Camilo Mejia, Ending the Occupation, and Regaining Our Collective Sense of Humanity

The story of Camilo Mejia is recognized by many in the anti-war movement as a story of one man standing up against the injustice of war. Mejia was the first conscientious objector of the Iraq War and has been a leading voice for the organization Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW) where he was named Chair of their Board of Directors in 2007. Mejia has been traveling to cities as part of the Resisting the Empire Tour and this tour is what brought his story to the University of Cincinnati's campus last week.

Camilo Mejia was stoplossed in January 2003, only months away from graduation from the University of Miami. He was shipped out to Iraq in April 2003 and returned in October on a two week furlough. It was during this time away from the battlefield that Mejia was able to collect his thoughts and listen to his conscience. When his plane took off to go back to Iraq, Mejia was not aboard. He decided that he could no longer take part in fighting an unjust and illegal war and he decided that he could not take part in abusing the Iraqi people anymore. Mejia laid low for several months while he worked on putting together a case so that he could file for conscientious objector status and in March 2004, he turned himself in and submitted such an application. He was charged with desertion, convicted by a military court, court marshaled, and sentenced to one year in prison. From prison, Mejia wrote a piece entitled "Regaining My Humanity" in which he stated:

Today, as I sit behind bars I realize that there are many types of freedom, and that in spite of my confinement I remain free in many important ways. What good is freedom if we are afraid to follow our conscience? What good is freedom if we are not able to live with our own actions? I am confined to a prison but I feel, today more than ever, connected to all humanity. Behind these bars I sit a free man because I listened to a higher power, the voice of my conscience.

Mejia has been listening to the higher power of his conscience ever since and feels that it is a privileged to be a part of the growing anti-war movement. During his talk at the University of Cincinnati, he shared with us stories of frustrated soldiers, torturous interrogation techniques, and the provoking of civilians. Mejia told the story of when he first arrived in the Iraqi city of Ramadi. There was little resistance from the population at first, but Mejia said that they would often "fish for missions". In one instance an 8-10 year-old boy threw a rock at a Lieutenant and the Lieutenant told his soldiers, "I'm going to make an example of him". The Lieutenant proceeded to grab the boy and begin to take him with the group of soldiers. "Me no Ali Baba mister" the boy would yell as some soldiers tried to convince the Lieutenant to let the boy go. An old man came running from a near-by house, Mejia gathered that this man could have been the boy's father, and passionately tried to communicate with the Lieutenant. The Lieutenant asked the man "What are you going to do? This kid threw a rock at me." The old man slapped the kid in the face. This did not satisfy the Lieutenant as he kept the child in his grasp and continued to move along. The old man continued to plead his case as the Lieutenant demanded more of a punishment for the child. The old man then began to beat the child in order to show the Lieutenant that he was being taught a lesson and it was only then did the Lieutenant let the child go. "This is the reality of an occupation," Mejia said to us, "this is how you win the hearts and minds."

After this incident the attacks increased on the U.S. soldiers in the area and Mejia stated that they responded by purposely conducting missions around mosques, hospitals, schools, and public squares. "We were doing things in a way that led to the killing of civilians," he stated. He spoke of instances in which he was ambushed and though he was opposed to the war, Mejia says that his survival instincts took over and he shot in any direction from which gunfire was coming. "You don't have the luxury to think morally when you are thinking, how do we get out of this place alive." he stated.

Mejia did make it out alive and when he returned home in October of 2003 for a two week furlough, he began to try and justify his participation in a war in which he didn't believe. Often times his justification would be that he was doing it for the man sitting next to him in Iraq, but when he dug deeper within himself he couldn't justify the broader question of why. It was then when he decided to speak out and take a stance despite the fear of a court marshal and being labeled as a deserter. After Mejia turned himself in and was sentenced to a year in jail, Amnesty International labeled him a Prisoner of Conscience and he was supported by many organizations through the website FreeCamilo.com.

As he travels around the country and continues his work with IVAW, he stresses the importance of building a larger anti-war movement. He speaks of the importance that antiwar organizations on college campuses join with groups like IVAW to not only give speakers like himself a platform, but to build a broad coalition from coast to coast to pressure leaders to end the occupation of Iraq. This task, that of ending the occupation, is an uphill climb to say the least. From the invasion, to the implementation of torture, to the scores of civilians killed, the task of repairing what has been so badly damaged can seem insurmountable. It is almost as if we, as a nation, must reclaim our own humanity much like Camilo did during his own personal journey. It was this thought that led me to ask Mejia this question:

"In interviews and in your piece that you wrote from jail in 2005, you often speak of the dehumanizing factors of war and of your personal journey to regain your own humanity. Considering we live in a society in which war is very profitable for various sectors of society and corporate interests and government are becoming more and more aligned, do you feel that the United States has sold or lost its collective sense of humanity and if so, how do you think we can get it back?"

Mejia responded:

"I don't think that we have lost our humanity, we just haven't been able to experience it. Think back to Vietnam and the iconic images of the little girl who was burned and running away from the napalm. Now it is different, we are not allowed to see it. If people don't experience the pain then they won't be as willing to change it. We haven't lost our sense of humanity, we need to reclaim it."

We stand at a moment in time where there is an opportunity to reclaim our collective humanity. The people of this country have voted for a change and we must continue to demand that such change is implemented. We need to think outside the box in our organizing efforts in order to continue to join together and turn this hope into momentum. Camilo Mejia's journey to reclaim his personal humanity was not easy just as the journey to reclaim our collective humanity will not be easy. To undertake this challenge, it was imperative for Mejia to listen to the higher power of his conscience and for the rest of us, it is going to be essential.

This article can also be found at: http://www.cincinnatibeacon.com

An Open Letter to John Bolton

Dear Mr. Bolton,

I was recently about half-way through reading your letter to President-elect Obama when I asked myself this question: Why should I, Barack Obama, or anyone else for that matter, take any advice from you seriously?

You sir were a loyal soldier in the neo-conservative army that waged an all out assault on rationality and dissenting opinion in the lead-up to the Iraq War in 2002 and 2003. Your work directly contributed toward the invasion and occupation of Iraq which has resulted in the loss of thousands of U.S. soldiers and hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis. You were a member of the Project for the New American Century which tried to influence the Clinton Administration to adopt the same preemptive doctrine that you later were able to implement under the Bush Administration. This type of behavior has led to the decline in respect of the United States throughout the world and the spread of terrorist activities into countries that previously had little to no activity.

Your disregard for world opinion when it conflicts with so-called "United States interests" is a prime example of an unilateralist philosophy that has led this country into the giant mess that this new administration must now attempt to dig us out of. Why in the world should an Obama Administration take the advice of someone who is part of the ideology that the American people rejected so enthusiastically in this election?

In your letter, you advise President-elect Obama to:

"...resolve disagreements among your advisers, and not allow drift, and you must insist on discipline once you make a decision. If anyone disagrees with this approach, you may invite them to do the honourable thing and resign, or not sign on in the first place."

This advice is dictatorial. While you acknowledge that President Bush suffered from only hearing "one voice in his ear at critical points", you then advise Obama to take the same 'my way or the highway' approach to leading. The voters have rejected the idea of the imperial presidency Mr. Bolton. The strength of a leader does not simply reside in the ability to make decisions, but to listen to various viewpoints, constantly review new information, and be willing to adapt to a situation when things do not go as planned. In case you are not aware, things over the last eight years have not quite gone as planned for the American people. It is time for a new leadership strategy.

This new strategy should include a technique that you have not always been helpful in implementing, this is the strategy of diplomacy. It has not been effective nor will it continue to be effective to make statements such as "...there is no United Nations" and to suggest that it would make no difference if the UN lost ten floors of its building. You sound like a bully on the playground when you say things like:

"The United States makes the UN work when when it wants it to work and that is exactly the way it should be because the only basic question, only question for the United States, is what's in our national interest and if you don't like that, then I'm sorry but that is the fact."

This belittling of the international community is not what we needed eight years ago and it is certainly not what we need now. Despite this, you advise President-elect Obama to:

"...not let global 'public opinion' about the United States, from Albania to Zimbabwe, dissuade you from doing what you think is right for America. Your job is to defend and advance our interests and values, a task which invariably will displease our adversaries, and even many of our friends, especially those who wish we were, well, more European in our behaviour and attitudes...we should try to shift international public opinion to support our policies, not modify our policies to try to satisfy international public opinion."

Have you learned no lessons from any of the imperialist policies that you have supported? Do you not acknowledge that this type of thinking has led to out of control military spending, an increase in Al Qaeda's presence in Iraq, and a decline in American power and influence throughout the world? While you may think that you are advocating ways for a President Obama to be strong in actuality you are advocating the same stubborn ideology of the last eight years. Your words of advice read as a desperate last attempt for your neo-conservative agenda to fall upon ears that have already rejected your imperialist view of the world.

I urge President-elect Obama to say "thanks but no thanks" to the advice which you offer in your letter, this country can no longer afford to follow your advice. We have a lot of repair work to do and ripping open old wounds through bullying and unilateralism is not going to be an effective way to help this country heal.

This article can also be found at: http://www.cincinnatibeacon.com

From Hope to Momentum: Why the Election is Just the Beginning

It was as if the air had been let out of a balloon. The networks announced at 11pm EST that the country had elected Barack Obama to be the next President of the United States. I could instantly hear people shouting outside of my home and within three minutes, someone near-by began shooting off fireworks. I watched the sea of people at Chicago's Grant Park explode on my television set as people hugged each other and jumped around, unable to control their excitement. Crowds began to gather from Washington D.C. to major cities across the globe driving home just how much of a global impact the U.S. elections have. We watched the world let out a collective sigh of relief on election night with images of a unified and hopeful people anxious to see what happens next.

There is no doubting the historical nature of Barack Obama's campaign and election to be the first African-American President of the United States. Watching Obama address tens of thousands of supporters as President-elect was even enough to move many Americans to tears. Seeing the hope in the eyes of so many people is an amazing moment in history to bear witness to and only provides us with evidence that we are standing at an important time in the history of this country. The end of this election should not mark the end of the involvement of those who were energized by this campaign, to the contrary, this is where the real work needs to begin.

There are two main narratives that have been circulating since the election. The first comes from those on the right who have seen the Republican Party unravel into a giant circular firing squad and are still trying to interject their ideology into the American discourse. This is the narrative that we are a "center-right country". Karl Rove spoke these words on Fox News on election night and it has moved through the conservative echo chamber ever since. These pundits argue that an Obama Administration will be forced to govern from the center because the majority of Americans have "center-right" values.

The other narrative has come out of the Democratic Party and from some progressive-minded individuals. This narrative is that progressives won the election, are now in control, and through Obama will have the sway to influence policy over the next four years. Both of these narratives miss the mark. The United States is not a "center-right country". Americans just demonstrated their rejection of the ideology that has been in control of the Executive Branch for the last eight years and most Americans are in against the war, for universal health care , and in favor of smart government regulation of the financial industry. These are progressive ideas that many Obama supporters hold and are even more progressive than positions that Obama himself holds. This is not the mark of a center-right country, but of a country desperate for a new direction.

In the same breath, the narrative that progressives are now in control of the government and that Obama will automatically enact progressive change is also misguided. It has been demonstrated by many and through Obama's own voting record that he is a moderate politician with centrist policies. Now is not the time for progressives to sit back and watch what Obama can do, but rather it is time to use this fantastic opportunity to unite and apply pressure to an Obama Administration to enact actual change. It is vital for progressives to stay engaged and turn this enthusiasm from the election into a movement for the people.

Barack Obama and his administration are going to be pressured by the big corporate campaign donors who have established ties to and invested funds in Obama's campaign. Just like any other business decision, they want to see a good return on their investment so they will be seeking access and looking to influence policy. Amy Goodman wrote an article earlier this week in which she echos this sentiment:

"There are two key camps that feel invested in the Obama presidency: the millions who each gave a little, and the few who gave millions. The big-money interests have means to gain access. They know how to get meetings in the White House, and they know what lobbyists to hire. But the millions who donated, who volunteered, who were inspired to vote for the first time actually have more power, when organized."

The key to that statement are the last two words...when organized. Progressives need to start building a network in order to counter the insider influence and use this network to create a powerful movement of accountability. This moment in which we live is too important for us to not take action. In order to begin to pressure our national leaders, we must get organized on a grassroots level. It is absolutely necessary for those who supported Obama, to join with those who supported Cynthia McKinney, Ralph Nader, Ron Paul, on down the line and unite around the issues that we all care about. We must seize this moment, turn it into momentum, and raise our voice to say that we demand real progressive change.

Restoring Hope: Viewing the World from the Ground-Up

After engaging in many conversations about the plight of this country and the world over the weekend, I felt a little worn down. All of the issues that surround the Presidential election combined with sifting through all the misinformation can be exhausting and dejecting at times. I woke up early Saturday morning to attend a mandatory class on working the polls as I will be doing on November 4th and was pleased to find the class packed with people of all ages anxious to spend their time helping others vote on Election Day. Viewing the election through your television screen for the past two years can wear you down and seeing active members of your own community eager to participate in the process is a good feeling. Coming out of that class I felt partially recharged and so today, I decided to ride that wave of optimism and go down to the Board of Elections to vote early.

I arrived a little before two o' clock and took my place at the end of a long line that stretched out onto the sidewalk. People were handing out fliers with the hope of swaying any last minute voters who had yet to make up their mind. I saw literature for voting yes on Issue 8, No on Issue 5, for Todd Portune, against Issue 6, and so on. Many of the people gathered outside had brought their younger children so their kids could be introduced to the voting process. There was a family in front of me where the mother was explaining to her young son why it was important to vote and why there were so many people in line. People of all colors and creeds were in generally good spirits as they exchanged smiles and engaged in small talk as the line snaked up the stairs and into the main section of the BOE. Election officials were on-hand directing the voters to empty voting booths and explaining the layout of the ballot.

As I shuffled through the line, I was reminded of a quote that I once heard from folk musician and activist Utah Phillips during a 2004 interview. In that interview Phillips said:

If I look at it [the world] from the top down, I get seriously depressed. The world’s going to hell in a wheelbarrow. But if I walk out the door, turn all that off, and go with the people, whatever town I’m in, who are doing the real work down at the street level, like I said, there’s too many good people doing too many good things for me to let myself be pessimistic about that. I’m hopeful, can’t live without hope. Can you?

As I was standing there today watching an elderly couple struggling to climb the stairs to get into the BOE, as I watched that little boy ask his mom questions about voting, as I watched a blind woman receive her ballot, I felt hope. I felt the hope of an active citizenry cut through all the sound bytes and negative ads and permeate through the racism and hatred of this campaign. I, like Utah Phillips, was forced to view things from the ground up and it gave me hope in what a unified people and in what an active citizenry can do. This hope and faith in people is important in times like these when we live in a world that bombards us with media sound bytes, sensational news stories, and views from the top; it is enough to make anyone pessimistic about the direction that we are headed. It is during those times, when the negativity is driving us to the point of insanity, that it is so important to take a step back and view the world from the bottom up. There are people who are doing very good work to move this society forward in the face of all that is stacked against us. That is what gives me hope and it is this faith in people that we all must depend on. We all have our vision of how we would like to make our community, our country, the world a better place, but these visions all must stem from the fundamental faith in people to unite, take action, and implement the changes necessary to move us forward.

Mark Johnson is filmmaker who just finished a documentary entitled "Playing for Change: Peace Through Music". It is a film that took Johnson ten years to make, but his belief that "No matter who we are, no matter where we come from, we are all united through music" carried the project forward. Johnson was on the Bill Moyers Journal this past week discussing the film and why he chose to take on this project. Johnson said it quickly became evident that those involved with the film were representing the eyes of the children on the planet. He went on:

Because the truth is, they need us to inspire each other and to create a better world. I mean, there's so many problems now with the economy and with war and a lot of depression. But at the end of the day, there's also so much hope because I can assure you, all over the world, people are beautiful and they want to unite together.

Johnson traveled all over the world recording street musicians, viewing the world from the ground up, and uniting the world through music. He traveled to some of the most troubled regions of the planet and when Bill Moyers asked him what took him to those places of the world, Johnson responded:

Well, I think that in order to really unite people, you know, we have to show that in our darkest situations and in the places with the most struggles in the world, that we can find a way of uplifting each other out of it. I remember hearing somebody that said, you know, "The last person who knew why we were fighting died a long time ago."

We all know the world is changing. And we get to decide if it's changing for the better or if it's changing for the worse.

Hope during dark times is not idealistic, it is necessary. Faith in a united people is the foundation for moving us forward and bettering our lives. As the election draws closer, as more bombs are dropped overseas, and as the economy continues to slide, let's take a moment for a deep breath and look at the world from the ground up.

Below is a clip from the documentary referenced above with a brief introduction by Bill Moyers. The song is "Stand by Me", the musicians are from all across the world, and hopefully it will do a little bit to restore your faith in a unified people.




This article can also be found at http://www.cincinnatibeacon.com/

This article can also be found on CommonDreams.org at the following link: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2008/10/29-0

An Iraqi and a War Veteran Speak Out for an End to Occupation

The Speak for Peace Tour 2008 came to Xavier University's Bellarmine Chapel last Thursday evening in an effort to bring voices from the Iraq War to Cincinnati, Ohio. The Speak for Peace Tour 2008 is put on by the American Friends Service Committee and has traveled throughout various cities in the country. The American Friends Service Committee is a Quaker organization founded in 1917 and "carries out service, development, social justice, and peace programs throughout the world." The event was also co-sponsored by Xavier University's Peace & Justice Programs, Bellarmine Chapel, and the Intercommunity Justice and Peace Center. The Iraq War and its impact on human lives was the main topic as speakers Eugene Cherry and Raed Jarrar addressed the crowd.

Eugene Cherry is an Iraq War Veteran. He was deployed to Iraq in 2004 where he worked as a medic and for a personal security detachment. He returned to the United States in 2005 with symptoms of PTSD and went AWOL for 16 months before turning himself in. He was given an honorable discharge and now is working with various groups, including Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW) to tell his story about what is happening overseas. Cherry spoke of enlisting in the military with the hope of learning some medical skills that would aid him in his quest to become a doctor, but after his time in Iraq Cherry feels that he did more harm than good. Within American Culture, violence is too often embraced and when speaking within the context of the American military, Cherry says that they are often the perpetrators of such violence. Cherry spoke of the use of cluster bombs and their deadly impact on civilian populations and spoke candidly about the use of white phosphorous by United States forces in Iraq.

In 2004, after the U.S. assault on the city of Fallujah, independent reporters began to report that the United States had used chemical weapons on civilians during the assault. Reporter Dahr Jamail was one of those who began to report that he had spoken with Iraqi doctors who treated citizens who "had their skin melted". The U.S. initially denied having used white phosphorus during the assault, then said they had used it only to light up enemy positions at night, and then admitted that they did use the chemical weapon, but assured us that they did not target civilians. Eugene Cherry confirms that the United States did use this weapon and that the those within the military called it "shake and bake".

Cherry went on to speak about the role of private contractors and mercenary firms inside of Iraq as proof that the corporations are in the back pocket of elected officials. "With every war there is an underlying social and economic issue," Cherry stated. He went on to speak of his work with the contracting firm KBR and how KBR paid their local workers a small salary every month while some KBR contractors were earning up to $650,000 for their work. Cherry equated this treatment with slave labor.

The evening had been kicked off with the question "What really led us to this point?" and as Raed Jarrar took the floor, he reminded those gathered in the chapel that what has been going on in Iraq began during the first Gulf War. Jarrar is an Iraqi and following the fall of Baghdad in 2003, became a country director for the only door-to-door casualty survey group in post-invasion Iraq. He currently works in Washington D.C. as an Iraqi Political Analyst. "The same people who have been telling us lies, continue to tell us lies," Jarrar said. He sees two reasons that politicians use to explain why the U.S. must stay in Iraq. The first is for the security of the United States, politicians claiming that if the U.S. withdraws, Al Qaeda will take over. The second is for humanitarian reasons, if the U.S. withdraws, then all hell will break loose and the Iraqis will be worse off. Jarrar claims that both of these views are manufactured myths.

The humanitarian reason for staying in Iraq is based on the belief that Iraq is divided by sectarian hatred, Sunni versus Shite versus Kurd. "Iraqi's do not see it this way," Jarrar stated, "They [Iraqis] realize that it is political and economic, not religious." Jarrar finds that the United States has been taking the side (though at different points throughout the conflict) of Sunnis and Shites with the minority view against the majority of Iraqis. This can be seen if you look at the representation in the Iraqi Parliament which is largely made up of parties who advocate for a complete withdrawal of U.S. troops. Jarrar stated that these very parties hold the majority of seats in Parliament yet hold no seats in the executive branch. This results in the Iraqi people voting in members of Parliament who want the U.S. to withdraw, but an Executive Branch that is aligned with Washington in allowing U.S. forces to continue the occupation. Jarrar feels that this is a disconnect that many members of Congress even fail to see. Jarrar told the crowd that if they wanted to see the view of the majority of Iraqis, to watch the demonstration that would be happening over the weekend in Iraq. The peaceful protest did happen on Saturday and drew tens of thousands of Iraqis who protested the continued occupation of their country.

I had a chance to get in one question during a brief Q&A session which I directed at both Eugene Cherry and Raed Jarrar. I asked them for the Iraqi's perspective on the presence of private mercenary firms (like Blackwater) and if Iraqis see any difference in opinion between contractors and U.S. troops. Eugene Cherry responded that it is problematic when you have contractors operating with complete immunity inside Iraq. He said the only distinction is that U.S. military operates under a set of laws that can allow for accountability, but contractors are not bound by either American or Iraqi law. Raed Jarrar gave a much more frank answer to the question. "They [Iraqis] do not care where the bullets come from or who is doing the shooting. People do not like to be occupied."

Both Eugene Cherry and Raed Jarrar call for a complete and immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq and reject both major Presidential candidates support for continuing the occupation and building permanent military bases inside of Iraq.

This article can also be found at http://www.cincinnatibeacon.com

John McCain, Sarah Palin, and Their Raging Supporters

As I continue to watch the odd twists and turns of the election season, I cannot help but be somewhat taken aback at the level of anger that is being shown by the supporters of John McCain and Sarah Palin. There have been outbursts during some of the speeches made by McCain and Palin calling Barack Obama a "terrorist" and the Secret Service is investigating whether a supporter shouted out "Kill Him" during a speech given by Sarah Palin in Florida. This level of anger from supporters has been invigorated ever since the McCain campaign has decided that the "gloves are coming off" in the remaining days before the election. This has resulted in increased attacks against Barack Obama for his association with William Ayers, a fear that Obama "isn't one of us", and has led Sarah Palin to famously quip that Obama is "palling around with terrorists." As John McCain desperately tries to attempt to put the genie back in the bottle, let's take a look at some videos and comments that have relevance to this discussion.

There has been some very interesting footage that has been circulating recently of McCain supporters waiting to get into speaking events. Take this video from outside an event in Strongsville, Ohio:



This type of sentiment has also found its way inside McCain rallies. During this clip, you can hear a McCain supporter yell "terrorist" in response to McCain's question: "Who is the real Barack Obama?":



This type of behavior has drawn criticism from some who claim that the McCain/Palin ticket has been fueling this type of behavior. This criticism has led to John McCain defending Barack Obama during recent town hall meetings and even getting booed by his own supporters:



All of this and Cindy McCain still believes that Obama is running the "dirtiest campaign in American history."

On October 10, Frank Schaeffer wrote an open letter to John McCain that appeared in the Baltimore Sun. Schaeffer supported John McCain his Presidential bid in 2000 and is the son of the evangelist Francis Schaeffer. Frank has worked in the past with Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and has chronicled his life growing up with religion in numerous books. Schaeffer has come out in support of Obama and feels that the McCain campaign has released a dangerous hatred from within his supporters. Part of his open letter is below:

John McCain: If your campaign does not stop equating Sen. Barack Obama with terrorism, questioning his patriotism and portraying Mr. Obama as "not one of us," I accuse you of deliberately feeding the most unhinged elements of our society the red meat of hate, and therefore of potentially instigating violence.

At a Sarah Palin rally, someone called out, "Kill him!" At one of your rallies, someone called out, "Terrorist!" Neither was answered or denounced by you or your running mate, as the crowd laughed and cheered. At your campaign event Wednesday in Bethlehem, Pa., the crowd was seething with hatred for the Democratic nominee - an attitude encouraged in speeches there by you, your running mate, your wife and the local Republican chairman.

Shame!...


...John McCain, you are no fool, and you understand the depths of hatred that surround the issue of race in this country. You also know that, post- 9/11, to call someone a friend of a terrorist is a very serious matter. You also know we are a bitterly divided country on many other issues. You know that, sadly, in America, violence is always just a moment away. You know that there are plenty of crazy people out there.

Stop! Think! Your rallies are beginning to look, sound, feel and smell like lynch mobs.

John McCain, you're walking a perilous line. If you do not stand up for all that is good in America and declare that Senator Obama is a patriot, fit for office, and denounce your hate-filled supporters when they scream out "Terrorist" or "Kill him," history will hold you responsible for all that follows.

Frank Schaeffer also mentioned during an interview today, that this type of language being used by McCain and Palin is stirring up anger within certain subcultures within this country that resonate with Sarah Palin and her background.

Journalist Max Blumenthal is back from a trip to Alaska where he visited Sarah Palin's church of 20 years and interviewed people that Palin has been involved with during her political career including the former Chair of the Alaskan Independence Party Mark Chryson. (Video here) Blumenthal documented his trip in some videos, one of which is below:




This article can also be found at: http://www.cincinnatibeacon.com

Actual Change and the Need for a Progressive Uprising

As this election season drags on and the race for President is getting more personal by the day, it seems as though we are learning little that is "new" from either major candidate. As has been demonstrated in both Presidential debates, Barack Obama and John McCain agree on many issues. Both have voted for the bailout, both advocate sending more troops into Afghanistan, both are advocating for the use of nuclear power for energy, both advocate unwavering support for Israel and on it goes. This alliance on many issues has some progressives scratching their heads as to what exactly an Obama administration will mean for the country. In fact, it is along these very lines which progressives are divided between supporting Obama and voting for a third party candidate. With under a month left before the election we all have to ask ourselves this question: Will an Obama Presidency produce fundamental progressive change for this country?

Barack Obama has been running on the idea of "bringing change" long before McCain jumped on the bandwagon. It was this message combined with Obama's charismatic ability to appeal to the younger generation that led to a largely progressive following. These supporters are obviously tired of the last eight years of rule under George W. Bush and are looking to take the country in a new direction. During the primaries Obama supported positions that excited the progressive community. He called for an end to the Iraq War and voiced opposition to FISA legislation that would give immunity to telecom companies. Since clinching the nomination, Obama has altered his language on Iraq and voted for FISA legislation that gave immunity to telecom companies. Actions such as these made some Obama supporters think twice about Obama's "progressive" message while others dismissed these changes in position as the traditional "move to the right" that Democratic candidates display after they make it through the primaries. Was Obama running to the left in the primaries and returning to his actual centrist beliefs or did Obama actually hold progressive viewpoints but feel he had to shift to the right in order to get elected? Many still claim that Obama must move to the right so he can get elected and only once he is elected can he implement his true agenda. Is there evidence for this view?


In July, Paul Street wrote a piece that is relevant to this discussion. In his piece, Street outlines Obama's political career and comes to the conclusion that there is no evidence that Obama is somehow a closet progressive that will implement radical progressive change once elected. Street claims that Obama is simply a typical politician with centrist roots. Street writes:

Obama's career prior to his emergence as a national celebrity and politician does not jibe particularly well with the "stealth progressive" hypothesis. During his seven years in the Illinois Senate between 1997 and 2004, Obama developed strong and interrelated reputations for limitless personal aspiration, for working closely with Republicans, for "pragmatic" compromise, and for staying close to the great hidden secret to success under the rules of American "market democracy" - corporate money [8]. As Ryan Lizza notes in an important recent New Yorker sketch of Obama's early political career, "Perhaps the greatest misconception about Barack Obama is that he is some sort of anti-establishment revolutionary. Rather, every stage of his political career has been marked by an eagerness to accommodate himself to existing institutions rather than tear them down or replace them"

The important line in this quote is that at every stage of Obama's political career, he has "been marked by an eagerness to accommodate himself to existing institutions rather than tear them down or replace them." In addition to the examples of FISA, the Iraq War, and Israeli support, Street sites the following as other examples of Obama's eagerness to accommodate himself to existing institutions:

...he did things like:

* vote with Republicans to cap consumer legal damages ("tort reform").
* confirm the war criminal Condoleezaa Rice as (of all things) Secretary of State.
* lecture "bloggers" (Obama's new code name for the growing number of activists and voters who dare to openly disagree with Him from the left) on their need to show proper respect for U.S. Senators who approved the appointment of arch-reactionary opponents of womens' and civil rights to the rule-for-life Supreme Court.
* distance himself from Rep. John Murtha's (D-PA)call for early withdrawal from Iraq and from his fellow Illinois U.S. Senator Dick Durbin's courageous criticism of American Gestapo-like practices in Guantanamo.
* lend his campaign support to pro-war against antiwar candidates in the Democratic congressional primaries of 2006 and otherwise distance himself from the movement against the Iraq War.
* advance the energy agenda of the nuclear and ethanol industries.

It seems as though many Obama supporters are putting their faith in his ability to fundamentally change the existing institutions that have moved America so far backward when Obama's actions over the years indicate that he is more willing to accommodate these institutions rather than tear them down. The conservative criticism that Obama is a closeted "socialist" and the Democratic belief that Obama is a closeted progressive, are both off base in this regard.


With this being said, is there any hope at all for any type of progressive change to be implemented under an Obama Presidency? To address this question it is necessary to recognize the power of corporate interests and lobbyists within this country. One of the criticisms of Bill Clinton was his shift toward more corporatist policies after running a populist campaign back in 1992. In this regard history could very well repeat itself. The next President will inherit a financial crisis like none we have seen since the Great Depression, a national debt that continues to grow, two wars, and a crumbling infrastructure. This financial crisis could provide the pretext for heavy pressure from Wall Street, to cut programs that are needed to reinvest dollars domestically that the United States needs. Think tanks and lobbyists could advise the next President that we simply cannot afford to expand our alternative energy resources or invest in healthcare for everyone. It is this type of pressure that could reignite the same failed polices of privatization that have led us into this mess in the first place. Naomi Klein recently articulated this point in an address to the University of Chicago:

I think it is a waste of your minds, your creativity, because all of these crises—climate change, the casino that is contemporary capitalism—all of these crises do demand answers, do demand actions. They are messages, telling us that the system is broken. And instead of actual solutions, we're throwing ideology, very profitable ideology, at these problems. So we need better ideas lying around.

We need better ideas responding to what a Barack Obama presidency would absolutely face. As soon as he comes to office, "Yes, you can" turns into "No, you can't; we're broke." No green jobs, no alternative energy, no healthcare for everyone. You know, his plan for—to give healthcare to every child in America costs $80 billion. Bailing out AIG cost $85 billion. They're spending that money. They're spending those promises. So, the people who are going to say, "No, you can't," who are going to use this crisis to shut down hope, to shut down possibility, are ready.

Klein reemphasized this point in her appearance on "The Colbert Report" last week. She stated that there are those who will advise an Obama administration that we are broke and cannot afford these changes. These will be the same people who will push for the privatization of things such as our infrastructure. This will be done under the banner that we must eliminate programs that are "unnecessary" and "wasteful". Obama (like McCain) has already stated that he will go through the budget "line by line" and eliminate "programs that don't work and aren't needed." Massive corporate interests are lined up, ready to pressure those within an Obama Administration to adopt policies that will work to uphold the very same institutions that have led us to the dismal situation in which we find ourselves today.


The view that Obama taking power will result in a complete reversal of where we are currently headed is misguided. This belief, that actual change is possible within the two main parties, is unfounded and not supported by history. All major movements for social change have grown out of movements which have forced the party in power to adopt policies that they can no longer refuse to ignore. From Women's Rights to Civil Rights this holds true and the circumstances today are no exception. It is here that there may be some hope around Obama's candidacy: With such a massive groundswell of support for this man there is potential for a movement to form in order to counter the influence of Wall Street, lobbyists and other corporate interests. It is first imperative to realize that Obama is not going to change things without overwhelming pressure from an outside progressive movement. If those who are progressively minded and have supported Obama walk away from the process after the election, then we will not have any hope for accountability. These energized progressives within the Obama campaign need to join with those who have been fighting within existing movements such as the anti-war movement, the media reform movement, or the environmental movement and hold a potential Obama Administration accountable. We live in times where putting faith in one man to change a system is not going to work. A powerful movement is needed to force a potential Obama Administration to adopt policies that they can no longer refuse to ignore.


Many of those who have been fighting this fight are already keenly aware of these problems. This is the reason that there is a very real fight to open the debates to third party candidates to address these issues and this is the reason that many people will either sit out this election or cast their vote for a third party candidate. Those who feel strongly about Obama's possibility must join with those who feel strongly about a unified people's possibility. Obama will not change things on his own, the people must force Obama to change, especially because Obama is a candidate that adapts to institutions rather than tear them down. The people must tear them down.


While a glimmer of hope is there, I fear that this will not happen. I fear that those who have fought this fight for years will be left to continue fighting while a group of confused Obama supporters wonder why things are still heading down the same path. I hope I am proven wrong because the United States can not take much more of this.

This article can also be found at: http://www.cincinnatibeacon.com