economy." [v]

From the veto speech of the charter of the Second Bank of the United States (which he refers to as “the Bank”) in 1832, I have made some connections in the modern political landscape of America where many are speaking out against a Federal Reserve. As you have read in the above speech, Mr. Jackson called the centralized bank at the time, a private corporation; politicians today are using the same language against the Fed. Before that, to summarize, Mr. Jackson stated:
1. It is unconstitutional for Congress to transfer its ability to coin money to a private corporation, chartered by the government
2. The Constitution is being ignored by those that support the bank
3. The bank itself is unconstitutional and must be abolished
4. States should be allowed to tax private emoluments such as bonuses or gifts of members of the bank
5. States can tax the banking business
6. The Bank is not necessary or proper in carrying out governmental powers
7. Unnecessary Powers given to the bank are dangerous to the country
8. The wealthy and powerful often selfishly try to get themselves more money
9. Farmers, mechanics and laborers have a right to complain to the government of the injustice of their condition
10. The government must stand against new monopolies and executive privileges (such as executive compensation)
11. The government must stay a government for the people, not for the advancement of a few powerful people
12. Compromise and gradual reform in laws and political economy

So from this list, I found a number of politicians that have similar ideas and to find out which ones were like Mr. Jackson except substituting the Federal Reserve instead of the bank. A thirteenth idea of Mr. Jackson not mentioned in his speech is the elimination of the national debt by pulling all government money out of the centralized bank. As president, he was the only one who ever has eliminated the national debt and no one has even come close to that goal since then. I noted which numbers in the above list applied to each quote by putting them in bolded in parentheses, so one can find which person is the modern Andrew Jackson.

The list is expansive and goes across the traditional political spectrum including
- Al Gore in 2000 election (12 possibly in some way and 13)
"Paying down debt reduces government intrusion...Pay off the national debt by 2013."[vi]
- Willie Felix Carter, 2012 Democratic Presidential Candidate (12 and 13)
"[He wants America] moving forward to reduce our national debt...create a business friendly community, with incentives to encourage hiring, and working to ensure affordable housing...“work[ing] with Congress with the interest of co[r]perate America [in mind] and [insuring] small businesses that we not drive them out of competition in the process [of creating affordable healthcare]...reduce taxes...to give taxpayers more buying power...[and to solve the national debt]."[vii]
- Mike Maloney, 2012 Democratic Presidential Candidate I support (1 except Congress is not mentioned, 3, 7, 8, 10, 11 is implied and 12)
"[the] government cannot plan and direct the economy and cannot be seen as the “creator” of jobs...government must constrain businesses to some extent for the General Welfare, government officials [cannot] direct...business...Government intervention to prop up failing businesses [is inefficient and [destroys]...productive segments of the economy...Government Must Protect Free People from the Power of Great Combinations [in business such as monopolies and trusts]...Big Oil...banks [and] media dismantled antitrust laws... [the] Super Rich hide their wealth offshore to escape taxation...[A supporter said from what he's heard, Mr. Maloney would]restore the Eisenhower tax brackets that [America] prospered with...and replace the private Federal Reserve that charges...government interest for imaginary money.”[viii]
- Dee Neveu, another 2012 Presidential candidate (8, 9, 11 and 12)
"[She says she is a] real vote for the people...American jobs need saving...I do believe that a President should be for helping everyone, both rich and poor [by having fair tax laws and through other means]...How can we continue to help everywhere else...when we need to help ourselves again right here in America?” [ix]
- Ron Paul, 2012 Republican Presidential Candidate and current U.S. Representative (3, 12 and sort of 13)
"[A writer talks about Ron Paul, saying he would] lay off Ben Bernanke...and abolish the Federal Reserve...Ron Paul…represents the United States’ last hope of preserving its position as a pre-eminent economic superpower and avoiding a Soviet-style collapse into an abyss of debt, depression and decay.”[x]
- Gary Johnson, 2012 Republican Presidential Candidate (7, 11 and 12)
"The Federal Reserve Bank needs to be reviewed and managed effectively...Congress should take a close look at how the Federal Reserve Bank is operated and regulated. If changes need to be made within the Federal Reserve Bank, they should be made...Government spends too much because it does too much. Unchecked deficits are the single greatest threat to our national security...THE FEDERAL RESERVE SHOULD BE TRANSPARENT and its actions held to the same level of scrutiny as any other federal department."[xi]
- Rand Paul, a current U.S. Republican Senator (7, 11 and 12)
"With so much blame going around for the current financial crisis it is surprising that so few in the mainstream press have discussed the role of the Federal Reserve System. For too long the Federal Reserve has operated behind a shroud of mystery—as Senator I would make sure that all Americans understand the dangers of unsound monetary policy and shed light on this secretive organization...As Senator I would make sure that the Federal Reserve is held accountable and restore transparency to our monetary system." [xii]

- Anonymous's video as talked about in RawStory article (1 possibly, 3 is very likely, but not said, 9 and 11)
"Democrats have failed us, Republicans have failed us... It is time for us to stand up for ourselves... We must fight back against the organized criminal class... We must launch "operation Empire State rebellion. The operation will commence on June 14th...Operation Empire State Rebellion Engaged."...The group's latest Youtube video[xiii] has this description: In this new video release, "as a first step," Anonymous has called for public protests beginning on June 14th, continuing "until Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke steps down." To make their case, they have presented a list of recent scandalous Federal Reserve actions [detailed on http://seetell.jp/13611]."[xiv]

- Bernie Sanders, Independent Senator from Vermont (4 except not of the Federal Reserve, 5 is said often in other speeches, 8, 9, 10 may not be in speech but is in his policy, 11 and 12)
"Has the Federal Reserve of the United States become the central bank of the world? The Fed said that this bailout was necessary to prevent the world economy from going over a cliff. But three years after the start of the recession, millions of Americans remain unemployed and have lost their homes, life savings and ability to send their kids to college. Meanwhile, big banks and corporations have returned to making huge profits and paying their executives record-breaking compensation packages as if the financial crisis they started never happened. What this disclosure tells us, among many other things, is that despite this huge taxpayer bailout, the Fed did not make the appropriate demands on these institutions necessary to rebuild our economy and protect the needs of ordinary Americans...We have begun to lift the veil of secrecy at one of most important agencies in our government. What we are seeing is the incredible power of a small number of people who have incredible conflicts of interest getting incredible help from the taxpayers of this country while ignoring the needs of the people."[xv]
- Jim DeMint , current Republican U.S. Senator (9 and 12)
"Ben Bernanke is an intelligent and well-intended public servant, but the fact is the Fed has failed the American people during his tenure as chairman of the Federal Reserve Board and I cannot support his nomination for a second term. Americans want a new Fed chairman who is willing to provide transparency into the Fed's actions, who is willing to accept responsibility for the Fed's mistakes, and who is willing to support true monetary reform that guarantees the soundness of our money."[xvi]
- Byron Dorgan, a Democratic U.S. Senator (9, 10, 11 and 12)
“The American people are entitled to know where these dollars have gone. The Fed refuses to disclose this…to the American people, so we are taking congressional action to determine how the Fed has used these trillions of dollars.” [xvii]
- Alan Grayson, Democratic U.S. Representative (9, 10, 11 and 12)
"Many of the people who opposed [the audit of the Fed] have bought into one of the big fictions of our era. That fiction is the fiction of Fed 'independence.' The Fed may be independent from our elected political leadership, but the Fed is anything but independent from Wall Street. On the contrary, the Fed is government of Wall Street, by Wall Street, and for Wall Street. Wall Street mobilized against this amendment to perpetuate its monopoly control of the money supply, and its ability to conduct secret bailouts with Fed blank checks. For once, Wall Street lost, and the people won. This is important because it represents new hope that we can stop the wholesale transfer of wealth from us to them."[xviii]
- Charles Grassley, a Republican U.S. Senator (7 to extent except the Fed’s powers are not deemed completely unnecessary, 9 is implied and 12)

“The Fed has gone beyond what was viewed as its historical authority in the last two and a half years without any transparency or accountability. Our amendment [the financial reform legislation] changes that by making the Fed’s emergency loan authority subject to the light of day.”[xix]
- Chris Dodd, a Democratic U.S. Senator (7 to extent of needed reform and 12)
"'We saw over the last number of years, when they [the Federal Reserve] took on consumer protection responsibilities and the regulation of bank holding companies, it was an abysmal failure."[xx]
- Newt Gingrich, 2012 Republican Presidential candidate (6 except not all powers given to the federal reserve are abolished and 9)
"As a part of a thorough reappraisal of the role of the Federal Reserve System, Congress should immediately narrow the focus of the Fed to the sole goal of stable prices [and] with so much activity going on behind the closed doors of the Federal Reserve in Washington and New York, we must undertake a full-scale and comprehensive audit of the Federal Reserve."[xxi]

From the above list, I have concluded that U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders and 2012 Democratic Presidential Candidate Mike Maloney are most like President Andrew Jackson's economic policy. In fact they have a tie between the numbers of ideas that each has that reflect Mr. Jackson's policies. I like Mr. Maloney, but I would favor Mr. Sanders in a Presidential race because he has proven he is a fighter for the middle class as shown by his 8 hr long "Bernie Buster" or a modern version of a filibuster on the Senate Floor on December 10th, 2010 (I am reading through the speech at this time). Unfortunately Mr. Sanders has announced he isn't running in the Presidential race, but Mr. Maloney is running. So, I support Mr. Maloney.

However, there is no politician I have found who endorses Mr. Jackson's views on the economy totally. I will still wait for that politician that does that. I want a politician like Willie Stark in All the Kings Men that understands the people, but is not power-hungry and has some sort of charisma which is balanced by intelligence of the issues facing this country. That politician will come one day and change America in a way that's needed desperately because the United States of America is on the brink of a new Revolution which I believe has already begun.

[i] http://abolishthefederalreserve.org/

[ii] http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/database/article_display.cfm?HHID=6

[iii] http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec1

[iv] http://www.neh.gov/news/humanities/2008-01/KingAndrewandtheBank.html

[v] http://millercenter.org/scripps/archive/speeches/detail/3636

[vi] http://interestingblogger1.blogspot.com/2011/07/al-gore-and-george-bush-was-there-real.html

[vii] http://interestingblogger1.blogspot.com/2011/06/others-democrats-running-for-president.html

[viii] http://interestingblogger1.blogspot.com/2011/06/others-democrats-running-for-president.html

[ix] http://interestingblogger1.blogspot.com/2011/06/others-democrats-running-for-president.html

[x] http://interestingblogger1.blogspot.com/2011/06/ron-paul-is-he-right-man-to-lead.html

[xi] http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/rep_bios.php?rep_id=48413595&category=views&id=20110510183158

[xii] http://www.randpaul2010.com/issues/a-g/federal-reserve/

[xiii] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XySGw-g2tyk&feature=youtu.be

[xiv] http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/06/13/anonymous-targets-federal-reserve-chairman-ben-bernanke/

[xv] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-bernie-sanders/a-real-jaw-dropper-at-the_b_791091.html

[xvi] http://demint.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=565a57c0-fe40-1b74-3bff-50ed319cb4d4&ContentType_id=a2165b4b-3970-4d37-97e5-4832fcc68398

[xvii] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-05-05/fed-would-disclose-borrowers-under-planned-senate-amendment-to-bank-bill.html

[xviii] http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2009/11/alan-grayson-saves-day-on-federal.html

[xix] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-05-05/fed-would-disclose-borrowers-under-planned-senate-amendment-to-bank-bill.html

[xx] http://globalparadigms.blogspot.com/2009_11_16_archive.html

[xxi] http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=44380

Grassroots protests: A world revolution?

2011-08-06T17:18:00.003-04:00

On Facebook, the owner of a page talked about a so-called "world revolution." I said I'd write an article, but I never got around to it until now. Looking through articles, videos and posts across the internet, I have found events that eventually fit into a puzzle of directly connected pieces.

It is accepted by some websites across the internet that a world revolution is a “world socialist revolution” envisioned by former American news reporter and philosopher Karl Marx: “When Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels implored workers of the world to unite, they announced a new vision of international politics: world socialist revolution...the struggle for world socialist revolution.”[i] The difference between world socialist revolution and world revolution is one that distinguishes the organized revolt.

There is no way it is a world socialist revolution. The revolution consists of protests against governments across the world[ii], a revolt against powers that be, the ruling class or leadership class of just about every country. Some revolts that started as peaceful are becoming more violent and some going the opposite way. Some in the U.S. even call for a peaceful second American Revolution on Facebook[iii] (a violent revolution against the government is illegal under federal law). The page does not explain its purpose completely, but is pretty obvious that the creators believe the current U.S. government is crooked. In the Mideast, which I call the Orient, people are angry with the dictators or oligarchies that remain so they are arming themselves with deadly weapons. In Libya, a protest against Muammar Gaddafi became inflamed when NATO and support of the “industrialized world” was added in a situation that has become a civil war. It is debatable if the protest was violent to start with as countries like France may have started the violence with secret intervention, but it is obvious that Libya has descended into civil war. Also, in the American-backed dictatorship in Yemen seemed to be led by armed activists as the revolution continued. However, only a few days ago, protestors have told “people to be patient and continue their peaceful revolution until they oust all "remnants" of the regime.”[iv] I went all the way back to what gave me the idea for this blog, a Facebook post I commented on:

The world revolution has its roots in France where the “European Revolution” was dubbed by protestors began. According to europeanrevolution.net [v]: “At least 20 of the most important cities in France have their square occupied by youth protesters. Calling themseleves the Indignés…France seems to hold a leading position in the new European Revolution...They demand a Constitutive Assembly to make govern[ments] ‘remember’ that ‘people [are] sovereign’…stress…inequality of o[p]portunities and priorities between represented and representat[ives], between reality and ideologies. They ask [their voice to be heard by the governments].” The demands juts articulated shows that people (possibly in the millions) are serious with their concerns and want a changed world order. These mobilized citizens do not want a international order planned out by the elites since the early 1900s. Certain ideas, like the Federal Reserve (formulated by private bankers and big business in 1913, before it was introduced to Congress as the Federal Reserve Act) advanced this idea. To see the impetus for the action in France, you have to go back to the protests in Spain. At one point, protesters called for a world revolution and future reforms as written on Raw Story [vi]: “From Tahrir to Madrid to the world, world revolution," said one of the placards, referring to Tahrir Square in Cairo which was the focal point of the Egyptian revolution earlier this year...Calling for "Real Democracy Now," the protests, popularly known as M-15, were called to condemn Spain's soaring unemployment, economic crisis, politicians in general, and corruption.” These protests may have been organized by Anonymous, the organization that uses hacktivism (combination of hacking and activism) to complete its objectives. The organization has two major goals: making the internet free for the people of the world and punishing those that try to box the users of the world wide web in. The group had a video on LeakSource[vii] about how to prepare for a world revolution and what to do to go against the world elite. Underneath the video was the infamous saying on the internet that is feared by the leadership class, encapsulating the hopes of the protestors (bolded sayings) :

“We are Anonymous

We are Legion

We do not forgive

We do not forget

Expect us!"

The convergence of hacktivist groups (such as Anonymous and Lulz Boat), active citizenry across the world and advocacy groups has created a World Revolution. Some have called 2011 the year of revolution[viii] and I can’t agree more. Protests that started in Spain were influenced by young people who called for the end of overarching governments and the creation of democracies across the Arab World. Other Europeans had similar thoughts, causing organized disagreement across the region. International underground organizations seized on this opportunity and tried to convince internet users worldwide to protest against the global elite by creating short YouTube videos in some cases. An example is Global Strike[ix] (made by Anonymous), which explained how to stop the world leadership class and asking YouTube users to create their own videos in response.

The ways to stop “the system” from overpowering you is so simple as the video points out, actions everyone could do, such as (groups that came up with these ideas are bracketed) :

- Not buying anything for a week [Anonymous] (My take: It could face opposition from consumers internationally who just buy and buy)

- Storing up food, not buying it [Anonymous] (My take: Like the previous idea, this one could also face opposition from those who love capitalism and just want everything. But a concentrated effort could solve this problem)

- “Stop supporting companies that you know are harmful.”[x] (My take: This is easy to do, all you have to do is be an informed citizen and if you buy products, then you must choose companies that will lead to a better future.)

- Growing your own food [Anonymous] (My take: Many people do this already with side gardens, victory gardens, backyard gardens, live on farms, etc… So, it wouldn’t be the hard to transition.)

- Go out on the street and protest against the elite [Anonymous] (My take: I believe that many Americans are used to the culture of surveillance, born out of the age of “terrorism” and would be afraid to participate. I am not so sure myself if I should participate in this activity since I feel I could be labeled as something I’m not.)

I have tried to do all of these listed items to the best of my ability. I’ve forced myself to not buying anything for a week (I am fiscally conservative with my money, so I don’t spend much anyway). Also I grow my own food and I am protesting by writing this article to educate people about the #worldrevolution[xi]. When I buy products I always try to use those products that are not from companies that abuse their workers or commit other abuses, are American-made and definitely not made in China as another listed item suggests. From my own analysis, certain groups don’t want people to buy anything because the money is controlled by the world elite. Federal Reserve Notes, the money I am referring to, is legal tender in America (“This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private”). U.S. dollars are printed by a private bank, an action that isn’t allowed by the U.S. Constitution.

I believe that from everything that has happened, it is now the time to “say no more…will the many allow the few to ruin our planet and our lives....We [the people of the world] can change things.”[xii] People must act against those who push a non-democratic “new world order” and push for government that work for the people, not the secret governments that exist across the planet which could lead to a one-world government as some have theorized.

So, now you if you want to learn more about this “world revolution,” I found pages on facebook that advocated for it that you can use for more information:

- WORLD REVOLUTION

- Global Liberation Network

- World Revolution : Real Democracy (where I found out about whole world revolution)

- World Revolution News

- World Revolution, the world is changing

- In a facebook search more pages can be found[xiii]

In addition, Twitter has a number of people tweeting about the subject. Here’s a list of users I complied, that talk about this information, including:

- @revolution _info

- @GlobalRevol (sorry it’s in Spanish, if you are not good at Spanish)

- @EchteDemokratie

- @15 MayRevolution

- @olgarodriguezfr

- @Zed _Lepplin (to some extent)

- @takethesquare (connecting Spanish Revolution and trying to apply it to the world)

- @AcampadaEDI

- @namorix 2

- @AcampadaEDI

- @armandonoticias

Hashtags #worldrevolution and #globalrevolution on Twitter you can use for information.

[i]http://www.answers.com/topic/world-revolution-1

[ii] http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=121048771311260&set=a.121048767977927.28274.121048357977968&type=1&theater

[iii] Facebook page of American Revolution 2011

[iv] http://www.newsyemen.net/en/view_news.asp?sub_no=3_2011_08_05_40413

[v] http://www.europeanrevolution.net/

[vi] http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/05/20/spanish-protesters-cheer-for-world-revolution-as-ban-on-demonstration-takes-effect/

[vii] http://leaksource.wordpress.com/anonymous/#comments%20

[viii]political fail blog page about world revolution [A page that has since been deleted from the website]

[ix] http://lunaticoutpost.com/Topic-Anonymous-Global-Strike-July-2011

[x] http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:lbBrAs9T7E4J:www.politicalfailblog.com/p/worldrevolution.html+-+%E2%80%9CStop+supporting+companies+that+you+know+are+harmful.%E2%80%9D&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com

[xi] twitter hashtag, #worldrevolution

[xii] POLITICAL FAIL BLOG

[xiii] http://www.facebook.com/search.php?q=world%20revolution&init=quick&tas=0.9820292391995158

Al Gore and George Bush: Was there a real difference?

2011-07-16T22:24:00.000-04:00

I was discussing with an adult who works at the NIH about Ralph Nader. The adult said: "Ralph Nader caused Al Gore to not be President." I responded: "Well, what about the Supreme Court's ruling?" He said in return: "It was Nader. That's why I don't support Nader anymore." That conversation inspired me to write this article about the 2000 election. First I'll go into the positions of both candidates (Bush and Gore). Then I’ll compare them later on.

Before I get into analysis of Democratic and Republican candidates in 2000, I’d like to address an issue that rattled the elections that year. Some say, including my dad, that Ralph Nader was saying that Al Gore and George W. Bush were very similar and that’s why you should vote me (gaining Mr. Nader over a million votes). Politifact did a review of the statements by Mr. Nader, who wrote in an editorial for the New York Times: “I have indicated that there are 'few major differences' between the two parties not that there is 'no difference between Mr. Gore and Mr. Bush,' as Mr. Kennedy wrote. Second, I have never said that I would vote for George W. Bush, whom I have strongly criticized across the country, if forced to choose between him and Al Gore." This got the idea in people’s heads that Mr. Nader was saying they were the same candidate. Mr. Nader implied that he thought Mr. Bush and Mr. Gore equally objectionable. In a news conference in 2000 he said: "It doesn't matter who is in the White House, Gore or Bush, for the vast majority of government departments and agencies. The only difference between Al Gore and George W. Bush is the velocity with which their knees hit the floor when corporations knock on their door.” Four days before the election in Philadelphia, he repeated the same thing: “It's a Tweedle Dee, Tweedle Dum vote. Both parties are selling our government to big business paymasters. ...That's a pretty serious similarity." At the end, Politifact concluded: So no, Nader never explicitly said "it doesn't really matter whether Gore or Bush is president." But his talk of "Republicrats," "Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum," and "one corporate party" left many people — friend, foe and impartial observer alike — with the impression that that's what he believed. We find Nader's statement that he "never said" it to be Barely True. To disprove or prove Mr. Nader’s statements, I looked at the funding of both of the candidates.

I wanted to have a view of how both candidates for President in the 2000 election got their funding. I started with the Federal Election Commission first, saying that by September 30th, 1999, George W. Bush had about $57 million in recipts, $19 million in dismebursements and about $37 million on hand. Al Gore had about $25 million in receipts, $14 million in disbursements and $10 million on hand. But that isn’t enough to prove Mr. Nader’s statements about both political parties. In on article by Common Dreams, it says certain actions by Mr. Bush, a Texas oil man, are for “the benefit of...corporate and fundamentalist sponsors.” But that’s not enough to show specifically who Mr. Bush’s sponsors were. The Miller Center wasn’t that specific either, stating: “Although new to national politics, Bush was practically anointed as the Republican standard-bearer by the GOP establishment in early 1999 after he proved to be a one-man fundraising machine that scored a record $68.7 million the year before the election.” I looked and looked for another article or articles about who exactly donated to his presidential campaign. I couldn’t find any exact articles. But I did find an OpenSecrets report of the 2004 election that stated that corporations such as Morgan Stanley and Merrill Lynch as well as other big companies were some of major donors to Mr. Bush’s campaign against the Democrats (John Kerry and John Edwards) that year. Finally I found a site that exposed Bush’s contributors in the 2000 election. Luckily the website’s creators had grabbed an OpenSecrets report from that year and from other analysis concluded that “[the] Agribusiness [gave] Bush $2,148,624...[the] Oil & Gas [industry gave] Bush $1,463,799...[the] Construction [industry gave] Bush $3,472,82...[the] Real Estate [gave] Bush $3,661,372...[the] Automotive [industry gave] Bush $1,019,581...Drug companies [gave] Republicans/Bush 73% of $13,800,000...The ten corporations that funnelled the most soft money into Bush’s campaign, according to FEC data, are as follows: AT&T directed 62% of its $4,479,653 in soft money donations to Republican groups...Seventy-six percent of UPS’s $2,662,994 in soft money went to Republican groups, along with a whopping 79% of Philip Morris’ $2,565,880. Verizon Wireless funneled 63% of $2,874,921 to Republican groups. MBNA America Bank put 82% of $2,193,550 into Republican campaigns. Enron...gave 76% of $2,015,853 to Republican warchests, mostly through the RNC. Merrill Lynch devoted 74% of $2,000,025 to Republican groups. Pfizer Inc...diverted 84% of $1,810,572 to Republican campaigns. Bristol-Myers Squibb gave 84% of $1,751,442. Fedex gave 65% of $2,095,328...Dell Computers executive Michael Dell...personally donated $250,000 to the RNC...Afinity Group, Inc chair Stephen Adams has...invested $1 million in soft money in Bush’s campaign...Aurora Capital Partners chair Gerald Parsky...[has] personally given $200,000 to the RNC...Cisco CEO John Chambers...gave $310,000 in soft money; Charles R. Schwab of Charles Schwab Investments...gave $270,000; and Leach Capital’s Howard Leach...gave $120,000.” That sounds like he was in with the Big Corporations. But that’s not all.

Al Gore also got numerous donations from big companies as well, described on the website I mentioned earlier. For Mr. Gore: “[the] Agribusiness [gave]...$240,350...[the] Oil & Gas [industry gave] $95,460...[the] Construction [industry gave] $920,938...Real Estate [industry gave] $1,213,310...[the] Automotive [industry gave]...$79,085...Drug companies [gave]...23% of $13,800,000 [or about $3.1 million, more than any other big company].” After Mr. Gore decided to concede in December after the 2000 election recount, saying that he welcomes George W. Bush as the President, donors decided to turn their back on him. However, iIn the process more donors were revealed. Brainer Dispatch wrote about this in an article, detailing a few examples of Al Gore donors: “Vinod Gupta, an Internet entrepreneur who contributed $318,000 to Gore and Democratic committees...Trevor Pearlman, Dallas venture capitalist and former trial lawyer who contributed $161,000 to Gore and the Democratic National Committee during this election cycle.” An analysis of the money donated isn’t all that will invalidate or validate Mr. Nader’s widely misinterpreted point in the 2000 election. The political views will prove if both candidates were in one big corporate party or if they were completely different.

First I looked at the Republican candidate in the 2000 Presidential election, George W. Bush. Here’s a list of some of George W. Bush’s political views before he became President (I picked ones that would make a comparison better):

Ban partial-birth abortions, and reduce abortions overall. (Oct 2000)

No tax money for abortion, but no Pro-Life Amendment either. (Sep 2000)
“It’s time for a change” in Washington. (Oct 2000)

Make budget biennial; reinstate line-item veto; target pork. (Jun 2000)
Local control with consequences if racial profiling occurs. (Oct 2000)

Against gay marriage, but leave it to the states. (Feb 2000)

Ignored Byrd hate crime bill despite plea by Byrd’s family. (Oct 2000)
Death penalty for deterrence, not revenge. (Oct 2000)

Death penalty for hate crimes like any other murder. (Oct 2000)

Miranda [rights] should be waived in some situations. (Jun 2000)

More federal funding for all aspects of Drug War. (Aug 2000)

Zero tolerance on disruption, guns, & school safety. (Apr 2000)

Improve education with local control, accountability. (Sep 2000)
Tax money to religious schools OK, if they’re teaching kids. (May 2000)

Better to drill ANWR than import oil from Saddam Hussein. (Oct 2000)

Replenish energy supplies with new domestic coal & pipelines. (Oct 2000)
Weaken Clean Air [act] (Nov 2000)

Internet filters, ratings, & parental monitoring for kids. (Oct 2000)

Promote abstinence in schools and via churches. (Apr 2000)

Africa’s important but not a priority; no nation-building. (Oct 2000)
China is an American competitor, not a friend. (Feb 2000)

US should humbly empower other countries, not dictate. (Oct 2000)

Less intervention abroad and unilateral nuclear cuts at home. (Sep 2000)
Reform UN & IMF; strengthen NATO. (Apr 2000)
Regulatory style: like Reagan, get government out of the way. (Oct 2000)

Ban soft money, but no public financing of elections. (Oct 2000)

Full disclosure and no giving limits. (Mar 2000)
No corporate or union soft money. (Feb 2000)

Would sign, but would not push, gun restrictions. (Apr 2000)
Ban automatic weapons & high-capacity ammunition clips. (Apr 2000)
Restrict teenage smoking by tough state & federal laws. (Mar 2000)

Give seniors choice, not bureaucrats; give incentives too. (Sep 2000)

Be world’s peacemaker instead of world’s policeman. (Oct 2000)

Rebuild military so it can fulfill mission to prevent war. (Oct 2000)
Gays in military OK; “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” OK. (Sep 2000)

Post-Cold War: remove weapons & high-alert; build SDI. (May 2000)

Make INS more “immigrant friendly”. (Jun 2000)

Put U.S. interests first and execute goals with good team. (Oct 2000)

Don’t treat Social Security like it’s a federal program. (Nov 2000)

Privatize Social Security to take advantage of stock market. (May 2000)
Don’t eliminate gas tax; ask OPEC to increase supply. (Jul 2000)

Yes, wealthy get tax relief, but 6M poor will pay no tax. (Oct 2000)
All Americans deserve tax relief; no more “fuzzy numbers”. (Oct 2000)
No national sales tax or VAT. (Feb 2000)

Israel: America should be a stronger friend. (May 2000)

Al Gore’s positions when he was running to became the next President:

Ban partial-birth abortions, except for maternal health. (Oct 2000)
Opposes partial birth abortion, but opposes banning it. (Sep 2000)
Right to choice, regardless of economic circumstance. (Mar 2000)
Wrote in 1984 that abortion is arguably taking a life. (Jan 2000)
Paying down debt reduces government intrusion. (Oct 2000)

Pay off the national debt by 2013. (Apr 2000)

Ban racial profiling by Executive Order. (Jan 2000)

Find some way for civic union; but not gay marriage. (Oct 2000)
National hate crimes law is needed, absolutely. (Oct 2000)

Intensify the battle against crime, drugs, and disorder. (May 2000)
Death penalty for deterrence, but carefully. (Oct 2000)

Lead a national crusade against drugs. (May 2000)

Loosen restrictions on medical marijuana. (Mar 2000)
Tougher drug policies; fight drugs in Colombia. (Mar 2000)
“Revolutionary plan”: 50% more for public schools. (Jan 2000)

Release oil from Strategic Petroleum Reserve. (Sep 2000)

For Kyoto; for national parks; against drilling ANWR. (Nov 2000)
Abstinence Ed in the context of comprehensive Sex Ed. (Sep 2000)

Gore supports vigorous intervention abroad (Oct 2000)

Strong defense for world leader; tie defense to other issues. (Jan 2000)

Fair trade: standards for child labor & environment. (Aug 2000)
Build a rule-based global trading system. (Aug 2000)

Spending increase? “Absolutely not”; balance every budget. (Oct 2000)
McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform will be first bill. (Oct 2000)

Ban soft money and provide free broadcast time. (Sep 2000)
Campaign finance reform will be very first bill to Congress. (Aug 2000)
Free TV and radio for candidates during campaigns. (Mar 2000)

Pledges to add not one new federal position. (Oct 2000)

Tough gun laws & so much more, to stop child tragedies. (Mar 2000)
Zero tolerance for guns at school; raise age to 21. (Jan 2000)
Let FDA regulate cigarettes; fight teenage smoking. (Mar 2000)

Build-down military to smaller but more effective. (May 2000)
Nation-building is part of world leadership. (Oct 2000)

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is unfair & hasn’t worked. (Sep 2000)
Build less powerful SDI; to keep ABM treaty & START III. (May 2000)

More immigrants to alleviate labor shortage. (Mar 2000)

Voluntary school prayer is ok, if teachers aren’t involved. (Sep 2000)

Create Retirement Savings Accounts. (Aug 2000)

Tax cuts to benefit middle-class, not just the rich. (Aug 2000)
Eliminate estate taxes for the little guy, not the wealthy. (Jun 2000)

“Digital Cabinet” of high-tech advisors. (Sep 2000)
Broadcasters required to assist with “Democracy Endowment”. (Mar 2000)

Create e-government, interactive access for all citizens. (Jun 2000)
Internet self-regulation OK: privacy policy on all web sites. (Oct 2000)

Regulate Internet privacy & child access, but not content. (Mar 2000)
Universal Internet access should be a national priority. (Feb 2000)

Genocide is a strategic interest & warrants intervention. (Oct 2000)
Don’t let OPEC take advantage of Americans. (Sep 2000)

Iraq: support Saddam’s opposition, until he’s gone. (May 2000)

Looking at both lists of political views, it seems there are some differences between both candidates. I created a chart of the views of both the candidates so you can compare them easier (all the red boxed items are ones that are similar)
I believe that on one hand Mr. Nader is right that both parties got lots of funding from corporations as I described earlier, but they were not same exactly. Some positions were completely different, as Al Gore was more in favor of an online government, while George W. Bush didn’t even mention it. It varied. In conclusion, I rate Mr. Nader’s statement as mostly true since there was many similarities on certain issues, however they still aren’t completely the same.

P.S.
Even Ralph Nader spoke about Mr. Obama in these words: “Well, I think Barack Obama is in training to become panderer-in-chief...And it’s quite clear that he is a corporate candidate from A to Z...He — you know, he’s letting the corporate-dominated city of Washington, the corporations who actually rule us now in Washington, determine his agenda.” (http://www.democracynow.org/2008/6/18/ralph_nader_on_barack_obama_it)

John Sawyer and the truth

2011-07-13T22:20:00.002-04:00

Recently I received an email from the coauthor of this blog saying that a Presidential candidate, John Sawyer III had messenged him about an article that I had wrote.

Now let me remind you what I wrote:
"John W. Sawyer, III calls himself a conservative on his homepage. But, Mr. Sawyer states: “I support Unions. I'm against reducing Capital Gains taxes to create jobs (it doesn't), and against the death penalty.” But, Mr. Sawyer doesn’t support every union as for religious reasons he takes an anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage stance. Also, I believe that being against the death penalty is very liberal stance, so he is not a complete conservative. In addition, he respects religious beliefs of all (I hope so! Every candidate should support religious beliefs of all.) As President and in life, he will “never...ASSUME ANYTHING. IF I DIDN'T KNOW THE FACTS, I WOULD KEEP MY THOUGHTS TO MY SELF.” It is good to not assume anything and I commend him for his words, but you can’t always keep your thoughts to yourself. In a cynical position, he believes “Our elected officials don't know what they are doing” because of all the problems that exist in America at this current time. I think that is not putting faith in elected officials and is a pessimistic view of the world, not having the optimism that things will change. On foreign affairs, he dislikes Saudi Arabia and thinks they are duplicity driven because they say they are fighting terror when they support it (Osama Bin Laden was a Saudi national). In the same tune, Mr. Sawyer needs to come up with a Mideast policy to counter the current Mideast policy, since it world make him a stronger candidate. Later on in his blog, he even questions the government’s narrative relating to Osama’s death, thinking that the U.S. government may not be telling the truth or not the whole truth. I am a bit cynical of the government’s narrative myself, but I don’t want to take sides at this time saying that I support Mr. Sawyer’s statement or the government’s narrative. In addition, he proposes that Osama Bin Laden was taken alive from his compound which could be possibility, but not enough details have been released so it is hard to know the truth. But sometimes he too cynical, saying he dislikes all the Republican candidates other than Mitt Romney and that Congressman Paul Ryan’s plan would “drastically slash Medicare benefits...[they never] ask[ed] Seniors what THEY thought of their ideas [that] are based on one premise - Social Security and Medicare are going broke...Well, then by all means, cut the programs [but no one has the courage to cut them].” I believe that these programs should be reviewed to see if they can be limited to help solve the deficit, then the debt, but they should not be destroyed. Mr. Sawyer takes a good position on Mr. Ryan’s plan. In a somewhat downing note, he enthusiastically says “American is governed by losers” and concludes that “You're a loser. So am I. We continually make the same mistakes, over and over...[so] America [is not] great.” This is the saddest part of his website. It makes him seem like he doesn’t even have confidence in himself to win the election for U.S. President. But, he has the confidence to attack a sitting President."
(http://interestingblogger1.blogspot.com/2011/06/others-democrats-running-for-president.html)

When I write an article, I use the quotes from the direct source. In this case I used direct quotes from across the website. Take that into consideration.

Now here's the exact words Mr. Sawyer wrote in an email:
"Not with that article - I didn't read it. I DID read, and attempted to comment on your article about the 2012 Presidential Candidates - of whom I am one. I wanted to respond to some of your misconceptions of my positions on certain issues, but I wanted to make sure that my comments would go through. They didn't. Something is wrong either with your setup or my ability to post comments. Anyway, congratulations for reading up on the candidates - even if you weren't to fond of my vitae. If voters would pay as much attention, we wouldn't be faced with the Hobson's choice of two losers like Barack Obama and Mitt Romney."

I have found after reading this, that Mr. Sawyer did not really address the article or clear up misconceptions. It was just an email saying how he could not post about his comments on the article. But he still said "If voters would pay as much attention, we wouldn't be faced with the Hobson's choice of two losers like Barack Obama and Mitt Romney." Now, I do not like Romney or Obama, but I don't think they are losers, I think they are deceptive. Mr. Obama has deceived the American people and lied. Mr. Romney acts like he never passed a plan that led to the so-called "Obamacare."

I am offering the opportunity to Mr.Sawyer to respond to my article: http://interestingblogger1.blogspot.com/2011/06/others-democrats-running-for-president.html. I look forward to hearing from Mr. Sawyer. I'll keep you posted.

We the rich, not we the people

2011-07-05T17:22:00.002-04:00

Everyone learns in school that America is a federal republic and that people have a big stake in it. That's just not true. People have very limited powers under the U.S. Constitution. An examination of one word in the Constitution shows the truth of the document.

I looked throughout all the words and found that "people" are only mentioned twice (in the opening phrase "We the People of the United States" and in Article I, section 2 that states: "The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the People of the several states."). But one word doesn’t prove everything, but it does propose the idea of a set of laws catered to the wealthy. A related word, “person” is mentioned fourteen times. Of those mentions of the word, none of these times it actually applies to the general populace. It relates to slaves, criminals or procedural matters (being elected to office or applying to those in public office). Another similar word is “citizen.” The word is used seven times in document and only once it applies to the all the people in America. Looking at words in the original Constitution (without amendments) isn’t even a full analysis of the document itself but it shows the people have a limited role and that that most educated are needed in power. Looking at the powers the Constitution gives the people helps further an investigation into the real intent of the Constitution.

I created a list of the rights the Constitution, including the amendments gives to the people [I am not counting requirements for any elected office]:

· People can vote for Representatives every two years (Article I, Section 2, Clause 1)

· People are entitled to the same rights in every state, rights that are in the Constitution (Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1)

· People have the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of peaceable assembly and right to petition government for grievances (Amendment I)

· People have the right to have guns (Amendment II)

· No soldier may be in someone’s house without the owner’s consent (Amendment III)

· Right of people to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure and a right to privacy (Amendment IV)

· People cannot be charged for a capital crimes unless in the military there can be no double jeopardy for a crime and no self-incrimination (Amendment V)

· People have the right to obtain witnesses, know why he/she is charged with a crime, have a lawyer and have a speedy public trial. (Amendment VI)

· People can have no excessive bail, fine or cruel or unusual punishment (Amendment VIII)

· People have rights not spelled out in the Constitution (Amendment IX)

· Slavery or involuntary servitude is abolished unless a punishment for a crime (Amendment XIII)

· All people born or naturalized in America are U.S. citizens (Amendment XIV)

· People of any race or color can vote (Amendment XV)

· Senators are elected by the people every six years (Amendment XVII)

· People of any gender can vote in elections (Amendment XIX)

· People do not have to pay a tax or poll tax to vote (Amendment XXIV)

· If you are 18 years or older, you can vote (Amendment XXVI)

· It is implied you can vote for President and Vice President in Amendment XII and in Article II Section 1 of the Constitution

Still, despite these powers that go to the people, only a few have to do with changing government. Many of the amendments that I mentioned only protect the rights of the people, but don’t allow them to change the system. The only power people have to change the system that is in place is to express their opinions, assemble in protest, petition the government and vote for public officials (I bolded these instances on the list above). If you boil it down, that’s not many rights available. I have some plans to help make the Constitution better and I’ll propose some amendments which I believe would give more power to the people, creating a government that works on more input from the people.

Going through online websites I looked for Amendments and I found some promising ones. The first Amendment is by a user on Democratic Undeground.com. I felt that the amendment had an interesting premise and I give credit to this user for coming up with the idea, but I had to change a few aspects of the Amendment itself. I do not expect this amendment to pass Congress, but it’s good to put every idea out there. Here’s the text of the Amendment, which would be Amendment XXVIII or Amendment 28:

AMENDMENT XXVIII [The Recall Amendment]

Section 1. The President and/or Vice President shall be subject to a recall election in the event that at least thirty-seven percent of the number of persons who voted in the most recent election for Presidential and Vice-Presidential electors petition the Federal Election Commission for a special election for the President and/or Vice President.

Section 2. If a petition is certified as valid by the Federal Election Commission, a time, place and date shall be set such an election by the Federal Election Commission with counsel from the Boards of Elections in every U.S. state and territory.

Section 3. Members of Congress shall be subject to a recall election in the event that at least thirty-seven percent of the number of persons who voted in the most recent election for that position petition the Federal Election Commission for such an election.

Section 4. If the petition is certified as valid by the Federal Election Commission, a time, place and date for a special election shall be set by the Federal Election Commission with counsel from the State Board of Elections in the state that said member of Congress represents.

Section 5. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

I know it’s not perfect, but I tried to do the best. The amendment would give the power to the Federal Election Commission instead of the federal legislature because I feel that they are the board of elections on the federal level. Also I feared that if it went through the state legislatures, the governorship or United States Congress, that corruption could be present. I know that the Federal Election Commission could be corrupted, but I do not know any other agency to oversee this aspect of the law. It seemed to simplify the process. I would like to show another Amendment, this one proposed by U.S. representative Jesse Jackson, Jr. in 2005:

SECTION 1. All citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, shall have the right to vote in any public election held in the jurisdiction in which the citizen resides. The right to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States, any State, or any other public or private person or entity, except that the United States or any State may establish regulations narrowly tailored to produce efficient and honest elections.

SECTION 2. Each State shall administer public elections in the State in accordance with election performance standards established by the Congress. The Congress shall reconsider such election performance standards at least once every four years to determine if higher standards should be established to reflect improvements in methods and practices regarding the administration of elections.

SECTION 3. Each State shall provide any eligible voter the opportunity to register and vote on the day of any public election.

SECTION 4. Each State and the District constituting the seat of Government of the United States shall establish and abide by rules for appointing its respective number of Electors. Such rules shall provide for the appointment of Electors on the day designated by the Congress for holding an election for President and Vice President and shall ensure that each Elector votes for the candidate for President and Vice President who received a majority of the popular vote in the State or District.

SECTION 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

I don’t like Section 4 of the amendment, feeling it supports the Electoral College but an amendment that replaces Amendment 26 and is shorter would be even better. I’ll write such an amendment in the future but for now this amendment shows that reform will happen in the future. The amendment proposed by Congressman Jackson explains the point: throughout the Constitution it says that all people have the right to vote but it is not the case and none of the Constitution says that States cannot set guidelines for who can vote. So, in a sense it never really says people have a constitutional right to vote, it only says they can vote. On the other hand, there are many other amendments that I will not mention that are presented on motiontoamend.org and reclaimdemocracy because to would repetitive. There is one more idea I would like to put forward. I have one more idea for an amendment:

The Ratification Amendment

Amendment XXVIII or Amendment XXVIV (Amendment 24 or 25)

Section 1. Article V of the Constitution is hereby repealed

Section 2. The Congress whenever fifty-one percent of both houses deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or when the people in all the states of the United States shall call a convention as implied by the freedom to assembly that is enumerated in Amendment I.

Section 3. An amendment shall become part of this Constitution when ratified in a vote by fifty-one percent of the people in an election which the date, time and place shall be set the appropriate boards of elections of every U.S. state and territory, or by conventions organized by the people in three fourths of the states in the United States or when the Congress approves an amendment by setting times to ratify such an amendment if determined to be necessary; or other methods may be proposed by the people or the Congress for the purpose of ratification.

Section 4. During the amendment process, the Archivist of the United States shall update the people and the Congress on the status of the ratification of the amendment; if the amendment is ratified, the Archivist of the United States shall announce it to the Congress and the people.

Section 5. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

I could propose even more amendments but I feel that it would make this analysis too long. Throughout the next month I’ll be posting on my blog, HermannView, amendments that I have written around Independence Day this year. One such amendment is like H.J.RES.9 which would abolish the Electoral College and provide for the direct popular election of the President and Vice President of the United States except my amendment would make it open to all political parties rather than just Democrats and Republicans. All parties must have the right to be in elections, it’s just what’s fair for everyone. America has never been a democratic republic; it was originally a federal republic. That’s the government that created by the 55 delegates in 1787 and revised by the Bill of Rights in 1791. Today the government we have is not a federal republic much anymore it is a plutocratic republic and it’s sad to admit that.

The wealthy control the political process and everyone should know it. If a politician is not aligned with the rich, they are limited by those that are rich. The only way we the people can get our power back is by protesting, speaking out against the injustice in America and promoting reform whenever possible. Don’t vote along party lines, vote for who you think is right for the job no matter what political party (Green Party, Democratic Party, Citizens Party, Republican Party, Independence Party, United Equality Party, and go to politics1 list for more), who you think will help usher in reform. Those people will help make America a better place. In the end, Americans need to do all they can to reestablish the original federal republic the Constitution asked for and go even further, giving more power to people in a democratic republic. America is not a democracy, it is a plutocratic republic where the government panders to the wealthy class and that can change with citizen action.

American isolationism: A false concept?

2011-06-30T21:22:00.000-04:00

For a long time I have learned in U.S. history classes throughout my life, in documentaries and the popular consciousness is that for hundreds of years, up until WWI, if not continued after WWII, America was an isolationist country. I am starting to question that idea. I was trying to fact check the new controversial Time Magazine cover story that asked about the death of the Constitution and I found the United States had numerous interventions in its history. But that’s not the reason I started to question this idea. In the inaugural speech Franklin Pierce made on March 4, 1853 he made a shocking statement. When I put President Pierce’s speech and the ideas I had come up with before, I questioned this idea that is taken for granted by many people and many experts.

To most people, they believe that America began to start intervening in the affairs of other countries in the Cold War. Students of history would say U.S. interventions are false in the beginning of the 1900s. Both ideas are false, as confirmed by the fateful words of President Franklin Pierce in 1853, “our attitude as a nation [is to] render the acquisition of certain possessions not within our jurisdiction eminently important for our protection...[They] should...be obtained...in a manner entirely consistent with the strictest observance of national faith...no act within the legitimate scope of my constitutional control will be tolerated.” (http://millercenter.org/scripps/archive/speeches/detail/3553). I had no idea it stretched back that far and was shocked when I found out the truth. A Congressional Research report confirmed that what Mr. Pierce had stated was correct. These types of interventions had been happening for years and years:

1810 -- West Florida (Spanish territory). Gov. Claiborne of Louisiana, on orders of the President, occupied with troops territory in dispute east of the Mississippi as far as the Pearl River, later the eastern boundary of Louisiana. He was authorized to seize as far east as the Perdido River.
1812 -- Amelia Island and other parts of east Florida, then under Spain. Temporary possession was authorized by President Madison and by Congress, to prevent occupation by any other power; but possession was obtained by Gen. George Matthews in so irregular a manner that his measures were disavowed by the President.
1813 -- West Florida (Spanish territory). On authority given by Congress, General Wilkinson seized Mobile Bay in April with 600 soldiers. A small Spanish garrison gave way. Thus US advanced into disputed territory to the Perdido River, as projected in 1810. No fighting.
1813-14 -- Marguesas Islands. US forces built a fort on the island of Nukahiva to protect three prize ships which had been captured from the British.
1814 -- Spanish Florida. Gen. Andrew Jackson took Pensacola and drove out the British with whom the United States was at war.
1816-18 -- Spanish Florida - First Seminole War. The Seminole Indians, whose area was a haven for escaped slaves and border ruffians, were attacked by troops under Generals Jackson and Gaines and pursued into northern Florida. Spanish posts were attacked and occupied, British citizens executed. In 1819 the Floridas were ceded to the United States.
1818 -- Oregon. The USS Ontario dispatched from Washington, landed at the Columbia River and in August took possession of Oregon territory. Britain had conceded sovereignty but Russia and Spain asserted claims to the area.
1836 -- Mexico. General Gaines occupied Nacogdoches (Tex.), disputed territory, from July to December during the Texan war for independence, under orders to cross the "imaginary boundary line" if an Indian outbreak threatened.
1844 -- Mexico. President Tyler deployed US forces to protect Texas against Mexico, pending Senate approval of a treaty of annexation. (Later rejected.) He defended his action against a Senate resolution of inquiry.
1858-59 -- Turkey. The Secretary of State requested a display of naval force along the Levant after a massacre of Americans at Jaffa and mistreatment elsewhere "to remind the authorities (of Turkey) of the power of the United States."
1865 -- Panama. - March 9 and 10. US forces protected the lives and property of American residents during a revolution.
1867 -- Nicaragua. Marines occupied Managua and Leon.
1871 -- Korea. - June 10 to 12. A US naval force attacked and captured five forts to punish natives for depredations on Americans, particularly for murdering the crew of the General Sherman and burning the schooner, and for later firing on other American small boats taking soundings up the Salee River.
1876 -- Mexico. - May 18. An American force was landed to police the town of Matamoras temporarily while it was without other government.
1893 -- Hawaii. - January 16 to April 1. Marines were landed ostensibly to protect American lives and property, but many believed actually to promote a provisional government under Sanford B. Dole. This action was disavowed by the United States.
1903-14 -- Panama. US forces sought to protect American interests and lives during and following the revolution for independence from Colombia over construction of the Isthmian Canal. With brief intermissions, United States Marines were stationed on the Isthmus from November 4, 1903, to January 21, 1914 to guard American interests.
1918-20 -- Soviet Russia. Marines were landed at and near Vladivostok in June and July to protect the American consulate and other points in the fighting between the Bolshevik troops and the Czech Army which had traversed Siberia from the western front. A joint proclamation of emergency government and neutrality was issued by the American, Japanese, British, French, and Czech commanders in July. In August 7,000 men were landed in Vladivostok and remained until January 1920, as part of an allied occupation force. In September 1918, 5,000 American troops joined the allied intervention force at Archangel and remained until June 1919. These operations were in response to the Bolshevik revolution in Russia and were partly supported by Czarist or Kerensky elements.
1970 -- Cambodia. US troops were ordered into Cambodia to clean out Communist sanctuaries from which Viet Cong and North Vietnamese attacked USand South Vietnamese forces in Vietnam. The object of this attack, which lasted from April 30 to June 30, was to ensure the continuing safe withdrawal of American forces from South Vietnam and to assist the program of Vietnamization.
1983-89 -- Honduras. In July 1983 the United States undertook a series of exercises in Honduras that some believed might lead to conflict with Nicaragua. On March 25, 1986, unarmed US military helicopters and crewmen ferried Honduran troops to the Nicaraguan border to repel Nicaraguan troops.
1988 -- Panama. In mid-March and April 1988, during a period of instability in Panama and as pressure grew for Panamanian military leader General Manuel Noriega to resign, the United States sent 1,000 troops to Panama, to "further safeguard the canal, US lives, property and interests in the area." The forces supplemented 10,000 US military personnel already in Panama.
2001 -- Afghanistan [war]. On October 9, 2001, President George W. Bush reported to Congress, "consistent with the War Powers Resolution," and "Senate Joint Resolution 23" that on October 7, 2001, US Armed Forces "began combat action in Afghanistan against Al Qaida terrorists and their Taliban supporters." The President stated that he had directed this military action in response to the September 11, 2001 attacks on US "territory, our citizens, and our way of life, and to the continuing threat of terrorist acts against the United States and our friends and allies." This military action was "part of our campaign against terrorism" and was "designed to disrupt the use of Afghanistan as a terrorist base of operations." [this war has continued onto the present-day]
2003 -- Iraq War. On March 21, 2003, President Bush reported to Congress, "consistent with the War Powers Resolution," as well as P.L. 102-1 and P.L. 107-243, and "pursuant to" his authority as Commander-in-Chief, that he had "directed US Armed Forces, operating with other coalition forces, to commence operations on March 19, 2003, against Iraq." He further stated that it was not possible to know at present the duration of active combat operations or the scope necessary to accomplish the goals of the operation "to disarm Iraq in pursuit of peace, stability, and security both in the Gulf region and in the United States." [this war still continues tody]

I found that as history came closer to the present, more so-called police actions were committed by the U.S. armed forces. That’s why it gets thin in the way of possessions of land. From evidence I reviewed, I believe the American Empire started to protect its citizens starting in the 1890s and increasing after the 1920s. During Pierce’s Administration (1853-57) there wasn’t acquisition of possessions as he exclaimed in his inauguration speech, but it was in the spirit of what he said. It was basically police actions to protect American interests:
- 1852-53 -- Argentina. - February 3 to 12, 1852; September 17, 1852 to April 1853. Marines were landed and maintained in Buenos Aires to protect American interests during a revolution.
- 1853 -- Nicaragua. - March 11 to 13. US forces landed to protect American lives and interests during political disturbances.
- 1853-54 -- Japan. Commodore Perry and his expedition made a display of force leading to the "opening of Japan."
- 1853-54 -- Ryukyu and Bonin Islands. Commodore Perry on three visits before going to Japan and while waiting for a reply from Japan made a naval demonstration, landing marines twice, and secured a coaling concession from the ruler of Naha on Okinawa; he also demonstrated in the Bonin Islands with the purpose of securing facilities for commerce.
- 1854 -- China. - April 4 to June 15 to 17. American and English ships landed forces to protect American interests in and near Shanghai during Chinese civil strife.
- 1854 -- Nicaragua. - July 9 to 15. Naval forces bombarded and burned San Juan del Norte (Greytown) to avenge an insult to the American Minister to Nicaragua.
- 1855 -- China. - May 19 to 21. US forces protected American interests in Shanghai and, from August 3 to 5 fought pirates near Hong Kong.
- 1855 -- Fiji Islands. - September 12 to November 4. An American naval force landed to seek reparations for depredations on American residents and seamen.
- 1855 -- Uruguay. - November 25 to 29. United States and European naval forces landed to protect American interests during an attempted revolution in Montevideo.
- 1856 -- Panama, Republic of New Grenada. - September 19 to 22. US forces landed to protect American interests during an insurrection.
- 1856 -- China. - October 22 to December 6. US forces landed to protect American interests at Canton during hostilities between the British and the Chinese, and to avenge an assault upon an unarmed boat displaying the United States flag.
- 1857 -- Nicaragua. - April to May, November to December. In May Commander C.H. Davis of the United States Navy, with some marines, received the surrender of William Walker, who had been attempting to get control of the country, and protected his men from the retaliation of native allies who had been fighting Walker. In November and December of the same year United States vessels Saratoga, Wabash, and Fulton opposed another attempt of William Walker on Nicaragua. Commodore Hiram Paulding's act of landing marines and compelling the removal of Walker to the United States, was tacitly disavowed by Secretary of State Lewis Cass, and Paulding was forced into retirement.

These actions in the 1850s made America into the so-called “global policeman”, years before Teddy Roosevelt’s Big Stick Policy, to use the U.S. Navy to gain global supremacy and keep the Western hemisphere under control of the federal government. As a result, America was not an isolationist state, rather it was involved in affairs of the world if it concerned the United States of America, its citizens or its interests. The report released by the Congressional Research Service last year confirmed these facts as valid. To justify this, let me define two terms: interventionism and isolationism. Isolationism, according to dictonary.com is: “the policy or doctrine of isolating one's country from the affairs of other nations by declining to enter into alliances, foreign economic commitments, international agreements, etc., seeking to devote the entire efforts of one's country to its own advancement and remain at peace by avoiding foreign entanglements and responsibilities.” By contrast interventionism is defined as “the use or threat of force or coercion to alter a political or cultural situation nominally outside the intervenor’s moral or political jurisdiction.” (http://www.iep.utm.edu/interven/). The United States did try to advance itself, but not all of its resources were devoted to betterment of the whole country. In addition, the U.S.A. did not isolate itself from the affairs of other nations and did not decline to enter foreign alliances, agreements, etc... as long as these affairs benefited the state of America. Efforts in what would now be called ‘police actions’, the U.S. military made sure that the U.S. never really remained at peace, even if it seemed there was peace. Peace means no war, and there have been armed conflicts throughout U.S. history. Before I get into more current arguments about isolationism and politics, I wanted to debunk another part of history many are thought in the classroom.

On Randi Forums a user commented: “Discussion "elsewhere" has made me aware that the idea that the US was strongly isolationist before Dec. 7th, 1941 still holds for some people. I'd like to take this opportunity to point out the results of polls taken by the Gallup organization and the Public Opinion Quarterly during 1939-1941 show that the US was NOT primarily isolationist. The fact of the matter is that many people were aware that we had to face up to the fact that we would drawn into the war, and, albeit it reluctant to face the maelstrom yet again, knew that we would have to fight the Axis.” I looked up the source that was quoted, the public opinion quarterly to see if this user was correct. I didn’t find that source exactly, but i found an essay about supposed isolationism before WWII: “At first glance, the empirical evidence seems to support this hypothesis. Polls taken from 1938 to late 1941 show that an overwhelming majority of the American public opposed direct U.S. involvement on the side of the allies...For example, a Gallup poll in June 1940 found that 72 percent of the respondents supported drafting men into the army “if enough men do not volunteer.” Moreover, a series of 10 Gallup polls from June to October of 1940 found that between 62 and 76 percent of respondents agreed that, “every able-bodied American boy twenty years old [should] be required to go into the army or navy for one year.” I tried to look more in depth on this issue and couldn’t find much more. Even if you were able to prove that America was isolationist in public opinion, the federal government continued a policy of interventionism. Even the government that we trust believes this is not true as conveyed on the State Department website. The website states: “During the 1930s, the combination of the Great Depression and the memory of tragic losses in World War I contributed to pushing American public opinion and policy toward isolationism. Isolationists advocated non-involvement in European and Asian conflicts and non-entanglement in international politics. Although the United States took measures to avoid political and military conflicts across the oceans, it continued to expand economically and protect its interests in Latin America.” Interestingly enough, the State Department goes against its own argument. From a source I used earlier, a 2004 Congressional Research Service report, it mentions four interventions in the 1930s
- 1932 and 1934 (China)
- 1933 (Cuba)
After 1934, there is a gap in U.S. involvement until 1940, which should show isolationism, accompanied by the end of an intervention in the Dominican Republic that year (http://www.maps.com/ref_map.aspx?cid=726,741,1029&pid=11333). So, America may have been isolationist for six years, from 1934 to 1940, but otherwise, the U.S. was not isolationist in its history. However, this led to war as acedemicamerican stated. That war was WWII.

The myth of isolationism up until 1941 in U.S. history is false but it is brought up again and again in political talk today. John McCain recently talked about parts of the Grand Old Party, or the Republicans, that oppose the current war in Libya. Real Clear Politics quotes him as saying:
“Well, I was more concerned about what the candidates in New Hampshire the other night said [about the Libyan war]. This is isolationism. There's always been an isolation strain in the Republican Party -- the Pat Buchanan wing of our party.” At the end of the article it concludes: “This is not isolationism; it is a rational effort at judging how best to advance American values and interests in an ever-more witheringly dangerous world. The charge of isolationism should be reserved for the genuine article. Such name-calling advances neither rational debate nor national interest.” I believe that America being isolationist (as it was for six years of its history (1934-1940)) could be disastrous, but complete interventionism is not good either. The American empire must balance it’s ability to stand up for human rights around the world and respect the sovereignty of other countries. In order for this to occur, America would have to close many if not all of its military bases across the world, military spending, material, and manpower would have to be reduced. The American government must remember “the best defense is the best offense.” In the end, like every empire, America’s stretching of armed forces will break the country as a whole and cause it to decline 20-30 years in the future, if not sooner.

The others: Democrats running for President in 2012

2011-06-26T20:10:00.001-04:00

I keep hearing about the Democratic party and how there is only one candidate running as the President, Barack Obama, but that’s not true. There is 22 Democrats are candidates in the 2012 Presidential race. I wanted to highlight the six I found that had websites. The others do not have websites and could be formidable candidates, which are all on the site, thegreenpapers.com. I compiled information on the political positions of each candidate by looking through each website. I also compiled the same information on Mr. Obama and will publish it soon.

I’ll start with Jeff Boss. Jeff Boss has very different positions from the average candidate. Mr. Boss believes NSA “ARRANGE [d] THE 911 ATTACK and has…WITNESSED THE TOP HIGHEST CLEARANCE IN THE NSA CALLING THE 911 HIJACKERS IN MARCH 2001 [from the evidence of] 212 NSA AGENTS ON DVD.” He seems to be very interested with this subject on the homepage of his campaign website. He even thinks the NSA is trying to kill him (maybe because he felt they would not like his challenge to their authority). Along with that, he has filed a court case against the NSA in the past because he is so passionate about this issue. In addition, he seems to be very paranoid about the NSA spying on him, but that could be because he filed a court case against them. Also, Mr. Boss believes “The NSA controls the media and prevents Jeff Boss’ message from being heard.” I think the media rejects him because they don’t think he is real candidate and seems a bit crazy or would not be accepted by enough of the population. I think that he may have trouble on the campaign trail. In a sort of conservative position he is against bailouts of any kind which I agree with because those companies should deal with themselves. If they broke apart, then that’s just what happens. On the economy, he has a free market perspective that rejects socialism (equality of all people for monetary purposes and according to Economics and Liberty is a “centrally planned economy in which the government controls all means of production”). He [believes] “when the government controls the big companies [it] is Russian style communism.” So this makes him a hard-nosed civil libertarian, with a position like some constitutionalists in Congress and elsewhere. He has a Ron Paul-like position on the country, as he stated that “Our Civil liberties, Constitution, and Democracy are rapidly disappearing.” It sounds similar to Ron Paul’s words: “…our liberties are rapidly fading before our eyes…rule of law is constantly rejected [in America] and authoritarian answers [are accepted as valid]…acceptance of…dictatorial powers to the President.” My conclusion is that he is a candidate who wants the truth, but is one who doesn’t agree with the American government’s narrative about the 9/11 attacks and he wants to tell what he says is the real story. Wille Felix Carter on the other hand is not a one issue candidate as Mr. Boss and covers almost all the issues.

Willie Felix Carter’s administration there would be a government “OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE” (I went through his positions to see if this was true). He promises on the homepage of his campaign website saying he “will take the God fearing approach, addressing the needs of all the people of our nation, the homeless, jobless, the elderly, the business community, moving forward to reduce our national debt, and dependency on foreign resources, fair international trade, maintaining a strong military, strong foreign diplomacy, and stopping the cycle of violence across our nation.” My question is: What is a strong military? Will the military be kept at current levels? It seems unsustainable at this time, but his other ideas could balance out a strong military. Also I fear that what he says is too broad and could led to more trampling on the Constitution by him if he was President and interpreting it in a way that does not help the American people. For those that want to reform the military, this is not your President. In his own words, he “believe[s] that we should leave the military forces intact as they are...concentrating...energy [on] strong diplomacy and [keep our] intelligence capabilities [intact, while]...reserving the military for greater force application when necessary.” On reference to the homeless he states: “We must work together to create a business friendly community, with incentives to encourage hiring, and working to ensure affordable housing.” I’ve read Michael Harrington’s The Other America and I believe that Mr. Carter’s plan is not enough to help the homeless. Housing must match the housing that is destroyed and more resources should be given to poor and the homeless to help them live better lives. On another subject, he promises to make affordable healthcare by “work[ing] with Congress [with the interest of cooperate America [in mind] and [insuring] small businesses that we not drive them out of competition in the process [of creating affordable healthcare].” This plan is nothing like Mr. Obama’s plan for healthcare but is sounds a lot like Mr. Obama’s plan in the sense of how it was constructed. So, I fear that this candidate will not change the healthcare system in place or could erase the current healthcare system and put in something much worse. In terms of the one of the chief concerns of Americans, jobs, he has an interesting tact. Mr. Carter states: “There must be a balance to insure that while creating jobs, we do not send businesses out of the market. I will work to insure fairness in the work place, and at the same time allowing for healthy business growth.” I feel that more must be done than Mr Carter suggests. Unemployment insurance must be extended to 99 weeks as it will help boost the economy, an idea this candidate would not warm up to. On a hotly debated topic in Congress these days because of the Libyan war, he is not completely antiwar, by partly. He states: “I will work diplomatically to resolve conflicts, and only with a clear vision resort to military power to protect the freedom of our nation, and our interest abroad.” I feel his approach could provoke interventions in other parts of the world, possibly. He takes an approach on crime that is different than most others. He wants to “improv[e] methods used in courts to properly identify those individuals that are a constant and dangerous threat with permanent residence in prison, and giving those who need minor adjustments opportunity to return to society, equipped to successfully restart their lives.” I don’t like the idea of permanent residence in prison or identifying individuals that are a threat, but I like the rest of his statement and I think that giving criminals an opportunity to return to society is step in the right direction. The multitude of positions he supports makes him like a Blue Dog Democrat in Congress. In addition, he is anti-abortion which could turn off certain people that could support him. On another hotly debated topic, taxes, his tax policy is bit obscure: “I believe that with proper involvement we can make our taxes fairer, and simplified.” It is hard to know if Mr. Carter wants to support the fair tax, have a surtax on millionaires or what his exact tax policy is. What is sure is that he wants reform of the tax system in place. He believes in education the importance of employment should be stressed and that every student needs a support network. On marriage, he takes a strong Christian position that a man and woman married can not have sexual relation outside a marriage. While Mr. Carter supports immigration law reform (“United States Immigration Law that needs to be seriously addressed as we see tension mounting about the responsibilities of maintaining our Federal laws”), he supports the current immigration laws that are on the books at this time. He is planning to “reduce taxes...to give taxpayers more buying power...[and to help solve the national debt].” Mr. Carter’s hope is that for self-sufficiency of the people of America to give “relief to the national debt.” To create jobs, he will call upon the American business community and educators. Like the rhetoric Presidents have repeated since Richard Nixon’s Administration, he wants to end dependence on foreign oil, in part by telling OPEC countries to cut production if they want stable prices and he will increase domestic production of energy. Despite what was said earlier, he promises to have just laws in place, but what he is proposing as just laws? In his mind, his proposals (such as punishing those who do not follow U.S. law, protecting the environment, ending war in Iraq and protecting U.S. industry) seem to be just. On the other hand, Dee Neveu is completely different candidate than Mr. Carter.

The next candidate was Deonia P. “Dee” Neveu who said she was a “real vote for the people.” Ms. Neveu said she would be accountable to the people and work only with the people, not corporations. She says “At times...if you want something done right, you have to do it yourself...is an ultimate truth and necessity.” I believe that this statement implies that she supports self-sufficiency. Its not usually a left-leaning position, but its the direction her policies could be headed. Like every candidate, she promises to uphold what she says in the campaign in office. To further this concept, she states sincerely: "I don’t want to make a false promise that I can’t keep, or lead any person to deception on a promise.” Her first promise is an idea that has its origins in Thomas Jefferson being a supposed vote for the people. Its an idea that dictates that she doesn’t “want to live in the White House [so]...part of the White House [can] host Fund Raising events for America [a process that] the citizens of America can help with...[when Ms. Neveu doesn’t live in the White House, it will] offer American citizens the glorious privilege and experience of the White House.” I believe that having a house for just the President is a bit much, as its seems like a King’s Castle. So, I agree that a President should live in a normal house, like everyone else and that it should be completely open to the American people while holding fundraising events. Also to support the American people, she is against outsourcing. Enthusiastically she states “American jobs need saving” which almost every American citizen would agree with. Every candidate and many politicians want to save American jobs, but like the others who have talked about American jobs, she doesn’t lay out a plan to save American jobs. But that plan could be coming in the future possibly. On another note, she wants to encourage service and volunteering by American citizens to help America. In addition, Ms. Neveu stated “I do believe that a President should be for helping everyone, both rich and poor [by having fair tax laws and through other means].” I agree that the President should help everyone, but he/she should also help themselves. I feel that Ms. Neveu would be fit to fulfill this idea of a President that helps the country. As an antiwar position, she says if America is provoked then we should attack that country and the borders of U.S. need to be protected. I do not completely agree with this because I think U.S. borders should be open and the U.S. should only attack countries if it is attacked itself (self-defense). Later on she states the often used point: “How can we continue to help everywhere else...when we need to help ourselves again right here in America [?]” On a personal level she doesn’t agree with abortion and same-sex marriage, but she won’t force her view on anyone else while believing that all people should be respected and live happily. On a final note, her views are different than the average candidate, making her have some promise as a Democratic candidate for U.S. President, even the next U.S. President and views very different from John Sawyer.

John W. Sawyer, III calls himself a conservative on his homepage. But, Mr. Sawyer states: “I support Unions. I'm against reducing Capital Gains taxes to create jobs (it doesn't), and against the death penalty.” But, Mr. Sawyer doesn’t support every union as for religious reasons he takes an anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage stance. Also, I believe that being against the death penalty is very liberal stance, so he is not a complete conservative. In addition, he respects religious beliefs of all (I hope so! Every candidate should support religious beliefs of all.) As President and in life, he will “never...ASSUME ANYTHING. IF I DIDN'T KNOW THE FACTS, I WOULD KEEP MY THOUGHTS TO MY SELF.” It is good to not assume anything and I commend him for his words, but you can’t always keep your thoughts to yourself. In a cynical position, he believes “Our elected officials don't know what they are doing” because of all the problems that exist in America at this current time. I think that is not putting faith in elected officials and is a pessimistic view of the world, not having the optimism that things will change. On foreign affairs, he dislikes Saudi Arabia and thinks they are duplicity driven because they say they are fighting terror when they support it (Osama Bin Laden was a Saudi national). In the same tune, Mr. Sawyer needs to come up with a Mideast policy to counter the current Mideast policy, since it world make him a stronger candidate. Later on in his blog, he even questions the government’s narrative relating to Osama’s death, thinking that the U.S. government may not be telling the truth or not the whole truth. I am a bit cynical of the government’s narrative myself, but I don’t want to take sides at this time saying that I support Mr. Sawyer’s statement or the government’s narrative. In addition, he proposes that Osama Bin Laden was taken alive from his compound which could be possibility, but not enough details have been released so it is hard to know the truth. But sometimes he too cynical, saying he dislikes all the Republican candidates other than Mitt Romney and that Congressman Paul Ryan’s plan would “drastically slash Medicare benefits...[they never] ask[ed] Seniors what THEY thought of their ideas [that] are based on one premise - Social Security and Medicare are going broke...Well, then by all means, cut the programs [but no one has the courage to cut them].” I believe that these programs should be reviewed to see if they can be limited to help solve the deficit, then the debt, but they should not be destroyed. Mr. Sawyer takes a good position on Mr. Ryan’s plan. In a somewhat downing note, he enthusiastically says “American is governed by losers” and concludes that “You're a loser. So am I. We continually make the same mistakes, over and over...[so] America [is not] great.” This is the saddest part of his website. It makes him seem like he doesn’t even have confidence in himself to win the election for U.S. President. But, he has the confidence to attack a sitting President.

In a attacking statement, Mr. Sawyers says President Obama “sandbagged [Israeli] Prime Minister Benjamin Netahayhu [when he announced the idea of Israel possible going back to pre-1967 borders].” This shows he is veriantly anti-Obama (and from his other comments from his blog proves this point) and hates Obama as a President. Hating a sitting President that much can be bad because when you get in office and see that what you wanted to cut or hated isn’t that bad after all then you may even up being like the previous President. I said earlier he hated Mr. Ryan’s plan. Well, made a plan to counter Mr. Ryan’s proposal: “Fund the existing programs...prosecute...$50 Billion in Medicare fraud...[Imprison]...freeloaders who subsist off SSI payments...Cut Medicaid.” Along with that, he states a unbelievable concept: “The Medicare and Social Security systems are NOT broke, they were burglarized...Th[ose] in both [political] parties stole those funds when no one was looking.” I don’t completely agree with his idea about Medicare and Social Security, but at times I don’t trust either political party, so I agree with the concept that the political parties are somewhat corrupt, corrupted by the lobbying efforts of other organizations. It cannot be argued that he is very passionate about this issue and wants to improve the Medicare and Social Security systems. As part of improving both systems he would “change the dynamics of the discussion by separating the terms 'Medicare' from 'Medicaid' [since] Medicaid is welfare - paid for by someone else [and not] pay[ing] medical costs for those here illegally.” I agree that both concepts should be seperated, but I think his way of thinking is bit cynical. In a completely different political position, wars and how they should be thought, his position is different than the average candidate. His position on war, partly antiwar related takes about: “Invoking the Sawyer Doctrine (Go to war only if it is in our best interest, and if you go to war - WIN), there should be no [un]intended consequences in war, unless the unthinkable happens and the United States actually loses - an unlikely scenario if the enemy is Moammar Gadhafi, even with a liberal President. We: attack...invoke martial law...install a puppet government until they are ready to rule on their own...in OUR best interest; then we leave.” I am scared if this Sawyer Doctrine when into effect because the U.S. could be going into countries even if they didn’t attack us, for American national interest. This is not a good thing. Installing puppet government is unacceptable and should result in jail time. The assumption that the U.S. will win every war is silly. However, later he violates his support of Libya as implied in the previous statement, saying he opposes the Libyan war: “Better that Libyans die for Libyan causes. Stay out of it, Mr. President [because those who live in the Mideast hate America].” I believe this flip-flopping is part of political discourse, but could be dangerous because maybe he will flip on his other political views throughout his term as President. In another note, he is against government expansion and is wary of any unnecessary expansion of government, an idea that is usually accepted by conservatives against big government. Strangely enough, he thinks some of those in the Tea Party are idiots and that liberal politicians don’t solve any problems in America as he is a conservative Democratic candidate (like a Blue Dog) even though he supports some of their policies! In the end, his political positions are a mixed bag, with him supporting the Arizona law, SB 1070, that allows racial profiling of illegal immigrants, so they can be questioned on their citizenship. Mike Maloney, is a very different candidate who doesn’t have Mr. Sawyer’s radical positions.

Mike Maloney, as the next President promises to “Bring the Troops Home Now and take care of social justice and financial sanity at home!” The money toward Mr. Obama’s campaign (supposedly up to a $1 billion) for his reelection in 2012 will be “from the super rich to promote their own interests” and Mr. Maloney will run a campaign that works for the people. He will only accept donations from people, not corporations or political action committee (PACS). In order to enact healthcare reform he says that there must be “a Legitimate Debate on Health Care Reform Must Include Medicare for All.” On the economy he has varied views, saying “[the] government cannot plan and direct the economy and cannot be seen as the “creator” of jobs...government must constrain businesses to some extent for the General Welfare, government officials [cannot] direct...business...
Government intervention to prop up failing businesses [is inefficient and [destroys]...productive segments of the economy.” Even though I am traditionally a progressive who wants to move forward, I think that government intervention in the economy, especially with stopping companies from bankruptcy is unacceptable. I believe the big companies should have never got money from the government and I believe it was the first major mistake by President Obama. Along with this, he even says that “History Shows Government Intervention Makes Recession Longer.” I can’t agree on the basis of history, but I believe that government intervention is the wrong idea to fix an economy (the stimulus bill did not lead to a recovery). Even though he is anti-bailouts as implied in the previous statement, he believes “Government Must Protect Free People from the Power of Great Combinations [in business such as monopolies and trusts].” I do not like monopolies or trusts so I was happy to see a candidate who would crack down on these companies, instead of sleeping at the wheel as the Obama administration and other government agencies have done. Along with all this talk, he proposes five ways to control the national debt: http://mikemoloneyforpresident.com/ourmainproblem.php.

In a similar tune, he opposes so-called ‘trickle-down economics’ because it does not allow the the greatest “National prosperity [is] when the working poor and the middle class prosper.” This situation is not happening today and I confident that Mr. Maloney will change it. In a darker note, he attempts to see into the secretiveness and leadership class of the world. According to him, each President in recent times is “[controlled by] some great power elite operating behind the scenes.” He states he will not be a President controlled by the elite, a change from our current President which at times seems under control of the elite. Along with the previous view of a world leadership class, Mr.. Maloney states that: “Big Oil...banks [and] media dismantled antitrust laws...Big Corporations pushed [for] free trade treaties...[that the] Super Rich hide their wealth offshore to escape taxation.” All of his statement are true as I can tell and I believe that the elite should be controlled for the betterment on the country. As one might not expect, he is a constitutionalist. In 2008, the year America’s current President was elected, he writes: “the President is not above the Rule of Law [so] President Bush should be indicted for violating the Constitution. As President he has violated it numerous times: torture, illegal wiretapping, illegal wars...In my opinion President Bush has turned my country into a rogue nation, a terrorist nation. I also hold President Obama totally responsible for continuation of the Bush practices. We must indict Bush and [remove] Obama [from office]” One of the harshest criticisms I have of Mr. Obama is continuing Bush’s policies. I agree that Mr. Obama cannot be President for another four years and Mr. Maloney should be chosen instead. Along with that, according to a voter’s letter to the editor he concludes: “Mike [Maloney] has said for a long time we have to: bring the troops home from around the world, cut the military budget in half to have money for critical domestic needs, (roads, bridges, water, and sewer systems), protect American jobs, replace a health care system built to generate profits and bonuses...restore due process, rights of habeus corpus and security from unwarranted search…restore the Eisenhower tax brackets that [America] prospered with...and replace the private Federal Reserve that charges...government interest for imaginary money.” All of these plans, that the voter lays out seem to be reasonable about would lead to an America that is more prosperous. Along with these comments on Mr. Maloney, many are confirmed in his plan for President in his first 100 days which he displays for every person to see. But, some positions weren’t included in my previous writing about Mr. Maloney included his views on how to: reform how candidates get campaign contributions, stop torture, uphold international law, restore America as a beacon of liberty and have just immigration reform. I think Mr. Mike Maloney is a very capable candidate for President of all of those I have reviewed.

I went through all the candidates for President except one, Randall A. Terry (http://www.terryforpresident.com/). Why didn’t I look into Randall Terry’s positions? Well, for one, most people already know who he is. Mr. Terry is an anti-abortion activist. A Washington Post article notes the history of Mr. Terry and his positions: “Randall Terry [talks] proudly extreme politics...founded Operation Rescue...denounce[s] murderous abortionists and demonic homosexual sodomites...he calls [Islam a] religion [of] “murderers” and “terrorists”...he described Planned Parenthood's founder, Margaret Sanger, as a “whore” and “adultress”...[he believes the Bible] condemn[s] homosexuality.” In an accompanying article by ThinkProgress (liberal-leaning) it says “[the] infamous Christian-right activist Randall Terry followed through on his scheme to destroy the Islamic holy book, tearing pages from an English copy this morning in front of the White House...saying protests related to the proposed Islamic community center near ground zero...“disrespect the memories of our loved ones on this sacred day...veteran right-wing rabble rouser.” Forerunner has even more information about Mr. Terry: “[Terry’s] Operation Rescue activists have been successful in closing down major clinics in cities such as Cherry Hill, New Jersey; Philadelphia, and New York City...[in response to a question he said] God never gave the government a blank check to do what it wants to do. It is a heresy to teach Christians to obey a law which runs counter to His law.” From my analysis of all the candidates I have decided that Jeff Boss is too extreme with his idea that the NSA planned 9/11,Willie Felix Carter’s positions on issues that are across the map like a Blue Dog Democrat, Dee Neveu who has some good ideas like not living in the White House but doesn’t go into detail about her positions and John Sawyer is too skeptical of everything. In conclusion, I believe that Mike Maloney is the best candidate to challenge Mr. Obama because he is the most promising with his ideas on how to change America.

Is Russia Today a mouthpiece of the Kremlin?

2011-06-18T17:45:00.013-04:00

I come upon this news service, Russia Today (RT), thinking it showed views other news didn't show. However, I was reading an article and from its conclusions I decided to look into the bias of the news channel. The description of their channel already shows their perspective: "RT is the first Russian 24/7 English-language news channel which brings the Russian view on global news" (from their official site.). Some argue what is said on this news channel is in line with the Russian government and the Kremlin.

Its hard to find articles that articulate RT's bias, but there is a few, such as Rightside News. In a long, almost angry rant against the owner of RT (Adam Kohesh), Rightside News says Russia Today serves interests of the Kremlin. They stated, “A closer look at the Moscow-funded Russia Today television channel...reveals some interesting and disturbing corporate and foreign intelligence connections...Russia Today....regularly features Marxist groups on the air...western intelligence services have been wary about Russia Today’s correspondents.” I looked into the claims made against RT by doing a thorough investigation.
I started with article titles. Some were very critical of America, while others weren’t. The ones that critiqued the U.S. were made everything seem like a crisis or that everything was lost:
- Headline-grabbing gossip replaces news in US
- Panetta may be just like Gates
- US must make cuts or risk economic failure
The title I found the most strange and peculiar was: Bush, Cheney listed alongside Hitler, Bin Laden. That seems a bit extreme. I know Bush and Cheney expediated the decline of the American federal republic, but I wouldn’t say they compare equally to Hitler or Bin Laden. In some ways they are comparable but in other ways they are not. But, every news source has a unfairness to it, so that’s not that extreme. However, more of their headlines showed that everything was crisis:
- Former colonel convicted of killing girl in Chechnya, shot dead in Moscow
- Bilderberg meets amid growing global strife
- Fukushima disaster drives into Ukraine

It’s those key words that clued me in that something could be very prejudice in their articles. It’s also possible they are like the U.S. news media that show their biases with flying colors. I kept digging deeper to see if it really was related to the Kremlin or if they are outwardly bias. Looking into what guests come on their TV network could show the opinion of this news organization.
Guests on Russia Today’s program in the past week, according to their youtube page. I added quotes next to each person on the list [Radical= Name bolded]:

- Saifedean Ammous (Quote from his personal blog: “Israel already has destroyed Palestine. Israel is the aggressor and occupier here. Israel is the result of a Zionist project whose stated aim is to destroy the livelihood of Palestinians who do not belong to the Jewish religion. Israel has ethnically cleansed more than a million Palestinians from their homes over the years, murdered tens of thousands, and made freedom and self-determination impossible for all Palestinians everywhere.”)
- Nigel Farage (Zero hedge.com: "The Euro Game Is Up... Just Who The Hell Do You Think You Are? You Are Very Dangerous People”)
- Ali Ashgar Soltanieh (National Post: [“The IAEA chief] is not doing his job. Instead, with his reports, he is paving the way for more confrontation between member states.”)
- Cynthia McKinney (twice) (Boycott Liberalism.com: "We know there were numerous warnings of the events to come on September 11th. What did this administration know and when did it know it, about the events of September 11th? Who else knew, and why did they not warn the innocent people of New York who were needlessly murdered? What do they have to hide?")
- Michael O'Brien (hist.cam.ac.ak: "Until recently, he has mainly written about the intellectual culture of the American South, both in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries: its literature, political philosophy, historical imagination, and sense of self, as it has been formed by local social experience and interactions with other cultures.”)
- Gennady Litvin (from Litivin Law firm video: “We’re being told the economy is starting to rebuild itself? We’re being told the market’s turning around, people are getting jobs again, people are making jobs again but it’s being reported by the news agencies that this year [2011] is going to be the biggest year for foreclosure sales ever. Why is that? Basically cause the banks are behind on their work.”)
- Richard Wolf (From his official website: “The unstable alliance of the Tea Party and corporate America will unravel. Then the left must provide an alternative to austerity.”)
- Tony Gosling (on his page on his site about the Bilderberg Group: “World Government is moving closer all the time - and what's the chance that it will serve the people? Zero! And hardly anybody tells the public or dares to talk about how totalitarian the European Union is. We could be in for some serious skullduggery in coming years/months. A political/financial crisis, combined with spiritual disinformation could push us into a Fourth Reich, New World Order, with an official world religion that claims to represent ALL religions. This is what Prince Charles is advocating NOW. Powerful people will certainly be preparing their version of a spiritual 'panacea' to fill the spiritual gap THEY have created.”)
- Rick Falkvinge (From a recent article: “The United States is utterly bankrupt and has been living off of borrowed money since 1971, when it defaulted on its loans — though of course, it wasn’t worded like that. Not even an income tax of 100% is enough to cover the expenses, and the US is about to go the way of the Soviet Union… The world has been buying IOUs without coverage to maintain the value of the previous IOUs, with no other creditworthiness than an assumption that the US will pay back some day. That day is not going to come, and we’re all going to be poor for a while.”)
- Alexander Cockburn (from an interview in 2005: “Yeah, globalism is great. It's been going on for hundreds of years. Oh yeah, I'm against globalism of the bad sort: some company in America going and screwing people in the Third World and not paying them properly.”)
- Patrick Henningsen (from article about Bin Laden: “If you have been paying attention to this story over the last 8 years, then it’s not very difficult to predict this. If you apply basic common sense, the evidence weighs in favour of Osama bin Laden having died years ago. Or you can choose to believe the Hollywood version of events that we have been fed over the years, one which requires no effort.”)
- Mikhail Margelov (from Global Zero: “For more than half of a century, nuclear weapons have coexisted with us and remained the most powerful means of destruction. The “Club of Nuclear Powers” has been steadily joined by new members of whom not all can boast of internal stability or absence of conflict with neighbor-countries. Moreover, the weapons can fall into the hands of terrorists.”)
- Jean Bricmont (from MRZINE: “The first observation is that military interventions are not due to human rights rhetoric but to the decision, by the leaders of the countries that have the power and the means to intervene, to do so. Given the way the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been going, I do not expect the US to launch new wars in the near future, except possibly with Iran. But the human rights rhetoric will continue as a way to demonize countries whose governments are too independent from the West, like Russia, Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, China etc. It will not necessarily lead to wars, but maintain a climate of hostility and distrust.”)
- Markus Kerber: (EurActiv: “Those who spit on the rules governing European Monetary Union will lose eventually.”)
- Afshin Rattansi (Counterpunch: “For some reason, not one journalist saw fit to attend a gathering of those interested in Unmanned Aerial Vehicles – or drones – at the plush Waldorf Hilton in central London. Except me and my cameraman. Perhaps one shouldn’t be surprised. The corporate media doesn’t seem too interested in the so-called surgical strikes carried out by the U.S. Air force as they buzz around the skies of Iraq, Somalia, Yemen, Afghanistan and Pakistan.”)
- Klaus Peter Koltermann (ozconspiracyhouse: “The [nuclear power plants in Japan] will…affect the coastline, where people live, where ports are, where railroads are, where tourism is developing. And here the direct assessment includes how this will happen, how large it will be and how much the damage will be. So we can advise for the governments’ and authorities’ planning how much the protection and preparation should be.”)
- Peter Schiff (from Euro Pacific Capital: “Economic data over the past weeks, punctuated by last week's dismal employment reports, confirm the diminishing impact of the stimulus efforts orchestrated by the Obama Administration and the Federal Reserve. In what must be a huge disappointment to Keynesian enthusiasts, the record doses of both monetary and fiscal narcotics did not produce the desired results. In fact, the size and scope of the "recovery" of the past two years was weaker than would have been expected in a typical business cycle recovery without any stimulus whatsoever. Indeed our current recovery is the weakest on record, despite the biggest jolt of government stimulus ever administered.”)
- Vladmir Katalov (Question asked on website—What do you see as the biggest security threats today? Mr. Katalov’s response: “It is definitely a human factor. There are a lot of technical measures today: you can install the words' best firewall, antivirus, anti-spyware; implement an extremely good security policy; provide a few complex levels of authentication to protect your critical data -- and still do not get the appropriate security level simply because the human nature remains the same, most of today's attacks are still based just on that.”)
- Dmitry Maslennikov (Endthelie.com: “We can forget about the idea of privacy altogether. Whenever you go on the internet, you are already revealing everything about yourself. And it is becoming that way with using your phone.”)
- Vitaly Churkin (Charlie Rose’s interview: “We need to think about the peaceful transformation [and]…reforms in Syria…and be mindful of the instability…we know there is some destructive elements of the [Syrian] opposition…[Assad’s regime has enacted reforms for his people in Syria]…our idea in [Libya] is that there must be a ceasefire as soon as possible because it can produce a situation where civilians will no longer suffer. Then there can be political process…[The United States and Russia] are cooperating on Iran…We are trying to help the Israelis and the Palestinians move toward peace in the region…[The next Russian election] might [see a contest between the President and Prime Minister].”)
- Jean Bricmont (Counterpunch: “All the ideological signposts for attacking Iran are in place. The country has been thoroughly demonized because it is not nice to women, to gays, or to Jews. That in itself is enough to neutralize a large part of the American “left” [that would champion]…the right of intervention on humanitarian grounds anywhere, at any time…Israel and its fanatical American supporters want Iran attacked for its political crimes--supporting the rights of the Palestinians, or questioning the Holocaust. Both U.S. political parties are equally under the control of the Israel lobby, and so are the media.”)
- Max Keiser (from his website: “Gold remains close to record nominal highs in all major currencies but media coverage in the UK, Ireland and Europe remains minimal and skeptical.”)
- Michel Chossudovsky (from globalresearch: “While the US Congress questions the legitimacy of the war on Libya, the Canadian parliament with one dissenting voice, votes in favor of extending Canada's participation in an illegal and criminal military undertaking…The broader implications of this "humanitarian war” and Ottawa's role in the US-NATO military alliance, not to mention the cost of this military operation to Canadian taxpayers has been barely mentioned in Canada's media. The New Democratic Party (NDP) and the Bloc Quebecois, which claim to be "progressive' and “antiwar”, have given a blank cheque to the US-NATO sponsored war in North Africa.”)
- Chris Nineham (from Twitter feed: “New poll: 52% in Britain want troops out of Afghanistan NOW! Independent today… Stop the war coalition have called a national demonstration for troops out of Afghanistan on October 24. Start spreading the word.”)
- Hamid Gul (from one of Pakistan’s top Generals, Mr. Gul: “We are walking into an American trap [because 9/11 is a hoax].”)
- Adam Kohesh (from his twitter feed: “Fox News is owned by an Australian and a Saudi. No wonder they're so anti-American!”)
- Marc Almond (from his blog: “The humanitarian bombers are repeating the propaganda from their Kosovo intervention in 1999. Mass murder, government organised rape camps with mercenaries fired up on Viagra, and so on are the staples of Washington’s increasingly hysterical denunciations of Gaddafi as it turns out that his family has more support than the glib proponents of hellfire missiles as humanity’s preferred way to protect civilians would have had us believe.”)
- Matt Taibbi (from his Rolling Stone blog: “We justices of the Supreme Court of Assholedom had an extraordinarily difficult time adjudicating the case of New York Congressman Anthony Weiner, who in recent weeks has achieved incredible notoriety for … what exactly? Even defining the nature of this scandal is problematic; it is extremely difficult to distinguish here between what he actually did wrong, and what’s merely a luridly gripping tabloid crucifixion of a guy exhibiting run-of-the-mill mongo-horniness.”)
- Pepe Escobar (from Asia Times: “The House of Saud is showering billions of dollars on a "new Egypt", an imploding Yemen and a suddenly more useful Muslim Brotherhood as the great Arab revolt is smothered under a mountain of oil wealth. Washington has meanwhile granted its own loaded gifts to Cairo, while quietly working with Bahrain's crown prince on the Persian Gulf American satrapy.”)
- Seyed Mohammad Marandi (from Guernica Magazine: “When the U.S. is constantly trying to terrorize the nation with threats of war, students obviously take notice. When my nine-year-old-son, after watching the U.S. vice president talk on TV, sadly, asks me if the Americans are going to kill all of us, then one can expect students also to show an interest in current affairs.”)
- Conn Hallinan (From Foreign Policy in Focus: “On the surface, the recent turmoil in Teheran looks like a case of the clerical elite, led by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, slapping down an independent-minded President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, though the battle is couched in vocabulary that does more to obscure than to reveal… So far, the Revolutionary Guard has come down on the side of Khamenei and even issued a veiled warning to the president that it might consider releasing records from the disputed 2009 election that saw Ahmadinejad re-elected. For now, the Guard is only intervening discretely, concentrating instead on gathering greater economic power.”)
- Tariq Ali (From The Guardian: “Bin Laden had apparently been in a safe house near the Pakistan military academy for six years. Nobody believes this could have happened without the knowledge of senior intelligence officials. A meeting with one such person in 2006, which I recounted in my last book on Pakistan, confirmed that Bin Laden was in the country and being kept safe. The person concerned told me the Americans only wanted Bin Laden dead, but that it was in Pakistan's interest to keep him alive.”)
- James Corbett (From the Corbett Report: “The bin Laden family has had an intimate relationship with the upper reaches of global power politics for the past half a century…In the weeks after the attack, the Taliban offered to hand Bin Laden over if the US provided proof that he was connected to 9/11. Bush turned the offer down…The only thing we can say for certain is that the Osama Bin Laden character has now been disposed of in a far-fetched burial story only fitting of his cartoonish myth… But after finally waking from the 10 year nightmare of the Osama Bin Laden fable, are the public willing to go straight back to sleep? Or are they going to start questioning the official narratives that are cemented into place in the wake of every large-scale event…?”)

On the list above, I bolded the names of those I thought were radical. I combined the definitions of Webster’s New World Dictionary and Roget’s II Thesaurus. A radical is defined as: “Having political views that deviate from traditional beliefs; favoring fundamental or extreme change.” 15 of the guests fulfilled this definition and that’s 44% of the guests on the show! There is nothing wrong with radicals; it could just make the news channel bias toward the radicals. Although its not the majority of those the guests, it seems to influence the content of the news network (why else would they be allowed on the show?). Recently I has a back and forth conversation with someone about Russia Today.

I was searching around Twitter and I sent another user a message asking him about RT’s bias

Even though at a first glance it seems to prove Russia Today’s bias, it really didn’t prove anything and was circumstantial evidence. There wasn’t much else until I delved into their website even more. I went on the side of their homepage and found a poll. At first there seemed nothing wrong until you look at the options presented:

What’s interesting about the poll is that none of the options mentioned a cease-fire in Libya. Three of the four options I identified as “Western” positions on the Libya war (they have orange boxes around them). The first option would be a hawkish (pro-war) position for those who want to fight “terrorism” and want to gain more imperial power for their country and to dominate parts of the world. If the first option is put into place, there would be chaos across Libya and possibly a radical group could become the new leadership class of the country. The third option is a “Western” position of those called liberal constructionists or neoliberals in international politics that support the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine. If it is applied all around the world, it would justify interventions in any country at any time. The forth option would be a passive Westerner who doesn’t care about politics or world happenings at all. If everything stayed the same, it would most likely result in a stalemate and nothing would be accomplished from this unconstitutional -unlawful-costly war in Libya. The second option is only one that I believe would represent the point of view of the Russians. Russians believe the “Western” powers need to leave Libya so more civilians are not killed or injured unnecessarily (respectfully, some Americans also have this point of view). This poll criticizes those who live in “Western” countries (Western Europe, U.S. and Canada), especially American policy.

In conclusion, I have found Russia Today (RT) is not the mouthpiece of the Kremlin, but has anti-American sentiment. The guests on the shows aren’t radical for the most part (56% are not radical, 44% are), but that’s not the reason for the bias. At every chance the hosts of RT and its affiliates can, they paint America in crisis or in distress. Despite it seeming a good alternative to the flawed corporate media, it is really a news machine that wants to make Russia like the global crusader for good. It makes America look like the evil “global policeman” who wants to terrorize the world. Supposedly, according to RT, the United States of America a police state, but it’s never mentioned that the Russian Federation is even more corrupt because of the overarching control of the wealthy in the country. As a concerned citizen, I recommend you do not watch RT unless you want to become anti-American yourself and want a perspective of the news that is not fair and balanced, but is unfair and discriminatory.