Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

The US elections are sham

Expand Messages
  • World View
    The US: the elections are sham Mazin Qumsiyeh In the much despised Soviet Union, there was a quaint custom of electing an excellent milkmaid or a good
    Message 1 of 1 , Feb 7, 2008
      The US: the elections are sham
      Mazin Qumsiyeh

      In the much despised Soviet Union, there was a quaint custom of
      electing an excellent milkmaid or a good blacksmith into the state
      parliament. Actually, in my view, milkmaids and steelmakers are
      perfectly able to manage a country, even better than politicians, but
      these paragons of labor were selected by the hidden hand of party
      bosses, approved by masses, and never were given a chance to manage
      the country. When the workers were dissatisfied with Gorbachev's turn
      for privatization, the bosses quickly dismissed the parliament, and
      had sent the milkmaids and steelmakers home.

      In the US, the customs are different. Instead of a milkmaid, the
      hidden hand selects an imposing-looking Texan ex-governor, or a
      senator, or an ex-First Lady, who knows where restrooms in the White
      House are and does not have to be toilet-trained. But the bottom line
      is the same: they are just fa├žade, the fall guy for the real people
      well behind them.

      Here we offer you two articles on this subject: by Noam Chomsky and by
      our Palestinian-American colleague Mazin Qumsiyeh. Both are worthy of
      your attention.

      (1) The illusion of choice in US elections

      Mazin Qumsiyeh

      The 2008 presidential elections were likened to the World Wrestling
      Federation matches: take time and energy but obviously fixed/staged. A
      more apt analogy would go beyond these elections: the whole political
      system in the US is a theater play with predictable script but
      different actors. Yet, the damage caused by elected officials is
      getting so severe that another four years may finish off the
      experiment that is otherwise known as the USA (whether those are of a
      Clinton, McCain, Obama, or Romney administration).

      Candidates of both parties are allowed to advance to final rounds
      whether in congressional or presidential elections only if they are
      cleared by the real powers to be. This is evident from issues they can
      and cannot tackle. The cleared Democratic and the Republican nominees
      cannot for example tackle the broken system with no proportional
      representation and no system to allow instant runoff elections. Both
      cleared nominees must believe in maintaining the US Empire by force
      and are only allowed to differ in tactics of advancing the "white
      man's burden" of "civilizing" and "improving" the world. They will not
      be asked about why US troops are stationed in 140 countries. Cleared
      Candidates of both parties will continue to support pouring billions
      directly into Israel and many more billions to support conflicts
      perceived to help Israel (e.g. Iraq and Iran) or help bring money to
      coffers of wealthy corporations. ExxonMobile just set a world record
      with PROFITS in 2007 exceeding $40 BILLION. Both will ignore (or at
      best pay lip service to) the racial and economic divides that are
      growing. Both will ignore the inability to face-up to the US criminal
      history (Slavery, Genocide of Native Americans, support of brutal
      dictators abroad, militarism etc).

      Both have no interest, let alone ideas, in tackling the entrenched
      military-industrial complex that is bankrupting the US. They all
      support the pathetic "stimulus package" (with minor variations) that
      will give some $600 tax rebates to 117 million Americans so that "they
      can spend it" and stimulate the economy. Yet the real issues gate
      keepers will not allow to be addressed: trillions in private debts
      (corporate and individual), $9 trillion in government debt (which
      means our children will have to pay for it), a multi-trillion dollar
      mortgage debacle involving large scale fraud, the scandal of a
      raided/depleted social security safety net, the collapse of the fiat
      currency otherwise known as the US dollar, and much more. Yes, some
      candidates maybe allowed to pay lip service to reducing government
      deficits but the system is now beyond that. Corporations (e.g. General
      electric, United Technologies) and governments (e.g. Israel) who
      sucked up these trillions are getting to a point where they do not
      need the United States as a functioning or stable economic system but
      only a military power overseas to guard their interests there.

      Cleared candidates for presidential elections will never have to
      answer any real difficult questions about these economic matters or
      about the equally important legal and social matters. When was a
      candidate really challenged about the violations of the US
      Constitution, violations that they implicitly or explicitly support?
      Gatekeepers make sure that cleared candidates are not challenged on
      impeachment or on taking legal action against an administration that:

      1) Violated International treaties repeatedly. Treaties like the
      Geneva Conventions prohibit most actions done in Iraq and beyond from
      torture to collective punishment to targeting civilians etc and these
      treaties are mandatory under the constitution as they were ratified by

      2) Violated the constitution in supporting warrant-less spying on US
      Citizens and now seeking retroactive immunity for companies that
      helped and immunities for officials who did this

      3) Violated the constitution by holding people in jails without due
      process, without habeas corpus etc.

      Congress and Senators cleared for final rounds actually supported
      these policies with laws like the renewing FISA, funding Guantanamo,
      funding the CIA etc.

      Cleared candidates are also not allowed to be challenged on the broken
      US (In)Justice system: the highest incarceration rate in the world,
      more than three million people are in custody or on parole (and they
      cannot vote), a system that employs more people than anywhere else in
      the world, privatized jails etc. No wonder our economy has been called
      a service economy.

      Ron Paul articulated that the Republican party of today bears no
      resemblance to the party of Abraham Lincoln (Lincoln for example was
      against the war with Mexico). But the media gatekeepers did not give
      Paul much airtime or exposure. Paul is also correct that despite the
      rhetoric of the cleared candidates in both parties, they are all pro
      big government, massive debts, and destroying the future of our
      children for short-term political gains. The differences are minor and
      relate to ratio of discretionary spending on the military vs. on
      domestic service industries: one wants it 60:40 and the other 40:60.

      Cleared Republican candidates say that governments can't run
      healthcare or other social programs but this sounds hollow when they
      say in the same breath that government is to be trusted with our money
      to run the biggest government bureaucracy in the world: the US
      military. The US with 6% of the world population spends nearly the
      same amount as all other countries combined on the war machine. With
      military industries, bases, and other outlets spread in just about
      every congressional district in the US, it is politically impossible
      to tackle this issue with logic. Thus when the Soviet Union collapsed
      of its own weight (a lesson there not understood in the US), that
      military industrial complex found it convenient to latch onto the
      offered alternative (offered by Zionists): the threat of "Islamic

      Cleared Democratic candidates can talk all they want about the rich
      not paying their fair share. But a logical person asks if this
      rhetoric can mean anything in the real globalized world. Democrats
      know very well that if they try to tax the rich, all the rich will
      have to do is relocate to other countries who would welcome them. Some
      already have dual citizenship (e.g. British, Israeli). In fact, many
      have already done so thanks to laws they have lobbied for
      ("free-trade" agreements, globalization which means capital and its
      owners can move freely between countries whereas workers cannot). Many
      billionaires like the Zionist Haim Saban (the largest single
      contributor to the Democratic Party) have already concluded that the
      US has been squeezed to the max and are already positioning themselves
      in other countries. Rupert Murdoch is buying European media.
      Halliburton relocated its headquarters to Dubai (the same Halliburton
      which bilked taxpayers of billions supposedly to rebuild Iraq and
      ended up with no completed projects in Iraq). There are literally
      hundreds of examples. So even as the US dollar continues to decline
      and the US Middle class gets squeezed more, profits of these companies
      continue to rise. Worse comes to worse, those cleared elected
      officials can oblige with new wars/conflicts (look at Halliburton's
      profits before and after the war on Iraq as an example).

      Six months ago, I stated that it is easy to predict who will be
      allowed to advance for final rounds of the US elections and who will
      be shunned and marginalized. I stated that the best indicator is to
      look who the Zionists in Israel and the US like. This is because
      Israel is not an ordinary country but is rather unique (see
      http://www.qumsiyeh.org/isisraelunique/ ). Israeli preferences were
      published months ago and those were more predictive than anything
      else. Those who got the lowest scores (on "friendliness to Israel"
      scale) were quickly marginalized by a compliant media (e.g. Ron Paul,
      Garver, Kucinich). Those with the highest scores were elevated and
      exalted in a media that is populated heavily by those to whom Israeli
      interests are number 1 (e.g. Wolf Blitzer used to be a Zionist
      spokesperson before he was to become a CNN spokesperson). Those in the
      intermediate levels like Barak Obama have to jump many times before he
      is taken seriously (he is called a Muslim, his middle name Hussain
      becomes a weapon to use against him, he is chastised for once
      accurately saying that no one in the Arab-Israeli conflict suffered
      more than the Palestinians etc).

      Of course Obama was attuned to this from the beginning and he started
      to pander to the Zionist lobby very early on when he ran for the
      Senate. In the past three years, he was thus supportive of Israeli war
      crimes in Lebanon in 2006, Israeli collective punishment of the
      Palestinians (crimes against humanity and war crimes), Israeli
      extrajudicial executions, Israeli settlement activities, maintenance
      of US occupation forces in Iraq (although like Sharon with Gaza, he
      called it redeployment to the periphery), and most recently a strong
      stance against Iran to serve Israeli interests. Obama even hired the
      services of Dennis Ross who was a lobbyist for Israel before Bill
      Clinton hired him and went back to work for the same lobby outfit
      after leaving government.

      Rabbi Lerner of Tikkun explained: "Jewish voters are only 2% of the
      U.S. population, but they are mostly concentrated in the states with
      the highest number of delegate and electoral votes (New York,
      California, Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Illinois), they contribute
      financially to politicians disproportionately to their percentage of
      the voters, and they are often in key roles as opinion shapers in the
      communities in which they work or live." Shlomo Shamir wrote in an
      analysis in Haaretz (in Hebrew not English version) that whether Obama
      wins or does not win the nomination or the election, that
      establishment Jews in the US supported him financially as a
      replacement to the aging black leadership which has always been looked
      at with suspicion (e.g. Jesse Jackson)

      Of course Hillary Clinton is a bit to the right of Obama and so are
      McCain and Romney. McCain and Clinton from the beginning were the
      favorite with Zionists in the media who play the game of Democrat vs.
      Republican. They range from Charles Krauthammer to Thomas Friedman to
      Mort Zuckerman to Wolf Blitzer to Alan Combs. Giuliani was an
      interesting phenomenon. He was so wanting to please that Zionist
      establishment and distinguish himself from other pandering politicians
      that he chose for advisers, staff, and friends some of the most
      fascist/racist neoconservative and other Zionist extremists (from
      Daniel Pipes to Alan Dershowitz). This was a mistake on two fronts: 1)
      these are people who know nothing about winning elections in the US
      (they are mostly about a scorched earth policy abroad), 2) these are
      Natanyahu Likkud Zionists who alienated the other mainstream Zionist
      forces in the world (Labor Zionists, Kadima Zionists, even religious
      Zionists etc). Most Zionists were not disappointed when Giuliani
      dropped out of the race (actually most Republican Zionists in Florida
      voted for McCain). Giuliani himself emerges a winner, as he will
      likely be a vice president with the McCain administration. The
      template for that role will be Dick Cheney's relationship to Bush.
      Instead of Afghanistan and Iraq, this time it will be Iran and Sudan
      (or Syria). The actors are altered but the script is the same.

      We must face the reality that while some candidates give lip-service
      to challenging special interest lobbies, this is a government by and
      for special interests (the Israel-first lobby, the Military Lobby, the
      Industrial lobby etc). So what can be done beyond voting for the
      lesser of two evils while ignoring how these people get cleared into
      the final choices? We must always remember that it is our (the
      citizens) responsibility. We must take this opportunity to protest and
      speak out. We all know that real social change occurs from grass root
      movements. We all know that that is what achieved ending the genocidal
      war on Vietnam, ending support for Apartheid South Africa, civil
      rights, women rights, labor rights etc. We all know that freedom is
      never freely given; that it must be demanded. Even the simplest things
      would help (like flyering and speaking out at all Candidates
      appearances in your state). We all know that we must look in the
      mirror and refuse the task given to us of being consumers rather than
      citizens. So if you do get your $600 check "for shopping" why not
      spend it only for activism. Why not join an activist group or build
      your own. Why not block congressional offices. Why not build the
      revolution that could transform the US and the rest of the world.
      After all, the alternative is far too disastrous and is becoming
      clearer every year.



      To subscribe to this group, send an email to:


      Need some good karma? Appreciate the service?
      Please consider donating to WVNS today.
      Email ummyakoub@... for instructions.

      To leave this list, send an email to:
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.