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.

Tuesday, March 29, 2011

Still Making No Sense

Barack Obama says the Libyan intervention is necessary to save innocent civilians from slaughter. He also says that since Qaddafi is the source of the threat, he has to go. But, Obama adds, the U.S. military cannot directly effect regime change (no boots on the ground) because that would "splinter" the coalition (NATO and Arab League) that he takes so much pride in.

This makes no sense. Is the coalition an end in itself? Why should the humanitarian mission that Obama says motivates the intervention take a back seat to the coalition's preservation? If keeping the coalition intact means the deaths of many civilians, what kind of humanitarian mission is this?

That Obama's case for taking sides in this civil war is riddled with such unanswerable questions is a sign that he is not leveling with the American people. The reason he cannot level with them is that he's trying to do incompatible things: serve the interests of the Empire, create a legacy as a humanitarian, and keep his Progressive base in line. (The base might go for a humanitarian mission as long as it's part of an "international" effort.)

This intervention has nothing to do with humanitarianism -- which is not to say that would justify U.S. involvement. This is about the U.S. government's claim to be the ultimate keeper of order in the world, with "order" being whatever condition serves the political-economic interests of the ruling elite.


MBH said...

Sheldon, if the NAP is the criterion, then government overthrow steps outside the bounds of the criterion. To support a militia in hopes that they themselves overthrow the government is in line with the NAP. To do it from the outside is not in line with the NAP. Don't Austrians know that a government is merely a collection of individuals? Their legal system is not the agency behind the aggression. The people in charge are. To reset the government from the outside would be like attacking the apple tree after someone throws a derivative apple at your head. Sense yet?

N. Joseph Potts said...

This initiative ALSO keeps factories and other employers in hundreds of Congressional districts humming.

The business of America is war, and war is America's business.

Lock 'n' load! Tax 'n' spend!

Kevin said...


Why do you continue to point the finger at the United States government? As the Reece Committee discovered in the early 1950s, the Carnegie, Rockefeller, and other major Corporations, through their foundations, control education and most policies our government takes part in.

According to his many speeches from 1907-1940, Senator William Borah said the plan was always to bring America under an "International Tribunal." That goal has been accomplished. Who controls our trade? Wasn't it the United Nations that authorized the United States to go into Libya?

Why haven't you done an article on United Nations Agenda 21 and exposed the controls over America’s land, resources, and private property rights Agenda 21 calls for—or the social justice Agenda 21 calls for to replace America’s equal justice? With just a little research you will find Agenda 21 is the reason the United States is in the Middle East.

Anonymous said...

Poor Obama. As president, he has found things a little different than "organizing" people to become radical rebel-rousers which was his only experience.

He is in a jam. His party as the pretend defender of humanity, can't be seen openly as not caring about humanity so he has to make up something that sounds good to go into Libya to "save" the people Gadaffy will murder while pretending blowing things up isn't really a war because we have no men/women on the ground.

What leadership! What clarity! What a guy!