Democratizing the US Constitution: An Idea Worth Considering

Share

Hits: 2685

The grandees of the Republican Party are on the ropes. Donald Trump has them by the balls, but, even without Trump, they would be in what Bush the Father would call deep “do-do.”

Any Republican candidate for President whom two-thirds of the electorate could abide would be anathema to the one-third that Republicans have recruited into their rank and file. Mitt Romney was the final straw.

The establishment’s situation is so pitiful that even Chris Christie is starting to look good to them. If his candidacy survives into the Spring, late night TV comedians will rejoice; others, not so much.

Ted Cruz remains beyond the pale, but seeing an opening, he might try to find a way to insinuate himself into the establishment’s favor. They would have to forgive him for challenging their authority in the past, and he would have to make himself less obnoxious in the future.

This would be hard for them both: Republican grandees expect respect, and Cruz’s mean-spirited arrogance is ingrained. There is nothing he could do that would keep the gentlefolk he would have to brownnose from abhorring him in any case; though it might not matter because, in Republican circles, greed conquers all. But his current supporters would be less forgiving. Were Cruz to try to placate the pillars of the Party, his inauthenticity would become so transparent that he would lose the Republican base. Their one redeeming virtue is that they despise phonies.

And so, with Cruz a tough sell, and with the fall of the House of Bush a done deal, the smart money, having nowhere else to go, seems to have settled on Marco Rubio, the most risible pipsqueak in the bunch. Remember Scott Walker, the good-for-nothing the grandees doted on before they cut him loose? Rubio makes Walker look good.

To help his case, Rubio has taken to advocating Constitutional amendments that would mandate timeworn libertarian nostrums – a balanced federal budget, for example, and term limits for elected officials and judges.

To fast track these changes, he has called for a new Constitutional convention, a “Convention of States.” So far, though, this has not been a central issue in his campaign. Maybe he is not serious; maybe he has not thought the idea through.

The one sure thing is that he didn’t think of it all by himself. The idea has been kicked around for years on rightwing talk radio shows. Its most ardent proponent on Capitol Hill lately has been an Oklahoma Senator who makes the buffoons running for President on the Republican side seem almost plausible, Tom Coburn.

Then, just a few days ago, Greg Abbott, successor to Rick Perry and George W. Bush in the Texas Governor’s office, took up the call as well. With Abbott on board and Rubio breathing down his neck, can Cruz be far behind?

Before long, therefore, the call for a Convention of States could become an “issue” in the Republican primaries, and maybe in the November election as well.

Abbott wants Amendments that would prohibit “unelected bureaucrats” from creating federal laws or preempting state laws; and that would allow a two-thirds majority of the States, to override U.S. Supreme Court decisions.

He also wants Amendments that would require a seven-Justice super-majority vote before Supreme Court decisions would invalidate democratically enacted laws.

And he wants Amendments that would prohibit the federal government from exercising powers not expressly delegated to it by the Constitution; and that would give state officials the power to sue federal officials who “overstep their bounds” in federal courts.

Last but not least, he wants an Amendment that would allow a two-thirds majority of the States to override federal laws and regulations.

Abbott’s proposals are tailored to the interests of his backers in what is euphemistically called “the business community.” He probably wouldn’t oppose amendments requiring budget balancing, term limits, and other causes dear to the hearts of the GOP’s formerly useful idiots, but his heart belongs to the semi-enlightened capitalists who call the shots in Austin and Washington DC.

This could change, however, if Rubio’s star keeps rising and if Cruz signs on too. There are more than enough possible amendments around to satisfy both the predator class and the numbskulls who do them service.

Indeed, if anything remains of the Republican Party after Trump, if it survives in more than a skeletal form, changing the Constitution may become the next big Republican cause.

The Constitution changers are not likely to get their way; but, as has happened with other Republican initiatives, we can expect their efforts to drag the center of gravity in American politics even farther to the right – especially if America’s other semi-established, pro-business Party is led by Hillary Clinton.

***

We Americans get weird over our Constitution.

Descendants of America’s first European settlers no longer predominate in the upper echelons of the federal judiciary or in the academic and media institutions that shape public opinion on legal affairs; this has been the case for many years.

Nevertheless, we think of the Constitution in much the way that our Pilgrim Fathers – we still call them that and think of them as ours – regarded Holy Writ, as a repository of Truth and infallible guide to life.

But sacred texts are ambiguous and vague, and sometimes even contradictory; they must be interpreted to be understood. The only way that “fundamentalists” can think that they are following the Bible’s teachings literally is by deceiving themselves.

9976953264_ce7d61b861_b_White-House-in-WashingtonThis is even clearer with the Constitution; a text that is, at key points, so deliberately vague that its authors established (judicial) institutions to interpret what its words imply.

Rightwing jurisprudes who uphold doctrines that mimic Protestant notions of Biblical inerrancy understand this too. Even they realize that, at some level, lawmakers and judges pick and choose, and that what gets picked and chosen is often arbitrary.

America’s gun laws can hardly be justified on their merits; this is plain as can be. Nevertheless, there are large swathes of the American public that defend them by appeal to the Second Amendment. For them, the Second Amendment might as well be God’s Eleventh Commandment.

Even so, it takes a mind-boggling hermeneutical leap to get from “a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed” to an infrangible right to own and flaunt all the lethal weaponry a gun nut can afford.

And it takes gall to promote that policy on Constitutional grounds, while not minding in the least that, in clear and unequivocal violation of Constitutional provisions, the United States makes war on other countries, and on “terrorists,” whenever its President takes a notion, without obtaining formal declarations of war from Congress, and sometimes without any semblance of Congressional assent at all. One point on which the authors of the U.S. Constitution were emphatic is that only Congress can commit the country to war.

The inconsistency is remarkable, but not surprising in view of the theological origins of the regnant frame of mind. Godly folk who consider the Bible the final word on nearly everything have always been quick to justify and condemn whatever suits them, regardless what the Good Book says.

Neither is it surprising that Coburn, Rubio and Abbott want to change the Constitution by amending it, rather than by starting over from scratch. We Americans are as disinclined to abandon our Constitution as those Pilgrim Fathers were to give up the King James Bible.

The conventional wisdom in liberal and centrist circles has long been: be wary of efforts to tamper with the Constitution, even around its margins, because, once the Right gets involved, as it inevitably will, it will seize opportunities to put basic rights and liberties in jeopardy.

That argument made more sense a decade and a half ago – before the Bush and Obama administrations put basic rights and liberties in jeopardy anyway, without changing anything in the Constitution at all.

In the post-9/11 world, the old concerns no longer count as much as they did, because the courts and the public generally, having been scared to death by War on Terror propaganda, are more tolerant than they used to be of government intrusions into privacy rights and of other restrictions on individuals’ liberties.

And so, it must be said that notwithstanding the fact that Coburn, Rubio and Abbott don’t mean well, the idea that they have been promoting might just have merit; that changing the Constitution could actually do some good. This possibility is worth considering.

***

It must be said too that some of Abbott’s ideas aren’t all that bad. Those that empower the legislative branch at the judiciary’s expense could enhance (small-d) democracy – not in the world as it now is, but in easily imaginable circumstances.

To be sure, his gestures towards democratization are disingenuous; were Rubio’s proposals more specific, his would be too. What those two want is to serve and protect their billionaire and millionaire patrons and, if possible too, to pander to the Republican base. They could care less about (small-d) democracy.

But why not turn the tables on those Constitution changers? The Constitution genuinely does impede democratization; it was drawn up in part for that purpose. It would not be a bad idea at all for (small-d) democrats to put democratizing it high on the agenda.

To some extent, this is already happening – with efforts to overturn the Supreme Court’s “Citizens United” ruling. That travesty, built on Supreme Court rulings going back to the mid-seventies, licenses virtually unbridled political corruption in the guise of defending First Amendment “free speech” rights.

Seeking to overturn the Court’s decision is well and good, though, not surprisingly, the activists promoting that cause — the people behind the “End Citizens United” PAC, for example — seem only a tad less disingenuous than Rubio and Abbott. Their concern, quite obviously, is getting (big-D) Democrats elected.

But Constitution changing can be pursued in good faith because there is an ideal that nearly everyone endorses or, at least, does not, and cannot, reasonably oppose: political equality, equality of citizenship.

Can anyone truly believe that citizens are equal as citizens when there is merely formal equality in elections – each voter having one and only one vote? It would not be hard to convince nearly everybody that for political equality to be real, everyone who so chooses must be able in principle to affect outcomes equally.

The United States is, of course, a union of States, of partially sovereign mini-countries. This made sense in view of the geographic, political, and economic exigencies in effect at the time of the country’s founding. But it is no less irrational on that account.

States include rural, suburban and urban areas that have little in common. Also, many metropolitan areas spill over into two, three or more state jurisdictions. Insofar as the idea is to govern efficiently, this makes no sense.

Ancien régime France was also a hodgepodge of administrative units. The French Revolution ended that, introducing an order that could be efficiently administered from the center.

Nothing that radical seems feasible in the United States today – not just because there is no political constituency pushing for it, but also because the American ancien régime is, by now, so deeply entrenched that the efficiency benefits of moving to more rational arrangements would be outweighed by the costs of getting from here to there.

Moreover, administrative inefficiencies are less of a problem than one might think because, over the years, ways have evolved that mitigate some of the inevitable coordination problems that arise when integral geographical entities spill across State lines. There is therefore little reason to change the status quo on efficiency grounds.

But there are ample (small-d) democratic reasons for restructuring the ways that the federal government’s legislative branch depends upon the division of the country into States; and therefore good reasons to think about amending the Constitution as a remedy.

The Senate is a glaring problem: each state, regardless of size, has two Senators; no matter that more than 37 million Americans live in California and barely half a million live in Wyoming.

Even Californians are well represented, however, compared to residents of Washington DC, the home of “taxation without representation.” More people live in the District, by the way, than in Wyoming. Montana, North and South Dakota, Alaska, Delaware and Vermont are not much bigger than Washington either. How is that for equality of political influence?

The Senate is as it is because, at the time of the country’s founding, it was politically necessary to accord each state equal representation in the upper house of a bicameral legislature. Had the founders not negotiated that arrangement, there would have been no federal government at all.

The situation was even worse than it now is, from a (small-d) democratic point of view, before 1913, when the Seventeenth Amendment, requiring that Senators be elected by popular vote, came into effect. Until then, Senators were chosen by state legislatures, many of which were effectively controlled by local oligarchs.

There would be little point trying to change or limit the powers of the Senate. But there would be enormous benefit were Senators elected, not two per state, but, say, two per functionally integral and more or less equally sized Senatorial districts. Those districts could be resized periodically as demographic conditions change.

This way too citizens of Washington DC could have the same level of representation as other Americans.

Senatorial districts could then be broken up into Congressional districts according to mandated impartial principles, making gerrymandering impossible. Thanks to the gerrymandering of Congressional districts by State officials, the House of Representatives, these days, is arguably an even less (small-d) democratic institution than the intentionally undemocratic Senate.

In conjunction with Constitutional amendments that would confer a non-defeasible right to vote upon all citizens who have reached the age of majority, and that would prohibit governments from suppressing voter turnout or in any other way discouraging the exercise of the franchise, these changes could also lead to the demise of America’s stultifying duopoly party system.

Were ballot access rules at the federal, state and local levels eased by Constitutional mandates, it would become reasonable too to push for proportional representation within Congressional districts, so that voters would have a better chance than they now do of voting for what they want, and getting some semblance of it elected into office.

It goes without saying too that, for the sake of (small-d) democracy, Presidents should be selected by popular vote, and the Electoral College should be abolished.

Finally, some form of instant runoff voting — where voters vote not only for their favored candidate or party, but also for their second choice — could be mandated, when necessary, for elections, such as those for the presidency and the Senate, in which there can be only one winner.

Needless to say, delegates to the Convention of States that Rubio and Abbott have in mind would not be interested in fast-tracking Constitutional amendments intended to democratize the federal government – unless, of course, an enraged citizenry, determined to make political equality substantively real, made them an offer they could not refuse.

It is also plain that none of these measures, or others that might be added on, are panaceas. Because the exigencies of capitalist development constrain what states in capitalist societies can do, there is a limit to how (small-d) democratic they can become.

This is how it is even in countries that insulate the political sphere from direct intrusions by economic elites — through public funding of elections and in other ways. The problem goes far beyond Citizens United.

But the limit is movable, and the kinds of measures that a Constitutional Convention called by (small-d) democrats might promote could be useful for moving that limit forward. A Rubio-Abbott Convention of States would, of course, move it back.

But the idea they are floating is worth thinking about, and maybe appropriating. It is not out of the question that, in better hands than theirs, some good could come of it.


Originally published in August 2016.

About the author: Andrew Levine is a Senior Scholar at the Institute for Policy Studies, the author most recently of THE AMERICAN IDEOLOGY (Routledge) and POLITICAL KEY WORDS (Blackwell) as well as of many other books and articles in political philosophy.His most recent book is In Bad Faith: What’s Wrong With the Opium of the People. He was a Professor (philosophy) at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and a Research Professor (philosophy) at the University of Maryland-College Park. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press).

Read our Disclaimer/Legal Statement!

Origins of images: Facebook, Twitter, Wikimedia, Wikipedia, Flickr, Google, Imageinjection & Pinterest.

Donate to Support Us

We would like to ask you to consider a small donation to help our team keep working. We accept no advertising and rely only on you, our readers, to keep us digging the truth on history, global politics and international relations.

[wpedon id=”4696″ align=”left”]

 

7177175713_a648aaf977_b_USA-flag
READ MORE!
NATO – 70th Anniversary of the Most Murderous – and Legal – Organization on our Planet
On 4th of April 2019 NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) “celebrated” the 70th Anniversary of its murderous existence. This horror organization was born sort of as a “Rosemary’s Baby”, signed into life in Washington DC, as the North Atlantic Treaty. Its creation was absolutely unethical but also absolutely “legal” – meaning what we, the west, have made the law, a man-made law for war, was applied by the Washington-Pentagon driven NATO. Estimates have it, that NATO and its ‘allies’, cronies, proxies and mercenaries killed more than 20 million people since NATO’s existence, basically since the end of WWII. Compare this with ...
READ MORE
Why America Needs War
GR Editor’s Note: This incisive article was written on April 30, 2003, by historian and political scientist Jacques Pauwels. A timely question: Why Does Hillary Want War… ? And why do people support her?  *     *     * Wars are a terrible waste of lives and resources, and for that reason most people are in principle opposed to wars. The American President, on the other hand, seems to love war. Why? Many commentators have sought the answer in psychological factors. Some opined that George W. Bush considered it his duty to finish the job started, but for some obscure reason ...
READ MORE
NATO Announces War Policy Against Russia
On May 18th, Britain’s Guardian headlined “West and Russia on course for war, says ex-Nato deputy commander” and reported that the former deputy commander of NATO, the former British general Sir Alexander Richard Shirreff (who was Supreme Allied Commander in Europe from 2011-2014), expressed outrage that Britain isn’t urgently preparing for war against Russia, and also reported that “He describes Russia as now the west’s most dangerous adversary and says Putin’s course can only be stopped if the west wakes up to the real possibility of war and takes urgent action. … In a chilling scenario, he predicts that Russia, in order to escape what it believes to be ...
READ MORE
Bipartisan Neocons Infesting Washington: What Prospects for America?
US duopoly power replaced the eras of Jefferson, Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt. No JFKs exist, President Kennedy as we recall was a peacemaker assassinated for opposing war, urging nuclear disarmament and the normalization of relations  with the Soviet Union.   New Deal, Fair Deal and Great Society programs are heading for history’s dust bin. Bipartisan neocons infesting Washington want social justice ended, neoliberal enslavement replacing it, fascist police state harshness enforcing it.America is a gangster state, criminals running it – beginning in the 1990s under Bill Clinton, hardened under George W. Bush, institutionalized under Obama, certain to worsen no matter who succeeds him.US ...
READ MORE
America’s Enemies, Who’s on the List?
For almost 2 decades, the US pursued a list of ‘enemy countries’ to confront, attack, weaken and overthrow.  This imperial quest to overthrow ‘enemy countries’ operated at various levels of intensity, depending on two considerations:  the level of priority and the degree of vulnerability for a ‘regime change’ operation. The criteria for determining an ‘enemy country’ and its place on the list of priority targets in the US quest for greater global dominance, as well as its vulnerability to a ‘successfully’ regime change will be the focus of this essay. We will conclude by discussing the realistic perspectives of future imperial ...
READ MORE
Libya: Before and after the Fall of Moamer Gaddafi
Origins of images: Facebook, Twitter, Wikimedia, Wikipedia, Flickr, Google, Imageinjection & Pinterest.Read our Disclaimer/Legal Statement!Donate to Support UsWe would like to ask you to consider a small donation to help our team keep working. We accept no advertising and rely only on you, our readers, to keep us digging the truth on history, global politics and international relations.[wpedon id="4696" align="left"]SaveSave
READ MORE
Inside Kosovo’s Islamist Cauldron
Kacanik, KOSOVO – A plume of smoke hangs over our table in the corner of a dark, shabby café in this rugged town in southern Kosovo. The lanky 19-year-old sitting next to me is chain-smoking through half a pack of L&Ms, his hands trembling as he recalls how he joined one of the world's most brutal militant Islamist groups.Through his neatly trimmed beard, Adem, who asks me not to use his real name for fear of arrest, says he had never even left Kosovo. But two years ago, he found himself on the perilous and far-off Turkey-Syria border -- a ...
READ MORE
A Short History of Czechoslovakia
The origins of Czechoslovakia (1918−1920)Czechoslovakia gained its independence from the Austro-Hungarian Empire in 1918. Even though the Austrian-Hungarian Empire was one political entity, the Austrian part and the Hungarian part existed under a Dual Monarchy. Each half of the empire had a large amount of control over their area independent of the other half of the country. The differing policies of the Austrians and the Hungarians had a strong impact on the state of what is now the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic. In particular, the Czech industry was developed, while Slovakia remained a mostly agrarian area managed by ...
READ MORE
Tiananmen: The Empire’s Big Lie
Early in 1989, China was stirring. A decade of groundbreaking reforms inspired by Deng Xiaoping had brought the moribund economy to life and freed the nation from the ideological shackles imposed by radical Maoists during the cataclysmic Cultural Revolution. Almost everything seemed possible, as Deng proteges Hu Yaobang and then Zhao Ziyang led policymaking on a day-to-day basis.But the changes sweeping China had its dark undersides. Large-scale economic reforms also meant expanded corruption opportunities, which many officials exploited. And Chinese who “got rich first,” under the Dengist dispensation, opened a rapidly expanding wealth gap with fellow citizens. Discontent simmered dangerously.The ...
READ MORE
The CIA and the Media: 50 Facts the World Needs to Know
This article  by Professor James Tracy first published in August 2015 is of particular relevance in relation to the “fake news” campaign directed against the alternative and independent media.In a bitter irony, the media coverup of  the CIA’s covert support to Al Qaeda and the ISIS is instrumented by the CIA which also oversees the mainstream media.Since the end of World War Two the Central Intelligence Agency has been a major force in US and foreign news media, exerting considerable influence over what the public sees, hears and reads on a regular basis. CIA publicists and journalists alike will assert they have few, ...
READ MORE
US Serbs, Angry about Being Bombed by Bill, May Have Cost Hillary the Election
The reason Hillary Clinton was crushed in the electoral college during this election is because she lost Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania . The reason behind the unprecedented loss can be summed up in two sentences. We will not forget. We will not forgive.These three states are home to the Serbian-American community. For most of them, their traditionally Democratic ticket vote turning Republican was a clear repudiation of Hillary Clinton's role in the Balkan genocide."An American Serb generally doesn't vote FOR anyone, but AGAINST a Biden, a Clinton, a McCain, against whoever Madeleine Albright supports, against whoever bombed Serbia, recognized Kosovo... Wait, was Dubya a ...
READ MORE
Bosnia: The Cradle of Modern Jihadism?
Back in the 1990s something happened in central Bosnia-Herzegovina that inspired people to this day and helps explain why that country now has more men fighting in Syria and Iraq (over 300), as a proportion of its population, than most in Europe.The formation of a "Mujahideen Battalion" in 1992, composed mainly of Arab volunteers in central Bosnia, was a landmark. Today the dynamic of jihad has been reversed and it is Bosnians who are travelling to Arab lands."There is a war between the West and Islam," says Aimen Dean, who, as a young Saudi Arabian volunteer, travelled to fight in ...
READ MORE
Bill Clinton Worked Hand in Glove with Al Qaeda
Known and documented, since the Soviet-Afghan war, recruiting Mujahideen (“holy warriors”) to fight covert wars on Washington’s behest has become an integral part of US foreign policy.A 1997 Congressional document by the Republican Party Committee (RPC), while intent upon smearing President Bill Clinton, nonetheless sheds light on the Clinton administration’s insidious role in recruiting and training jihadist mercenaries with a view to transforming Bosnia into a “Militant Islamic Base”.In many regards, Bosnia and Kosovo (1998-1999) were “dress rehearsals” for the destabilization of the Middle East (Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen).With regard to Syria, the recruitment of jihadists (according to Israeli intelligence ...
READ MORE
Kosovostan – An European Trafficking Point
In this Talking Point Dr Marcus Papadopoulos says that ordinary people in the West were not told that after Serbia lost control of Kosovo, following the Nato bombing campaign against Belgrade and other Serbian cities in 1999, the region became a centre-point in Europe for the trafficking of people, drugs and organs. When Kosovo unilaterally declared its independence from Serbia in 2008, Western politicians hailed the event. The United States, which engineered the disputed act of independence, led the way in recognising the new Balkan state, with its allies quickly following suit. Many of the leading figures in today’s Kosovan government are ...
READ MORE
Washington has Found the Solution: “Let’s Divide Iraq as We Did in Yugoslavia!”
Editor’s note: This article by Michel Collon was first published by Global Research in December 2003. It outlines with foresight the strategy of the US, through covert intelligence operations, of breaking up Iraq into a number of separate states. The unleashing of a civil war with a view to deliberately breaking up Iraq was part of the US war agenda from the outset. They have found the solution! Divide Iraq into three mini-states and then pit them against one another. Does that remind you of something else? Oh, yes! It’s not the first time something like this happened…. The New York Times published ...
READ MORE
The Empire Wants Ms. Hitllary Clinton, The Conqueror!
What a fine race it has become! Both Hilary Clinton and Donald Trump are competing in it as a who is the ‘tougher guy/gal’ in what could be easily described as a 21st Century Tarantino-style (or Scorsese-style) political pulp fiction gore. What they both utter, may often sound like some staged bluff: “Are you talking to me? Hey, there’s nobody else here… Are you talking to me?” But just think for a moment what would really happen if one of them sticks to his or her ‘promises’ and ‘principles’, after getting elected! (The bullets would be flying, the nukes exploding, and millions ...
READ MORE
The Six Day War – Myth and Reality
The Six Day War of June 1967, a series of battles fought by the armed forces of the state of Israel against a combination of Arab armies, is one of manifold significance. From a military standpoint, it presented a model strategy of how to prosecute and win a war waged on several fronts.The stunning victory also created a sense of euphoria among communities in the Jewish Diaspora: Among American Jews, a segment of Jewry David Ben Gurion viewed with disdain because of their failure to migrate en masse to Israel, a new sense of commitment in both emotional and financial ...
READ MORE
Before the U.S. Congress: HM King Peter II’s of Yugoslavia Speech at the Capitol in 1942
A highlight of Peter II’s 1942 official state visit to the U.S. was his speech before the U.S. Congress. That speech solidified and affirmed Yugoslavia as an ally of the U.S. during World War II.Following the Axis invasion of Yugoslavia on April 6, 1941, President Franklin D. Roosevelt had issued a statement in support of Peter II and the Yugoslav government.FDR’s message of April 8, 1941 emphasized that the U.S. would provide aid and assistance to Yugoslavia:“The people of the United States have been profoundly shocked by the unprovoked and ruthless aggression upon the people of Yugoslavia. The Government and ...
READ MORE
Confession of a CIA Agent: They Gave Us Millions to Dismember Yugoslavia
We bribed parties and politicians who have enticed hate between the nations. Our ultimate goal was to enslave you! WebTribune publishes their interview with former CIA agent Robert Baer during his promotion tour in Quebec for upcoming book “Secrets of the White House” last week. My boss, who was formerly a US Senator, stressed repeatedly that some kind of scam would go down in Bosnia. A month before the alleged genocide in Srebrenica, he told me that the town would be headline news around the world and ordered us to call the media. Robert Baer, a former CIA officer, has authored many books ...
READ MORE
Book Review: NATO War Crimes: “Media Lies and the Conquest of Kosovo”
Media Lies and the Conquest of Kosovo: NATO’s Prototype for the Next Wars of Globalization. Publisher: Unwritten History, Inc., New York, 2007. By Michel Collon, 276 pages, with photographs and maps. “Each war begins with media lies.” This is how Belgian journalist Michel Collon begins his analysis of the Kosovo conflict which resulted in the U.S. and NATO bombardment of Yugoslavia in 1999 and the subsequent occupation of the Serbian Kosovo province by U.S. and NATO troops. The U.S. and NATO had launched a war of aggression without United Nations approval and in violation of the territorial integrity and sovereignty of ...
READ MORE
NATO – 70th Anniversary of the Most Murderous – and Legal – Organization on our Planet
Why America Needs War
NATO Announces War Policy Against Russia
Bipartisan Neocons Infesting Washington: What Prospects for America?
America’s Enemies, Who’s on the List?
Libya: Before and after the Fall of Moamer Gaddafi
Inside Kosovo’s Islamist Cauldron
A Short History of Czechoslovakia
Tiananmen: The Empire’s Big Lie
The CIA and the Media: 50 Facts the World Needs to Know
US Serbs, Angry about Being Bombed by Bill, May Have Cost Hillary the Election
Bosnia: The Cradle of Modern Jihadism?
Bill Clinton Worked Hand in Glove with Al Qaeda
Kosovostan – An European Trafficking Point
Washington has Found the Solution: “Let’s Divide Iraq as We Did in Yugoslavia!”
The Empire Wants Ms. Hitllary Clinton, The Conqueror!
The Six Day War – Myth and Reality
Before the U.S. Congress: HM King Peter II’s of Yugoslavia Speech at the Capitol in 1942
Confession of a CIA Agent: They Gave Us Millions to Dismember Yugoslavia
Book Review: NATO War Crimes: “Media Lies and the Conquest of Kosovo”
FOLLOW US ON OUR SOCIAL PLATFORMS
Share
Share
Publish your articles on global politics, history, and international relations online & advertise your website for a moderate charging fee at www.global-politics.eu (contact: globalpol@global-politics.eu). For more details see the Submission section on our website. We would like to ask you to consider a small donation to help our team keep working. We mainly rely only on you, our readers, to keep us digging the truth on history, global politics, and international relations. Follow us on our social platforms!
+ +