> The Fanatic Right defines words like democracy, communism and terrorism
> quite differently than I do. When the Shah, Marcos, Suharto, Pinochet,
> and other similar tyrants were in power the U.S. described the
> governments they headed as democracies... and the labels communism,
> terrorist, or terrorist supporter were slapped on the governments of
> Sukarno, Allende, Castro, Mugabe, and Hussein.

> My definitions are based on what I assume those words were intended to
> mean and not how they have been used or interpreted over time. I think
> Lincoln's definition of democracy as "a government of the people, by
> the people and for the people" pretty much says all that needs to be
> said. "From each according to ability to each according to need in a
> system where real estate and the means of production are commonly
> owned" is a
> satisfactory explanation for communism. And terrorism is "the use of
> threats or violence to accomplish a political objective."

> Using my definitions... which I challenge anyone to counter... those
> tyrants listed above did not preside over democracies. As a matter of
> fact, the U.S. itself doesn't meet Lincoln's definition of Democracy
> either. It is actually "a government of the corporation, by the
> corporation and for the corporation." The U.S. considers any government
> that permits corporations to exploit its resources a democracy. Nations
> unwilling
> to open their doors to the dubious benefits of such a corporate
> democracy are labeled either communists and/or terrorists.

> The best known and first to be defined "communist nation" never
> considered itself a communist country. The name it adopted was the
> Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics -- knowing that socialism is not
> communism. The Soviets may have aspired to communism but realized
> they were far from that stage. Of course, misnomers within the Soviet
> bloc existed there as well -- ergo, the GDR, the German DEMOCRATIC
> Republic.

> Year after year... when the U.S. and its puppet media were extolling
> those favored "democracies," those countries were recipients of
> extensive financial and military aid from their generous sugar daddy,
> Uncle Sam. In addition, Uncle Sam provided professional training and
> assistance, compliments of the CIA, for controlling unruly rabble.
> which, of course, means anyone who was smart enough to see behind the
> veil of
> lies and make a stink about it. The diligent graduates of the Shah's
> SAVAK were samples of what had been achieved. But in spite of Uncle's
> assistance those governments were unable to survive for very long. In
> each case their demise resulted from an uprising of their people who
> defied lying rulers, brutal police, and military or political
> repression.

> On the other hand, those dastardly communist and terrorist governments
> maintained the support of their people. If such governments were ousted
> it was by coups supported by external powers, usually the U.S. Their
> replacements became US-installed "democracies" that met the
> well-deserved fate just described.

> Perhaps my definition (and Lincoln's) of democracy is too limited.
> Voting in free and fair elections is certainly a characteristic of
> democracies. Didn't those US-listed democracies qualify? And how could
> I possibly criticize the U.S.? After all, it holds elections regularly.
> They are not limited to one political party, and all citizens are
> encouraged to vote.

> Quite true... however, they comply only in form but not in substance.
> The rhetoric is there... the PR is there... the hoopla is there... but
> the reality of an authentic choice is nonexistent. Securing a place on
> the ballot and obtaining fair and ample media exposure is only
> available to those who have proven their loyalty to the elite.

> Elections are nothing more than charades these days. More and more
> people know it. That's why the winning presidential vote count never
> exceeds the number of eligible non-voters. Yet every party, the media,
> employers, unions, educational and religious organizations unanimously
> urge the public to vote. I have never heard any source in the U.S. hint
> that not voting might be a reasonable and logical option. Although
> non-voters outnumber the winners their existence is ignored. The
> winner's share is always the percentage of those who voted rather than
> those who
> were eligible. It's too embarrassing in this hyped-up, supposedly
> wonderful democracy to acknowledge that so many have lost confidence.
> Just imagine what numbers the non-voters might amass if there was a
> well organized and provocative campaign to get people to boycott
> elections!

> Or, better yet... a campaign to get people to demand Truth, Honor, and
> Justice from our elected officials.

> I sincerely believe that democracy should represent the voice of the
> people. But getting somebody to pull levers or make check marks once a
> year after being barraged with smear ads and grandstanding by the mass
> media is a weak manifestation of democracy. When people go out of their
> way repeatedly to expend money, picket, protest, write letters, and at
> times defy the authorities... that to me is evidence of democracy.
> Whenever one of those supposed democratic rulers was toppled it was in
> my mind a triumph of democracy. The Will of The People won out over
> those who were judged unfit to be in power.

> Time and time again... a weakling stands up to a more powerful
> adversary and against all logic defeats him. Recent history is full of
> stories about US puppets getting the bum's rush from their countrymen.

> Vietnam, that small, poor, Third World country, took on the French, the
> U.S., and troops of other nations. More firepower pounded that little
> land than was needed to defeat the Germans and Japanese in World War
> II. Years of unceasing attacks by the mightiest military power was
> insufficient to crush that valiant nation. Could any election possibly
> equal such a commitment to democracy than was shown by the
> Vietnamese sacrifices during those years?

> How in the world can the anomaly of citizens overthrowing democracies
> and defending tyrannies be explained?

> Propaganda!

> The US government has always played it fast and loose when describing
> their friends and foes. George Bush went even farther when he uttered
> one of the most stupid phrases ever to fall from the mouth of a fool...
> "Either you're with us or you're with the terrorists". The mainstream
> media, by echoing and amplifying those distortions, has been able to
> fool most of the American people most of the time.

> Most... not all. Some of us still know how to reason and come to
> logical conclusions, right?

> Why do you think Castro's Cuba, despite constant political and militant
> harassment by the U.S., outlast so many subsidized favorites? An answer
> might be revealed by comparing how that poor sanctioned country and the
> wealthy sole superpower treats their citizens
> when emergencies arise.

> When the Soviet Union finally crumbled, vital trade and other benefits
> that Cuba received from the Soviet bloc ceased and an ensuing financial
> crisis made it look like the end for Cuba. To clinch that result the
> U.S. slapped more onerous sanctions on the island. The consequences for
> Cuba were tough austerity measures. The military budget was slashed
> almost in half, but high priority social spending for health and
> education, was maintained. Food subsidies and rationing assured a
> minimum of essential nutrition to all.

> Then we had 9/11 and Bush and the neocons finally had an emergency to
> exploit. Pre-emptive wars with accompanying increases in the military
> budget fattened the military-industrial complex but brought death to
> the poor kids who had "volunteered" for the military... as Orwell
> called it - The Poverty Draft. Benefits such as tax reductions and
> subsidies were dolled out to corporations and the wealthy. The revenue
> loss was partially offset by reductions in essential social services.
> Constitutionally guaranteed civil liberties went bye-bye.

> Isn't it self-evident why Cubans would strongly support their country?
> And why the U.S., with all the bonuses and promises that military
> service holds out, is unable to meet its recruiting quotas... and why
> MANY career soldiers are leaving and refusing reenlistment?

> People are beginning to stand up to the Big Bullies. Hugo Chávez, like
> Castro, has his people behind him. He wins elections overwhelmingly,
> overturns a coup, and withstands his opponents' organized strike. With
> eighty percent of the population who live in poverty finally getting a
> break, the Venezuelan elite and their American allies have met their
> match. Protests in other Latin American countries have also been
> successful. The oppressive overlords were resisted or ousted.

> Peoples around the world are getting pissed off. People who have been
> subjected for years and years to the abuses of neo-colonial rule of the
> U.S., its allies and puppets have had enough. I imagine that Howard
> Beale's familiar outcry "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it
> anymore!" may be resonating in their thoughts. Bush's approval numbers
> have dropped below 40 percent now so it's pretty obvious
> that people are beginning to wake up and realize they were duped... and
> that they need to confront those that did the duping.

> The indoctrinated, Fox News fed public will instinctively characterize
> such actions as criminal terrorism. But is it? I don't think so and I
> don't
> think Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence,
> would think so either. Here are pertinent excerpts from that hallowed
> document that justified the colonists' rebellion against their lawful
> government (emphasis added):

> . . . Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers
> from the Consent of the Governed, -- That whenever any Form of
> Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the
> People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,
> laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in
> such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and
> Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long
> established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and
> accordingly all
> Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while
> Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms
> to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and
> Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a Design to
> reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their
> Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their
> future Security . . .

> The New Insurgents can certainly find justification in those venerated
> assertions. We must join the millions of others who are no longer
> patsies to the PR campaigns of the media are regularly protesting in
> major cities around the world.

> We are the New Insurgents. We must help others find the courage to
> question their beliefs and views... and question those they support.

> Think about it... left to their own selves many Americans wouldn't know
> what to die for... let alone what to live for.

> Do you know?

> I'm just askin'...

> Lo Phat Ham

> www.lophatham.com <http://www.lophatham.com>