The Politics Page
art by Ruben Salazar
"It appears the only weapon of mass destruction in Iraq
- Peter Drekmeier, activist
"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard
even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a
precedent that will reach to himself."
This section of our website was begun October 2003 because
it seemed important, for example, to pass along to you some of the third- party
political difficulties facing any real alternative to the U.S. Demopublican/Republicrat
by Eric Leser, Le Monde
The biggest private investor in the world is Carlyle,
deeply entrenched in the weapons' sector
Bill Clinton and the
ìAnybody But Bushî Movement
Election a 'win-win situation'
for secretive Bonesmen - Kerry and Bush = Skull
and Bones Society
Jump down to George W. Bush's
Clinton and the ìAnybody But Bushî Movement
from Question Everything (syndicated to Alternative
Press Review online)
If the democrats take power this November they will probably continue the same
policies as Bush. We know this because Clinton did basically the same
thing when he was in office. To think otherwise is to ignore history and
the democrat's records. The "Anybody but Bush" (ABB) movement is
founded on a basically irrational hatred of Bush that completely ignores the
record of the democrats the last time they were in power. The ABB movement
practices a double standard: when republicans do something itís wrong but when
democrats do the same thing itís okay (or didnít happen at all). In
party politics it is always the other partyís fault, never the systemís
fault. If a democrat were in office and implemented the same policies Bush
has most of the ABBers would support him. We know this because Clinton
implemented many of the same policies ABBers criticize Bush for yet they
didnít develop the same kind of hatred towards Clinton they have towards Bush.
Most outright supported Clinton and the minority who didnít support him did
not develop the kind of irrational hatred towards Clinton they have towards
There are major continuities between Clintonís policies and Bushís policies,
even if their rhetoric is different. These continuities also illustrate
the flaw in thinking that putting a democrat back in office will be a big change
for the better. The last time a democrat was in office he did pretty much
the same thing the current occupant is doing, so given that the current nominee
doesn't disavow Clinton thereís no reason to think the next democrat in the
White House will be much different.
record isnít very good, but neither was Clintonís. During the 1992
election campaign Clinton and Gore
promised to shut down the East Liverpool incinerator, which spews toxic
chemicals into the air a quarter of a mile away from an elementary school, but
once elected they refused to do so. The Clinton
administrationís enforcement of the endangered species act was lax and he
weakened it through several means, including the ìno surprisesî and ìsafe
harborsî policies. Funding of mass transit continued to decline under
Clinton ended the ban on production and importation of PCBs, stopped the phase
out of Methyl Bromide (a toxic pesticide and ozone layer depleter), supported
the weakening of the safe drinking water act (by allowing increased levels of
arsenic and lead in drinking water), signed the Salvage Rider law (which cut
down thousands of acres of healthy forests), signed the Panama declaration
(which weakened protection for marine mammals including dolphins and whales),
supported international distribution of Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone,
supported mountain top removal strip mining, continued subsidizing the sugar
industry in Florida (which poisons the Everglades & diverts water away from
wildlife that needs it), and lowered grazing fees on public land. Clinton
also supported the World Trade Organization (WTO), which weakened or removed
environmental protections, including the weakening of the clean air act and the
removal of part of the Endangered Species act's protection of sea turtles.
In 1996 former Sierra Club President David
Brower wrote, "President Clinton has done more to harm the
environment and to weaken environmental regulations in three years than
presidents Bush and Reagan did in 12 years."
Many in the ABB movement attack Bush for reducing civil liberties through things
like the PATRIOT act. Yet, almost all democrats in congress
vote for the patriot act and Bill
Clinton supported many measures that reduced civil liberties and expanded
the police state. He signed the Anti-Terrorism
and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, the forerunner to the PATRIOT act.
It allowed the INS to deport immigrants based on secret evidence, made it
a crime to support the lawful activities of any group the state department
labeled a ìterrorist organization,î and eliminated federal constitutional
review of state death penalty cases (making the execution of innocent people
more likely). Much of the PATRIOT act consists of things that
Clinton was unable to pass during his term.
Clinton encouraged the militarization of the police, including a program to put
100,000 more cops on the street. This lead to political
repression, seen at Seattle, and more recent actions as well as a general
increase in police brutality, such as the police torture of Abner Louima and the
1999 murder of Amadou
Diallo (who was shot 41 times by police claiming they thought his wallet was
a gun). Clinton supported Internet censorship, signing the
Communications Decency Act - which the Supreme Court fortunately struck down on
first amendment grounds. When he ran for election in 1992
Clinton pledged to free political prisoner Leonard Peltier, but he was still in
prison when Clinton left office. The rate of capital
punishment increased under Clinton, as did the rate of incarceration.
Clintonís expansion of the prison system, due mainly to the ìwar on
drugs,î caused the United States to imprison more people than any other
country in the world, both in absolute terms and as a percentage of population.
All of this was done at a time when crime rates were decreasing.
Democrats attack Bush over the poor state of the economy, but the economy
actually started going downhill at the very end of Clinton's administration, in
late 2000. The stock bubble of the 1990s caused the recession
and it occurred while Clinton was in office. Clinton's boom
was founded on corporate fraud from the likes of Enron and WorldCom.
The corporate crime wave occurred mainly while Clinton was in office,
whose administration was just as complicit as Bush. It was
just exposed while Bush was in office. The reason most
Democratic leaders haven't attacked Bush over this is because they're just as
much in bed with these criminals as the Republicans. Most of
the benefits from Clinton's boom went to the wealthier sections of society.
Economic inequality increased under Clinton, just as it has under Bush.
None of this excuses the Bush's handling of the economy, his administration's
response to the recession it inherited from Clinton has been awful, but there
are strong continuities with the Clinton administration.
Liberals often criticize Bush over his tax cuts for the rich and generally
waging a class war in favor of the rich, but Clinton did the same thing.
Clinton reduced the capital gains tax rate in 1997. This
disproportionately benefits the rich, since a large percentage of their income
comes from capital gains but most Americans make little or nothing from capital
gains. Corporate welfare (subsidies and tax loopholes for the rich &
big business) greatly increased under Clinton's administration, in his second
term alone corporate welfare rose by over 30%. Clinton also attacked the
poor by, among other things, abolishing the Aid to Families with Dependant
Children program ("welfare reform"). The increase
in poverty under Bush is, in part, due to this class war against the poor by
Clinton, which undermined the social safety net. After
winning election in 1992 Clinton made Lawrence
Summers an official in his administration and later appointed Summers his
last Treasury Secretary in 1999. Before Clinton was elected,
in 1991, Summers, then chief economist for the World Bank, issued a memo
"Just between you and me, shouldn't the
World Bank be encouraging MORE migration of the dirty industries to the LDCs
[Less Developed Countries]? ... I think the economic logic behind dumping a load
of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable and we should face up to
that. ... I've always though that under-populated countries in Africa are vastly
UNDER-polluted ... The problem with the arguments against all of these proposals
for more pollution in LDCs (intrinsic rights to certain goods, moral reasons,
social concerns, lack of adequate markets, etc.) could be turned around and used
more or less effectively against every Bank proposal for liberalization."
Some democrats attack Bush over outsourcing, but Clinton supported NAFTA,
GATT, the WTO and "free trade" generally, which caused outsourcing to
go from a trickle to the current flood. Under Clinton the
budget for the federally funded Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC)
increased by over 30%. OPIC gives loans and guarantees to
companies intended to encourage investment in "developing" countries,
which tends to encourage outsourcing. For example, Kimberly
Clark transferred 600 jobs to other countries as a result of this funding and
Levi Strauss transferred 100 jobs overseas for the same reason. In
other words, the government gives loans to companies, through OPIC, to ship
American jobs overseas and Clinton increased OPIC's budget from under $100
million to $3 billion. Under Clinton 14% of OPIC's loans went
to Citibank. Robert Ruben, one of Clinton's Treasury
Secretaries, became director of Citibank after leaving office. Under
Bush OPIC's budget decreased to $800 million. The problem
with outsourcing is not that it "steals American jobs," as
nationalists argue, but that it replaces relatively high paying jobs with lower
paying jobs, causing the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer.
Clinton's policies were even more pro-outsourcing than Bush's.
Bush's policies on the media tend to favor the concentration of the media into a
few large corporations. So did Clinton's policies.
He signed the 1996 Telecommunications Act and the Digital Millennium
Copyright Act, which encouraged media monopolization at least as much as Bush.
Bush has a poor record on gay rights, but Clinton's record (if not his rhetoric)
wasn't much better, as shown by his signing of the Defense of Marriage Act and
his "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.
On abortion, Clinton signed an order banning
any American funds to pay for abortions overseas. Bush only
expanded this to include cutting off funds to any group that offers abortion as
an alternative. Under Clinton the number of abortion
providers dropped to the lowest in 30 years. A large number
of counties donít have abortion providers. This effectively
denies many women the choice to have an abortion since if there is no abortion
provider around then you obviously canít choose to have an abortion.
Clintonís foreign policy could best be described as ìcruise missile
imperialism.î ABBers attack Bush for his alleged unilateral
ìgo it aloneî foreign policy and for invading Iraq on false pretenses.
Both were largely a continuation of Clintonís policies.
Clinton increased funding for the military. He also bombed
more countries than any other peacetime president, including Yugoslavia, Sudan,
Iraq, Somalia and Afghanistan. In 1998 he bombed alleged
terrorist training camps in Afghanistan (which were built by the CIA for Islamic
terrorists in the 1980s) supposedly being used by Osama Bin Laden and a factory
in Sudan Clinton alleged was producing chemical weapons for Bin Laden.
No proof that this factory was producing chemical weapons was ever
provided and it was later proven that the plant was actually a medicine
factory. This probably resulted in thousands of deaths
(there was no investigation so we canít know the exact number) because the
source of medicine for many Sudanese was cut off.
When Bush invaded Iraq, he went to the UN and attempt to get international
support and UN approval to invade Iraq. He failed to get that
support and invaded anyway but he at least tried to get UN approval.
When Clinton attacked Yugoslavia in 1999 he didnít even try to get UN
approval, he just bypassed it completely in favor of a unilateral assault.
Nineteen nations, all of NATO, technically signed up to the war but the
US (with UK assistance) took the lead role and did most of the fighting, just
like Bushís ìcoalitionî in Iraq. Most of the world was
against the war, there were even small riots in front of US embassies.
Unlike the Iraq war, the US did have the support of West European
governments, but the rest of the world was against it (some were extremely
upset). One of the administrationís slogans was
ìmultilateral when we can, unilateral when we must,î which is virtually the
same as Bushís policy.
In Yugoslavia the government was fighting a war with the Kosovo Liberation Army
(KLA), which advocated independence for the Kosovo
province of Yugoslavia. The official pretext for Clintonís
bombing of Yugoslavia was that it refused to sign up to the Rambouillet peace
accords and was committing ìethnic cleansingî (genocide) in Kosovo as part
of the war. These pretexts were disproved, just as the
pretexts for the Iraq war were disproved. Clinton
intentionally sabotaged the peace negotiations between the KLA and Yugoslavia,
which the US mediated, by inserting the infamous ìAppendix Bî into the
Rambouillet accords, requiring Yugoslavia to allow NATO ìpeacekeeperî troops
to occupy the entire country (not just Kosovo). Obviously,
Yugoslavia is not going to agree to just let the US take the whole country over.
During the war all sorts of allegations were thrown around about hundreds of
thousands of Kosovars being massacred, rape camps being set up, mass graves
littering the province and so on. NATOís own
investigations, after the war was over, failed to find any proof of these
accusations. There were atrocities, as in almost every war,
but nothing even remotely approaching genocide. NATOís
bombings killed more people than the so-called ìethnic cleansingî which
allegedly motivated it. Just as there were no weapons of mass
destruction in Iraq, there was no ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. Furthermore,
the CIA later admitted that it began supporting the KLA even before the bombing
started. In other words, Clinton intentionally instigated the
whole conflict, using the KLA as a proxy army to attack Yugoslavia and create a
situation where he would have an excuse to bomb the country.
Clintonís policy towards Iraq set the stage for the invasion of Iraq.
In 1998 Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act, which made regime change
in Iraq official US policy. Clinton waged a terrorist car
bombing campaign against Iraq, whose targets included school buses, and
attempted to overthrow the Iraqi government via coup. Madeline
Albright, who later became Clintonís secretary of state, said in a May 1996
interview on ì60 Minutesî that she thought the death of 500,000 Iraqi
children due to sanctions on Iraq was ìworth the price.î
Clinton repeatedly bombed Iraq throughout his term. In 1998
Iraq stopped cooperating with weapons inspectors, claiming they were being used
by the US as spies. Clinton had the inspectors withdrawn and
launched Operation Desert Fox, a major bombing campaign against Iraq much larger
than his previous bombings of Iraq. Afterwards the US
continued bombing Iraq on an almost daily basis until the invasion. A
later UN investigation found that Iraqís allegations were true; the US was
using the inspectors to spy on Iraq. Bush merely escalated
Clintonís aggression against Iraq from a low intensity war to a full-fledged
invasion, an escalation that probably would not have been possible had Clinton
not been laying siege to Iraq for his entire term. Clintonís
bombings of Iraq were completely unilateral, without UN approval and carried out
solely by the US and UK.
Clintonís pretexts for all this were the same pretexts used by Bush to invade
Iraq, but with more emphasis on weapons
of mass destruction and less emphasis on Al-Qaeda. On
February 4th, 1998 Clinton said, "One
way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons
of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom
line." On February
17th, 1998 he said, "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to
use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed
by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." In
of Operation Desert Fox on December 16th, 1998 Clinton argued
that, ìSaddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his
neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weaponsî
and that, ìThe best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new
Iraqi government.î On February 18th, 1998
Secretary of State Madeline Albright said, ìIraq
is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For
the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or
biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we
National Security Adviser Sandy Berger warned, ìhe [Saddam Hussein] will
use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.î
The state department kept Iraq on its list of states that it claims ìsponsor
terrorismî every year Clinton was in office. Part of a 1998
indictment of Osama Bin Laden by Clintonís justice department read, "Al
Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would
not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically
including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the
Government of Iraq." The use of the fact that Iraq
under Saddam Hussein was a dictatorship in order to demonize Iraq and justify
aggression towards it has been a staple part of US war propaganda since the Gulf
War and continued to be so under Clinton. All the lies used
by Bush to justify conquering Iraq were inherited from Clinton.
Senator Hillary Clinton voted for the invasion of Iraq and her husband agrees
with her stance. Bill Clinton supports the war; he only
differs with Bush in that he thinks it would have been better to wait a little
longer before invading. In a June 2004 interview he told Time
magazine, ìI have repeatedly defended President Bush against the left on
Iraq Ö I don't believe he went in there for oil. We didn't go in there for
imperialist or financial reasonsî and that ìYou couldn't responsibly
ignore [the possibility that] a tyrant had these [weapons of mass destruction]
stocks. I never really thought he'd [use them]. What I was far more worried
about was that he'd sell this stuff or give it away. Ö So that's why I thought
Bush did the right thing to go back. When you're the President, and your country
has just been through what we had, you want everything to be accounted for.î
He also claimed after the weapons inspectors left Iraq in 1998:
ìthere were substantial quantities of botulinum and aflatoxin, as I recall,
some bioagents, I believe there were those, and VX and ricin, chemical agents,
unaccounted for. Keep in mind, that's all we ever had to work on. We also
thought there were a few missiles, some warheads, and maybe a very limited
amount of nuclear laboratory capacity.
After 9/11, let's be fair here, if you had been President, you'd think, well,
this fellow bin Laden just turned these three airplanes full of fuel into
weapons of mass destruction, right? Arguably they were super-powerful chemical
weapons. Think about it that way. So, you're sitting there as President, you're
reeling in the aftermath of this, so, yeah, you want to go get bin Laden and do
Afghanistan and all that. But you also have to say, well, my first
responsibility now is to try everything possible to make sure that this
terrorist network and other terrorist networks cannot reach chemical and
biological weapons or small amounts of fissile material. I've got to do that.
That's why I supported the Iraq thing. There was a lot of stuff unaccounted
During the 2000 election Bush, unlike Gore, was against ìnation buildingî
(taking other countries over, like in Iraq and Afghanistan) but that was
obviously thrown out the window. Gore called for increasing
military spending by $10 billion over the next ten years, while Bush only wanted
to raise it by $5 billion over the next ten years. According
to Clinton foreign policy adviser Strobe
Talbott, "the Bush administration was right to identify Iraq as a
major problem. A President GoreÖwould have ratcheted up the pressure, and
sooner or later resorted to force." Subjected to the
same political pressures as Bush and surrounded by advisers like Talbott, Gore
would have probably reacted to events in a manner similar to Bush. Those
who argue that Gore would have been less aggressive than Bush and would not have
invaded Iraq are arguing that the more aggressive & militaristic candidate
would actually have been less aggressive & militaristic, which is fairly
The invasion of Iraq was the outcome of geopolitics and a changed domestic
situation, not which man occupied the White House. After the
gulf war the US laid siege to Iraq with sanctions and bombings. As
this siege progressively degraded Iraqís military an invasion became more
likely, because defeating Iraqís military in a war became easier & cheaper
the more the siege degraded it. At the same time, attempts to
overthrow the government and install a pro-US one through terrorism, coups, etc.
continually failed. The failure of these covert attempts to
topple the government and the decreasing costs & risks of an invasion
created pressure to invade Iraq, which, given enough time, would eventually lead
to an invasion. This process was accelerated by 9-11 because
it decreased domestic opposition to wars in general and enabled the government
to decrease opposition to the invasion by scaring the public with fantasies
about how Iraq was working with Al-Qaeda to launch terrorist attacks on the US.
The same pretext of ìfighting terrorismî could be used to keep US
bases in the region for as long as the government wanted. 9-11
accelerated many of these trends, but they were still basically a continuation
of Clintonís policies.
position is not founded on the policies Bush has implemented, which they
complain about. If it were they would be Clinton haters, too.
Most ABBersí position is based primarily on a blind irrational hatred
of the other party and, partly, also a reaction to the different media images of
Clinton & Bush. When Clinton ran for office he claimed to
advocate a mildly liberal reformist platform, once in office he abandoned it and
went with a conservative program. Today, most leaders of the
Democratic Party donít even pretend to support that mildly populist reformism
Clinton espoused in 1992. To think that the next democratic
administration will be any different is asinine. Clintonís
administration gives us an example of what we can expect if the democrats take
power this November: more of the same.
Who would you rather have appointment-power for judges including U.S. Supreme
Court justices? Bush or Clinton? Or Kerry? A valid question,
no? - JL, Culture Change
'win-win situation' for secretive Bonesmen
By Kris Millegan
Both major presidential candidates are members of a small secret society at
Yale University - the Order of Skull & Bones. On different Sunday
mornings, "Meet the Press" anchor Tim Russert asked George Walker
Bush and John Forbes Kerry if they could talk about their memberships in this
172-year-old clandestine club.
Tossed off with nervous laughter, their answers were, "It's so
secret that I can't talk about it," and, "Not much, because it's a
Should citizens be concerned about this unwillingness to discuss an
elite organization? Is it relevant? Don't we all have the freedom to
fraternize with whom we please? Aren't Lions, Kiwanis, Elks and similar
organizations used by many in pursuit of business and political connections?
William Huntington Russell founded the Order of Skull & Bones in
1832 after he returned from studies in Germany. The Russell family's business
- Russell & Co. - was the premier American opium shipper and the third
largest in the world. In the 1830s, opium became the world's largest
commercial commodity, and the maneuverability and speed of the American
clipper ships laid foundations of great wealth with the smuggling of opium
into China. Many of the fortunate sons of Russell & Co. families were sent
to Yale and were "tapped" into the Order of Skull & Bones.
Fifteen new members are chosen each year from the junior class at Yale.
After initiation rites that include simulated murder, the kissing of a skull
and chants about the devil and death, they are known as Knights during their
senior year. Reportedly, members hold weekly sessions in which they talk about
their sex lives, which some say helps forge a strong fraternal bond. The
initiates have privileges beyond those enjoyed by fellow students - including
a near million-dollar clubhouse, a private island and access to a
distinguished and powerful cadre of fellow Bonesmen.
Three Bonesmen have occupied the Oval Office: William Howard Taft (who
also served as chief justice of the Supreme Court), George Herbert Walker
Bush, and his son. Members have included more than 20 U.S. senators, three
U.S. Supreme Court justices and myriad lesser officials.
The order is legendary in its promotion of its members above all others.
As a Yale alumnus noted in 1905 about the senior secret society system at
Yale, "the best man doesn't always win."
George W. Bush has appointed 11 fellow Bonesmen to government jobs: Evan
Griffith Galbraith, adviser to the U.S. mission to NATO; William Henry
Donaldson, chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission; George Herbert
Walker III, U.S. ambassador to Hungary; Jack Edwin McGregor, member of the
advisory board of the St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corp.; Victor Henderson
Ashe, member of the board of directors of the Federal National Mortgage
Association; Roy Leslie Austin, U.S. ambassador to Trinidad and Tobago; Robert
Davis McCallum Jr., associate attorney general; Rex Cowdry, associate director
of the White House's National Economic Council; Edward McNally Sr., associate
counsel to the president and general counsel to the Office of Homeland
Security; David Batshaw Wiseman, an attorney in the Justice Department's Civil
Division; and James Emanuel Boasberg, an associate judge on the Superior Court
of the District of Columbia.
Taft and George H. W. Bush were both one-term presidents. George W's
secret name in the order is reported to be "Temporary." Will he be
the first member of the Order of Skull & Bones to serve two terms, in
spite of his secret name, or will he hand the reins of government to his rival
Bonesman, John Kerry?
This is the first time that both major candidates are members of Skull
& Bones. There has been little discussion of the order in Democratic and
Republican circles. The Washington Post assigned Bonesman Dana Milbank to
cover the election, and he hasn't brought the question up. Even Ralph Nader
has been quiet. Is this because Nader's sometimes lawyer and long-standing
associate, Donald Etra, is Skull & Bones 1968, and a good friend of George
Author Antony Sutton in the 1980s called attention to the order's
predilection for trying to politically influence both the left and the right.
Is our current presidential election a contest between the two best candidates
for the job, or a cynical dialectic ploy for control of our republic and our
As a Bonesman is reported to have said about Bush vs. Kerry, "It's
a win-win situation."
Maybe it is for the order.
But what about the rest of us?
September 30, 2004 Kris
Millegan (email@example.com) lives in Noti and works as a writer and
publisher. His book, "Fleshing Out Skull & Bones," is available
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C.
Section 107, the above article is distributed without profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research
and educational purposes. Culture Change has no affiliation whatsoever with
the originator of this article nor is Culture Change endorsed or sponsored by
A Kucinich for President
campaigner throws down the gauntlet: Les Jeux Sont Faits
The falsehoods out of Condoleeza
Rice's mouth on dealing with 9-11: credibility
gap taints whole administration as fools. See our 9-11
order leaves troops, reporters speechless (the Rocky Mountain News comments on Bush's
of dissent worst since McCarthyist era
Bush planned Iraq before becoming President; oil targeted before 9-11
the anti-war movement was right
by Arianna Huffington
It is a journalistic coup for the cause
of peace that Truthout.org had as its lead editorial a perspective by Senator
Ernest Hollings, "The
United States has lost its Moral Authority" (June 23, 2004).
Green Party governor-for-California candidate
Peter Miguel Camejo is a solid activist who opposes the corporate agenda of
U.S. politics as dominated in all our elections (and the so-called election of
2000 for president). He did the best in the debates, according to polls,
but was undermined by desperate Democratic Party tactics. For example, two
days before the election the Democrats claimed they had polls showing that they
were neck and neck with the Republicans, both on the recall question and in the
Bustamante vs Schwarzenegger race. This lie helped turn people away from
Camejo. Following is an excerpt of his report on the election that he
released October 14.
DEMOCRATIC PARTY FRONT ORGANIZATIONS
There is a web site called MoveOn.org that presents itself as
progressive. I believe it is nothing more than a Democratic Party organizing
center, allowing Democrats to keep progressive minded people co-opted to the
Democrats. They launched a campaign, as did Code Pink, against Arnold
Schwarzeneggerís attacks on women. But this campaign was directly linked to a
ìVote Democraticî campaign and therefore would not mention anything negative
about Democrats, specifically allegations that Gray Davis intimidated and
attacked women he worked with. The truth is that the real purpose of both of
these campaigns was to help the Democrats, no matter how sincere many of the
people were in their disgust with Schwarzenegger. I attended one of these events
and spoke at it. The content of the event, sponsored by Code Pink, was
overwhelmingly focused on defense of womenís rights, inter mixed with some
pro-Davis signs. Unlike MoveOn.org, Code Pink tried to some extent to keep the
two issues separated.
I understand MoveOn.org
came out with a ìSuddenly, I Love Gray Davisî slogan. They are openly a
front for the Democrats. They raised hundreds of thousands of dollars and had a
place for voters to sign pledging that they would never vote for Schwarzenegger.
Of course MoveOn will play a role in mobilizing progressive
voters to vote Democrat in 2004 as part of a ìstop Bushî movement, but you
can bet your life they will not have a pledge calling on voters to refuse to
vote for anyone who voted ìUnequivocal support for George Bushî, because
that would be most of the Democratic Partyís leadership.
We can expect that Democratic Party controlled organizations
like the Sierra Club, NOW; MoveOn and many union leaders will all join in the
attack on the Green Party. In so doing they will show their failure to
understand or support democracy. Instead, they show their subservience to a
corporate controlled party. Their politics opens the door and helps facilitate
Republican victories. This is because Democrats always accept the premises of
the Republican platform, whether it is the so-called ìwar on terrorismî or
ìenergy deregulationî. The only thing they argue over is the nuts and bolts
of implementing this platform. It is these organizations and their opposition to
democracy that has historically blocked the development of any effective
opposition to corporate domination or the Republican agenda.
politics: The Sierra Club's head, Carl Pope, has a new article in Green
Car magazine. His article is titled "Technology Can Save the SUV." This position, along with compromising on protection of
forests, disqualifies Pope and his cronies as any heirs of John Muir.
"The Sierra Club is such a sell-out it's ridiculous," says Jen Petullo
of the Redwood Peace and Justice Center, Arcata, Calif. As less than half
the motor-vehicle air pollution comes out of the tailpipe (due to manufacturing
and mining associated with vehicles), it is no solution to switch fuels as the
main approach to global warming and smog.
so you know:
ïI attacked and
took over 2 countries.
ïI spent the U.S. surplus and bankrupted the US Treasury.
ïI shattered the record for the biggest annual deficit in history (not easy!).
ïI set an economic record for the most personal bankruptcies filed in any 12
ïI set all-time record for the biggest drop in the history of the stock
ïI am the first president in decades to execute a federal prisoner.
ïIn my first year in office I set the all-time record for most days on
vacation by any president in US history (tough to beat my dad's, but I did).
ïAfter taking the entire month of August off for vacation, I presided over the
worst security failure in US history.
ïI set the record for most campaign fund raising trips by any president in US
ïIn my first two years in office over 2 million Americans lost their jobs.
ïI cut unemployment benefits for more out-of-work Americans than any other
president in US history.
ïI set the all-time record for most real estate foreclosures in a 12-month
ïI appointed more convicted criminals to administration positions than any
president in US history.
ïI set the record for the fewest press conferences of any president, since the
advent of TV.
ïI signed more laws and executive orders amending the Constitution than any
other US president in history.
ïI presided over the biggest energy crises in US history and refused to
intervene when corruption was revealed.
ïI cut health care benefits for war veterans.
ïI set the all-time record for most people worldwide to simultaneously take to
the streets to protest me (15 million people),
shattering the record for protest against any person in the history of mankind.
ïI dissolved more international treaties than any president in US history.
ïI've made my presidency the most secretive and unaccountable of any in US
ïMembers of my cabinet are the richest of any administration in US history.
(The poorest multimillionaire, Condoleeza Rice, has a Chevron
oil tanker named after her.)
ïI am the first president in US history to have all 50 states of the Union
simultaneously struggle against bankruptcy.
ïI presided over the biggest corporate stock market fraud in any market in any
country in the history of the world.
ïI am the first president in US history to order a US attack AND military
occupation of a sovereign nation, and I did so against the will of the United
Nations and the vast majority of the international community.
ïI have created the largest government department bureaucracy in the history
of the United States, called the "Bureau of Homeland Security"(only
one letter away from BS).
ïI set the all-time record for biggest annual budget spending increases, more
than any other president in US history (Ronnie was tough to beat, but I did
ïI am the first president in US history to compel the United Nations remove
the US from the Human Rights Commission.
ïI am the first president in US history to have the United Nations remove the
US from the Elections Monitoring Board.
ïI removed more checks and balances, and have the least amount of
congressional oversight than any presidential administration in US history.
ïI rendered the entire United Nations irrelevant. I withdrew from the World
Court of Law.
ïI refused to allow inspectors access to US prisoners of war and by default no
longer abide by the Geneva Conventions.
ïI am the first president in US history to refuse United Nations election
inspectors access during the 2002 US elections.
ïI am the all-time US (and world) record holder for most corporate campaign
ïThe biggest lifetime contributor to my campaign, who is also one of my best
friends, presided over one of the largest corporate bankruptcy frauds in world
history (Kenneth Lay, former CEO of Enron Corporation).
ïI spent more money on polls and focus groups than any president in US
ïI am the first president to run and hide when the US came under attack (and
then lied, saying the enemy had the code to Air Force 1)
ïI am the first US president to establish a secret shadow government.
ïI took the world's sympathy for the US after 9/11, and in less than a year
made the US the most resented country in the world (possibly the biggest
diplomatic failure in US and world history).
ïI am the first US president in history to have a majority of the people of
Europe (71%) view my presidency as
the biggest threat to world peace and stability.
ïI changed US policy to allow convicted criminals to be awarded government
ïI set the all-time record for the number of administration appointees who
violated US law by not selling their huge investments in corporations bidding
for gov't contracts.
ïI have removed more freedoms and civil liberties for Americans than any other
president in US history.
ïI entered office with the strongest economy in US history and in less than
two years turned every single economic category heading straight down.
ïRECORDS AND REFERENCES: I have at least one conviction for
drunk driving in Maine (Texas driving record has been erased and is not
ïI was AWOL from the National Guard and deserted the military during time of
ïI refuse to take a drug test or even answer any questions about drug use. (wink,wink)
ïAll records of my tenure as governor of Texas have been spirited away to my
fathers library, sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public view.
ïAll records of any SEC investigations into my insider trading or bankrupt
companies are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public view.
ïAll minutes of meetings of any public corporation for which I served on the
board are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public view.
ïAny records or minutes from meetings I (or my VP) attended regarding public
energy policy are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public review.
GEORGE W. BUSH
The White House, Washington, DC
On May 5th, 2004, the New York Times
front page contained a story of shocking truth: Michael Moore's new
documentary about the Bush administration's ties to the prominent Saudis would
not be released by a "non-partisan" Michael Eisner of Disney.
While Michael Eisner claims non-partisanship out one side of his mouth, he has
also claimed that he does not want Disney's tax cuts by Jeb Bush in Florida
(where Disneyworld is located) to be
endangered by Moore's movie, which is cleverly titled "Fahrenheit 911."
The seriousness of this news is not in corporate
special interest allying with government (we all know that story).
Rather, that the movie must contain serious material that threatens the
Bush-Cheney residency in the White House. In a country that has so
freely given up certain rights in
the interest of protecting itself from
"terrorism" through the Patriot Act, will it also allow freedom of
speech and press to be tacked on to the rights it no longer cherishes?
Moreover, will the American people still continue to hide behind a false, or
at best deteriorating representative democracy? Lies will be exposed, we
deserve to know the truth--BEFORE NOVEMBER!
Moveon.org is mounting a campaign to get
individuals to call Disney or pull their shares out of the company.
Although I have already boycotted Disney years ago for other unfair business
practices, I believe it would be in all of our best interest to encourage our
friends and families to join the boycott and put pressure on the corporation.
The film will be shown! But will it be too late to convince the marginal
voters who could play a crucial part in preventing what could be,
"Massacre at home and abroad, part 2: The Bush regime is re-elected?
We must find a way to end the atrocious epic - No More Bushit!"
Tuesday, April 20, 2004
Kucinich Culture Newsletter (2:4)
Les Jeux Sont Faits
It's been said that an operational definition of "insanity" is doing
the same thing over and over, expecting different results. By this definition,
our nation seems to be caught in the morass of a mass psychosis. As Freud so
astutely pointed out, people often adopt the societal psychosis to save them the
trouble of coming up with one of their own. This creates a "vicious
cycle" which dangerously feeds the mass psychosis as more and more people
opt to "buy in" to it.
As i've said before, the three pillars of
American society are Ignorance, Apathy, and Self-Indulgence. How else can you
explain the fact that -- not one, but -- two people who broke their oath of
office are being allowed to run for President!
Isn't this exactly what people
like Ralph Nader have been warning against? I've insisted the same thing myself.
Continue to vote for the "lesser of two evils" and, over time,
there'll be less and less difference between the "candidates".
Furthermore, when you allow the Government and their lackey "press
agents" to control the debate, to decide what will and what will not be
discussed, you've lost any hope of a free exchange of ideas. And as soon as the
People of a Democracy are no longer able to have a free and open exchange with
their Government, can it really be called a Democracy? And when a Government
coerces its citizenry with threats of fines, imprisonment, physical violence,
and even deportation, is this not tyranny?
If you are still reading by this
point, you may be wondering as to the nature of this mass psychosis to which
i've alluded. Let me offer a clue... it manifests itself most demonstrably every
four years and culminates in the crowning of the potentate du jour.
"dumbing down" the populace has produced the ideal electorate: an
electorate able to follow logic, but with such a short attention span as to be
unable to recognize "circular logic". Circular logic leads inevitably
to self-fulfilling prophesy. Yes, what we believe determines what we think, and
what and how we think determines how we see the world, and how we see the world
determines how we act in the world, and our interpretation of the results of our
actions reinforces the beliefs we held to begin with. It's a closed system and
it works in lockstep with a closed mind.
So how does circular logic in league
with self-fulfilling prophesy and a closed mind play itself out in current world
affairs? There are several entry points, but let's go with the most obvious.
Bush and his criminal coterie are clearly guilty of election fraud, lying under
oath, war profiteering, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and treason. If any
President in the history of this nation deserves to be impeached, it's George W.
Bush. The 18th century is known as the Age of Reason. I think the beginning of
this, the 21st, century may one day be known as the Age of Treason.
of being impeached, removed from office, and tried for his numerous crimes,
including egregious violation of his oath of office, Bush is, incomprehensibly,
running for re-selection! Why? Because the American people have lost all sense
of perspective, and consequently, all sense of reality.
tunnel" through which the vast majority of people in this country see the
world is narrow and distorted by generation after generation of mindless
perpetuation of the American mythos... that we, as a nation, are all powerful,
all righteous, and doing always the will of god. Though, in a grand ironic twist
that is lost on most people, we -- as a nation -- are becoming exactly what we
pretend to oppose: a nation ruled by lawlessness, terror, and barbarity.
Greek philosopher, Plato, observed, "Tyranny naturally arises out of
democracy". Why? If we believe George Bernard Shaw that, "Democracy is
a device that ensures we shall be governed no better than we deserve", we
are to believe that the American people deserve the government we have, and that
we deserve the government that will succeed it. From my perspective, this is a
sad but true assessment.
Way too many people in this country do, indeed, in
their beliefs, their thoughts, and their actions show themselves to be 'model'
citizens in that they are ignorant, apathetic, and self-indulgent. They have
been seduced by the American mythos of supremacy and entitlement, hypnotized by
the illusion of freedom; when, in reality, this nation has become the driving
force for fascism around the world. This nation manufactures, sells, and uses
more weapons of all sorts than any other on the planet and this nation spreads
far more terror, death, and destruction around the world than any shadowy
network of fundamentalist Muslims ever will.
And what of our Democracy? ...our
right to select our leaders? Democrats and Republicans will say, "Hey,
there are big important differences between Bush and Kerry". There
undoubtedly are some differences, but neither of them would make a fundamental
change in the direction this country is leading the world, both have violated
their oath of office, both are beholden to big business, both are members of the
secret Yale society, the Order of Skull and Bones.
Typical democrats will shrug
their shoulders and say, "So what, Kerry'll be better than Bush!".
Better at what, i wonder. Kerry wants to send more troops to Iraq... his way of
-- you know -- getting us out of there. Just like Bush, he wants to take away
our Constitutional rights to -- you know -- protect us and make us more free. Is
this what we've come to? Is this our 'choice'? ...Texas fascism with a mitre and
staff, or fascism with a long face and Boston accent. All the democrats are
clamoring, "Believe you me, take the long-face, Boston fascism over that
mean, Texas fascism... it's a much kinder and gentler fascism"; but i'm not
As someone who believes, thinks, and acts as if what they believe,
think, and do actually does make a difference in the world, the following words,
articulated beautifully in 1857 by the American abolitionist, Frederick Douglas,
speak volumes to me: "Find out just what the people will submit to, and you
have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed
upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or
blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of
those whom they oppress".
As you may have guessed from the title, i am
taking it upon myself to declare -- at least for myself, and anyone else who
shares my world view -- that the game is over... the jig is up. No more
"business as usual" inside the beltway.
Perhaps some of you are, by
now, scratching your head and wondering what any of this has to do with Ohio
Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich. Plenty! i say. Rest assured, i am not speaking
on behalf of the Kucinich campaign; but rather, to the Kucinich campaign and to
supporters of Kucinich and his ideas... and to the culture that has grown up
around Kucinich -- hence, the title of this newsletter.
What follows is an
actionable plan for moving forward. I offer it here as a starting point for
discussion, understanding full well that it will have some vocal opponents:
Congressman Kucinich truly does want to be the leader of a progressive political
movement, he should immediately resign from the Democratic party and become
either a Green or a member of the Natural Law party. Let's be realistic here, do
we progressives, or Congressman Kucinich for that matter, owe any allegiance
whatsoever to the Democratic party? I dare say, "No!".
The DNC, DLC,
and so called 'legitimate' candidates have treated Kucinich and his supporters
with little more than contempt. From my perspective, Congressman Kucinich is
acting a bit like a battered spouse who's in denial. I ask you, Congressman,
with all due respect, "Do you really feel you command the respect of the
Democratic party?". It doesn't seem to me that you or your supporters are
afforded anywhere near the respect that you or we deserve.
As for those who
insist the best way to change the system is from within, i have this to say: If
those who are responsible for the care and feeding of the system -- the
"beast", as i like to call it -- derive benefit from the system as it
is and stand to lose if changes are made, then the system is impervious to
change from within. At this point, the political process in this country -- and
most of the rest of the world -- has become so utterly and absolutely corrupt as
to be beyond repair.
* After clearly stating the many reasons he's leaving the
Democratic party, Congressman Kucinich would have a perfect segue into why he's
submitting articles of impeachment. I know we've been over all this once before,
but i am not the least bit swayed by the facile arguments against someone
submitting articles of impeachment -- not just against Bush, but also against
Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, and whomever else in the Bush regime who has broken
their oath of office to "uphold and protect the Constitution" of this
Two of the most often repeated arguments against submitting articles of
impeachment are: one, it's too "negative"; and two, in a
Republican-controlled Senate, the articles would never pass.
In response to the
first argument i invoke Doctor Martin Luther King, "A time comes when
silence is betrayal", and Abraham Lincoln, "To sin by silence when
they should protest makes cowards of men". In response to the second
argument, these words of Goethe come to mind, "Whatever you can do or
dream, you can begin it. Boldness has genius, power, and magic in it. Begin it
now". To anticipate failure and defeat and resign ourselves to inaction
makes slaves of us all.
* The next step is for Congressman Kucinich to accept
the Presidential nomination of the Natural Law party. It's my understanding that
he will already be on the ballot as the Natural Law candidate for President come
I can hear the sound of eyeballs rolling even as i type this.
"But that would only split the progressive vote", is the familiar
refrain. I disagree, it would do just the opposite; it would give progressives,
populists, and libertarians alike a strong candidate around whom they can rally.
You can polish the "turd" all you want, but J. Forbes Kerry is not
someone around whom progressives, populists, and libertarians will rally.
summary, by making these three bold moves, Congressman Kucinich would prove
himself to be the leader that i and many of us have hoped him to be. Either we
stand up now to the powers that be and say, "No more!", or we resign
ourselves to our fate as conscripted 'citizens' of a vile and pernicious global
empire, the likes of which this world has never seen.
Will we prove Hegel right,
that the only thing we learn from history is that man can never learn anything
from history? Or will enough people shake off their societal psychosis and come
to understand that our beliefs, our thoughts, and our actions -- individually
and collectively -- have everything to do with shaping the world in which we
In Peace, galen aka Dennis Mitrzyk
Subscribe to the free Culture
Change e-Letter, delivered directly to your e-mail box.