Available Now! (click cover)

America's Counter-Revolution
The Constitution Revisited

From the back cover:

This book challenges the assumption that the Constitution was a landmark in the struggle for liberty. Instead, Sheldon Richman argues, it was the product of a counter-revolution, a setback for the radicalism represented by America’s break with the British empire. Drawing on careful, credible historical scholarship and contemporary political analysis, Richman suggests that this counter-revolution was the work of conservatives who sought a nation of “power, consequence, and grandeur.” America’s Counter-Revolution makes a persuasive case that the Constitution was a victory not for liberty but for the agendas and interests of a militaristic, aristocratic, privilege-seeking ruling class.

Sunday, February 06, 2011

The Danger in Egypt

The biggest danger facing the Egyptian people now is the real possibility that the U.S. government, in collusion with the ruling goons and key Egyptian "opposition" figures, will hijack the nascent revolution in order to "protect American interests." Of course, that means the interests of the ruling elite, Israel, and the Israel lobby. The good of the Egyptians themselves counts for squat. The Americans hope to permit enough window-dressing "reform" to placate the people without really changing anything. Forms and faces may be altered, but substance would be the same. The people will be screwed, the American taxpayer will keep paying, and U.S. policy will continue along its merry imperialist path, with all the risks to innocents that entails.

Let us hope that the Egyptians see through this fraud and resist. How soon before we see American flags burned in the streets of Cairo and Alexandria?

Obama and Clinton again show themselves as loyal guardians of the Empire.


Michael Bruce Hill said...

Hey Sheldon, I know a few people who were once on the board of AIPAC (two of them raised me). So I know the mind-set. I suspect a split between Obama and Clinton here. Obama's people want this. Clinton's people are owned by AIPAC. Obama's people probably know that if they don't halt the settlement expansions then everyone looses. The more independent Egypt is, the more likely the Israeli government will stop intentionally blowing peace agreements.

Sheldon Richman said...

Thanks for the link.

Michael Bruce Hill said...

My pleasure; thanks for all you do. Here's another good one on just how far AIPAC's tentacles reach. This particular post brings me to tears.

Sheldon Richman said...

Thanks again. This truly shameful -- totally expected but nonetheless shameful. It does suggest that any divide between Obama and Clinton is not so great.

Michael Bruce Hill said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Michael Bruce Hill said...

I'm still not convinced that the divide isn't just slowly unfolding. Obama said this a few hours ago at his press conference,

"What we didn't do was pretend that we could dictate the outcome in Egypt -- because we can't. So we were very mindful that it was important for this to remain an Egyptian event, that the United States did not become the issue ..."

That's a mighty clear signal to Israel: US hands are off Egypt. It's in Obama's interest for the Israelis to halt settlements, but the Lobby is everywhere in DC. Somehow he and some aids have to prepare the Lobby to let go of the Will to Power. The Lobby is truly pathological so it's a delicate matter.

Michael Bruce Hill said...

Also, my bet is the administration will want to try this by bringing as many people on the other side along with them as possible -- to avoid a divide.