I know Obama is the darling of many of you, and I realize that some even like Hillary, but let us consider this most crucial fact. There were only three candidates in the US presidential race with demonstrated integrity in terms of that most essential criterion for becoming the next president of the world’s most powerful nation state – or any other nation for that matter: upholding civil rights and the rule of constitutional democracy during a time when these are under escalating and highly deliberate attack. Many of you will know immediately who I mean. Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel, and Ron Paul. These were the only three candidates with proven records of defending constitutional rights and freedoms, as well as the rule of democracy, against the by now undeniable assaults on the same. Mike Gravel, honorable as he is, I do not believe has a chance of winning. Dennis Kucinich has now dropped out of the race. This leaves us with only one serious candidate – that is, one serious candidate if we are serious about protecting civil rights and constitutional democracy. He is US Congressman Dr. Ron Paul.
If we look beyond the rhetoric for a moment, it becomes undeniable that the commitment of the others to upholding or even abiding by the Constitution, is highly questionable, at best. Obama and Hillary both voted in favor of the Patriot Act, which strips away critical liberties, nullifies much of the Bill of Rights, and is an abomination to democracy and the Constitution. Not only did these two chameleons vote in favor of the Patriot Act, but they voted a second time to make 14 of its provisions permanent. Hillary and Obama both voted in favor of the Military Commissions Act, voting in favor of making torture legal in the United States. These are not the actions of democrats. These two are not democrats: they have chosen to side with an assault on democracy. In the now unfolding battle between the corporatocracy and the people, they have shown where they stand. And it is not with the people, however pleasing their slippery rhetoric may appear.
Obama and Hillary have both shown their allegiance, moreover, to the military-industrial complex, to the on-going wars of empire – despite high-sounding words – and to unremitting deaths and destruction in support of global imperial ambition. They have both said, in regards to Iran, “Everything is on the table.” So pre-emptive war and nuclear attack are on the table. This is not only pro-empire, it is dangerous in the extreme, and risks an ecological and humanitarian disaster of the greatest magnitude.
Both Obama and Hillary voted in favor of the war in Iraq – repeatedly, voting to fund it every time Congress was asked. Now they talk of peace. This is sheer hypocrisy. Only Kucinich and Gravel on the Democratic side showed genuine integrity on the issue of war. Obama and Hillary will most likely become a united love-in ticket for the military-industrial complex, and I would advise you in the strongest of terms to re-examine them, and most crucially, their demonstrated records of action, their voting records, before endorsing Mr. and Mrs. corporate war establishment.
If you still have some doubts as to Hillary and Obama, consider also who they have chosen as their key advisors. It will reveal, if we are willing to look, a portrait in imperial criminality. Each of them have chosen as their key advisors, long standing establishment figures, all with blood on their hands, all with grave records of war crimes, crimes against humanity or mass murder. This is not the peace ticket, my friends. This is the ticket to a deepening hell of empire-fetish.
Hillary has named Madeleine Albright as a key advisor, the woman who single-handedly blocked the efforts to halt the genocide in Rawanda, endorsed the sanctions against Iraq, and when questioned on the fact that the sanctions had by that time killed half a million women and children in that country, coldly responded, “We think it’s worth the sacrifice.”
Obama has publicly named Zbigniew Brzezinski as his key advisor – the man who bragged of having created the band of militant extremist Muslims that later became Al Queda – with CIA funding, weapons and training, when he was Carter’s National Security Advisor – in order to lure the Soviet Union into a destabilizing war, “their own Vietnam.” Obama’s right hand man is thus one of the most cold-blooded as well as pre-eminent of Machiavellian strategists for the empire, co-founder of the Trilateral Commission, and chief intellectual in residence to the US business elite. In light of this, Barack Obama should gives us chills – and not of inspiration.
The Washington Post has recently commented on a very strange phenomenon: the political right is joining in a chorus of warmth toward Obama. One voice from the right has said, “We can work with him.” Given Obama’s adoring words toward Reagan, maybe we shouldn’t be surprised. But what does it mean when the political right in America says, “We can work with him.” I would contend that it means the obvious, as outlined above: he is no threat to the present establishment of power. Alan Greenspan has said that Bill Clinton was the best Republican President we’ve had in a long time. I think it’s safe to say that Hillary and Obama would be there, right next to that glorious legacy.
In a comment to Jim Hightower’s excellent article on the dismal state of the Democratic party, one writer said, “If something does not happen, very soon, we are going to have a laughable choice between two Republicans come November for President of the United States.” I’m afraid this is only too true. The only thing progressive about Hillary and Obama is their zeal for serving the corporate empire – it is a progressively demeaning form of treason to the people of the United States, and the Constitution, rights and freedoms upon which their future stands or falls.
I realize it is difficult to even consider voting for someone who is running under a Republican ticket, but remember, the Republican party machine hates him, so he can’t be all bad. Ron Paul has been asked if he is running for the wrong party, to which he replied, he is running for the party that used to be opposed to excessive executive powers, that used to be opposed to interventionist wars – that he is running for what the Republican party used to stand for, long before the emergence of the neoconservatives.
You may not agree with Ron Paul on every point, as I do, being a progressive; you may even disagree with him on some very important points, but you cannot help but agree with him on the most essential points: end the wars of empire, and stop the assault on democracy and civil rights.
Get with the program. This man is going to help save our collective behinds: he is the only candidate we can trust to stand with the people, and not the empire or its corporate backers. Check him out. A great deal rides on the outcome of this election. As the venerable Mike Gravel has said about the US 2008 Presidential race, “We have to get this one right.”
Recent mass bombing of civilians in Iraq: brought to you by the Democrats who continue to fund the war – notably, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton: