[Peace-discuss] Who's ever heard of Bob Bowman?
Morton K. Brussel
brussel at illinois.edu
Thu Jan 28 17:52:25 CST 2010
Dr. Bob Bowman’s
PATRIOT NEWS
Electronic Edition
formerly published as SPACE & SECURITY NEWS
“Follow the Constitution, Honor the Truth, Serve the People”
Volume XXVII Number 1 THE PATRIOTS // INSTITUTE FOR SPACE & SECURITY STUDIES Jan 2010
1494 Patriot Dr, Melbourne, FL 32940 (321) 752-5955 bob at thepatriots.us www.thepatriots.us
Dear Friends and Fellow Patriots,
(1) I’ve attached three new OpEd pieces I’ve just written. (For those who can’t open attachments, I’ve copied them below.) Please see if you can get them in your local newspapers, and feel free to forward or publish them.
(2) The summer trip brought in a lot less money than we had hoped, and much less than we need to keep going. If any of you have friends with deep pockets, please see if you can get them to send us a tax-deductible donation to “The Patriots.” For the rest of you, please send what you can. Thanks!
Bob
P.S. I’ve just finished a draft of a book tentatively entitled “Populism”. If you’d like an advance copy emailed to you, let me know. And if any of you have ideas on publishing it in book form, I’m all ears.
Restoring Free Speech
By Dr Robert M Bowman, Lt Col, USAF, ret
National Commander, “The Patriots”
The American people are more than angry, they are “P.O.d” and rightly so. How many times must our wishes be ignored and our clear needs be unmet before we say “Enough is enough!”
In the late 1960s and early 1970s, the American people wanted an end to the Vietnam War, and yet it dragged on for years after our government KNEW we had no chance of winning. According to Robert McNamara, both he and Lyndon Johnson knew that as early as 1965!
In 1981 and 1982, 80% of Americans wanted a nuclear freeze, yet we never got one. In the late 1980s, the overwhelming majority wanted an end to nuclear testing (after all, Gorbachev had unilaterally ended testing by the USSR). Yet testing continued year after year. A clear majority wanted an end to the Contra war against Nicaragua, to no avail. Even after Congress passed the Boland amendment, cutting off funds for the conflict, Ollie North and company ran drugs and sold arms to Iran in order to continue their illegal war. In 1993 (and again in 2009), most Americans favored a Single-Payer National Health Program. Fat chance getting that past the insurance companies! In 2004 and 2006 and 2008, the people overwhelmingly voted for an end to the corporate wars of aggression in Iraq and Afghanistan. But too many are getting filthy rich off them. We wanted relief for homeowners facing foreclosure. Sorry, the trillions go to the banks, insurance companies, and investment firms that caused the problem.
Yes, “Enough is enough!” But to whom do we say it? The best Congress money can buy? And how can we scream it loud enough to be heard over the din of lobbyist money and the constant drone of corporate “issue ads”?? We need a populist government that serves the needs of the people, not the greeds of the corporations. There is euphoria as we elect Barack Obama who promises us Real Change. But what do we get? Chump change! And just as our frustration is at the breaking point, we do the only thing we can think of to get their attention – we elect a (gulp!) conservative Republican to the Senate … in Massachusetts, no less! (Well, he sounded like a populist independent.)
Then the very next day, the Supreme Court drowns out the last tiny echo of our free speech by handing the ruling corporations a megaphone of infinite power. You think rock bands make noise? Just wait until the multinational corporations crank up their amplifiers in the next election cycle!
For years, legislators with a populist bent have been trying to perfect campaign finance reform, one of the key steps in separating big money from political power. Just over a decade ago, Granny D (Doris Haddock) walked across the country at the age of 90 for campaign finance reform. I will never forget her stirring address to the 1999 Reform Party National Convention (where I was drafted to run for President). She said “Corporations are not ‘persons’, and money is not ‘speech’.” Her point was that corporations have no Constitutional First Amendment right to spend as much money as they want buying up politicians and influencing elections. On January 21, 2010 the Supreme Court decided against Granny D and struck down key sections of the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform law, opening the floodgates for big money to drown out the voices of ordinary citizens and perpetuate corporate control of our government.
For ten years, I have proposed a Constitutional Amendment restoring the intent of the Founding Fathers. It says “Corporations and other fictitious entities are not ‘persons’ under this Constitution, and shall have none of the rights and privileges thereof.” We the People were guaranteed Free Speech. Don’t let corporate money drown us out!
629 words
Dr. Robert M. Bowman, Lt. Col., USAF, ret.
National Commander, “The Patriots”
1494 Patriot Drive, Melbourne, FL 32940
Home: (321) 752-5955
Cell: (321) 258-0582
Web site: www.thepatriots.us
Email: bob at thepatriots.us
The Scott Brown Event
By Dr. Robert M. Bowman, Lt. Col., USAF, ret.
National Commander, “The Patriots”
Exactly one year after the inauguration of President Barack Obama, the Massachusetts Senate seat held for 47 years by Ted Kennedy in the most liberal and bluest of the states was won by a (gasp!) conservative Republican, Scott Brown.
This shocking event was widely blamed on several factors: (1) Martha Coakley was a poor candidate that (arrogantly) took her victory in the general election for granted; (2) The people of Massachusetts already had universal forced health insurance, and didn’t want their taxes increased to provide it to the whole country; and (3) the independents turned against the Democrats because they had gone too far to the left.
As usual, this analysis contains a mixture of truth, falsehood, and omission. (1) Yes, Martha Coakley was a poor candidate who appeared arrogant and aloof until it was too late. (2) Yes, Massachusetts already has something similar to the Senate “reform” bill, but the people up there I talked to don’t like it! They don’t like being forced to buy inadequate insurance at exorbitant and continually-increasing prices, and they certainly don’t like the fines if they fail to buy what they don’t want. Perhaps they saw the “Obama-care” bill as an impediment to them getting something better for themselves. And maybe they wouldn’t wish such a system on the rest of the country; and (3) Yes, the independents turned against the Democrats, but NOT because they had gone too far to the left. They turned against them because they had gone too far to the RIGHT, that is: toward the middle-of-the-road milk-toast center, and they had gone back on their promise of real change. What every single pundit omitted from their analysis of Brown’s win was a fourth (and perhaps critical) reason: (4) The huge majority that gave Obama his landslide victory in Massachusetts were disappointed, dispirited, and frustrated that the change they voted for didn’t happen. In particular, they were incensed because they had voted against the corporate wars of aggression in 2004, in 2006, and in 2008, and were ignored. (There was actually a fifth possible reason, also universally ignored. Martha Coakley actually WON every county in which the votes were counted by hand. Brown’s win came from counties using ES&S and Diebold electronic voting machines.)
But why, even considering all these reasons, would liberals in Massachusetts vote for a “conservative?” This is the really important point to be taken from the Scott Brown event. The American people are beginning to understand that they have been artificially divided into liberal and conservative, Democrat and Republican, left and right … and that these labels have very little meaning. The old far left and the new far right are together in their rejection of centrist status-quo, corporate-dominated politics. The real divide is between the populists, who want to serve the people, and the professional politicians, who serve only themselves and big money. Scott Brown painted himself as a populist. He is conservative on fiscal issues, and so are most Americans. He is liberal on social issues, and so are most Americans. He did not trumpet his Republicanism, but his independence. In his acceptance speech, he never uttered the word “Republican” – not once. But he repeatedly referred to himself and his supporters as “independent.” Now, chances are that he won’t turn out as independent or as populist as he painted himself. More likely he’ll vote pretty much the way the Republican leadership tells him to vote. (But if he does, he’ll wind up a one-term senator. Most of the citizens of Massachusetts who voted for him did NOT vote for a conservative Republican, but for a populist independent.)
It has now become painfully obvious to most Americans that BOTH major political parties at the national level are currently owned lock, stock, and barrel by the same big money interests. (It has been obvious to some of us for a long time, which is why we supported John Anderson, Ross Perot, and Ralph Nader, and why I ran for President as an independent in 2000.) We must now face the fact that it is impossible for a true populist to get the support of the leadership of either party or of the monopoly corporate media. But Barack Obama enjoyed the support of both of these, and therefore they must have KNOWN that he wasn’t really the populist he pretended to be. The same goes for Scott Brown. Those who really ARE populists (like Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul) are marginalized by their party and ridiculed by the media.
The election of Scott Brown does not mean the demise of the Democratic Party, nor the resurgence of the Republican Party. It means that the people are sick and tired of government serving Wall Street and not Main Street. They want populists … and party be damned.
800 words
Dr. Robert M. Bowman, Lt. Col., USAF, ret.
National Commander, “The Patriots”
1494 Patriot Dr, Melbourne, FL 32940
Home: (321) 752-5955
Cell: (321) 258-0582
Email: bob at thepatriots.us
Web site: www.thepatriots.us
THE OBAMA PHENOMENON
By Dr. Robert M. Bowman, Lt. Col., USAF, ret.
National Commander, “The Patriots”
The landslide election of Barack Obama and its euphoric aftermath were, I believe, widely misinterpreted, especially by Washington Democrats. It was not just a rejection of the Republican Party, nor merely of Cheney/Bush neo-conservatism (though these were certainly involved). No, the Obama phenomenon reflected the widespread desire of the American people for “Real Change” … for Change they could believe in – just what Obama promised. It reflected not just a desire for a change in party (they could have had that with Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden), but a yearning for a fundamental change in how government does business and (I contend) whom government serves. In short, it reflected the hope that Obama would truly serve the needs of the people and not the moneyed elite. Some of us still harbor faint hope that President Obama will yet turn out to be that kind of President – a populist President who brings about “Real Change”, not the “chump change” we’ve seen so far.
Alas, the young (and relatively inexperienced) President surrounded himself with members of the Washington status quo elite he showed such disdain for during the primary season. Even before the election, many of us saw the hand-writing on the wall. His selection of Joe Biden (the most hawkish of the primary candidates) as running mate was an early indicator. Naming Rahm Emanuel (the Israeli super-hawk who kept all us anti-war candidates from being funded by the Democratic Party in 2006) was the final nail in the coffin. We didn’t even have to wait for him to pick his national security team to know that our hopes for a quick end to the corporate wars of aggression against Afghanistan and Iraq would be dashed. Is he an improvement over the previous administration? Certainly! (Even John McCain would have been that.) But is he a populist president who is putting the needs of the people ahead of the greeds of the wealthy elite? Certainly not! Let us count the ways (well, a few of them).
(1) He has turned his back on the majority of Americans who favored him primarily for his opposition to the Iraq War. He has not only let that occupation drag on, but he has greatly increased our involvement in Afghanistan and extended that war into Pakistan as well. The whole “War on Terror” is phony, and he should know it.
(2) He has failed to reverse the Cheney/Bush usurpation of our Constitutional rights. His extension (and in some cases expansion) of the “Patriot Act” and his continuation of the threat of martial law, surveillance and punishment of dissidents, and use of torture-induced testimony against suspects is unconscionable.
(3) He has dashed the hopes of the majority of Americans who want a single-payer national health system by excluding even the discussion of such a change during the entire health “reform” fiasco. The resultant bill is little more than a gigantic subsidy for the insurance companies and pharmaceutical manufacturers, guaranteeing them millions of new (forced) customers, while doing nothing to provide competition or limit premiums.
Most critics of Obama say that he has lost support because he has gone too far to the left. Many of his disillusioned base say he has gone too far to the right. They are all wrong. This old left-right paradigm simply doesn’t work any more. The old far left and the new far right are together in their rejection of centrist status quo corporate-dominated politics. The people have been artificially divided for far too long. The question is not how big government should be. It’s whom government should serve. The real divide now is between the populists who want to serve the people and the professional politicians who serve only themselves and big money.
It has now become painfully obvious to most Americans that BOTH major political parties at the national level are currently owned lock, stock, and barrel by the same big money interests. (It has been obvious to some of us for a long time, which is why we supported John Anderson, Ross Perot, and Ralph Nader, and why I ran for President as an independent in 2000.) We must now face the fact that it is impossible for a true populist to get the support of the leadership of either party or of the monopoly corporate media. But Barack Obama enjoyed the support of both of these, and therefore they must have KNOWN that he wasn’t really the populist he pretended to be. (The same goes for Scott Brown, by the way.) Those who really ARE populists (like Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul) are marginalized by their party and ridiculed by the media.
Obama is not what we voted for. To get that, we must break the stranglehold of the two-party system and the corporate monopoly media.
798 words
Dr. Robert M. Bowman, Lt. Col., USAF, ret.
National Commander, “The Patriots”
1494 Patriot Dr, Melbourne, FL 32940
Home: (321) 752-5955
Cell: (321) 258-0582
Email: bob at thepatriots.us
Web site: www.thepatriots.us
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20100128/e607f801/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Peace-discuss
mailing list