blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar.

- unknown (Internet quote inaccurately attributed to Julius Caesar and Shakespeare

Table of Contents

Foreword

Introduction

Pax Americana: The Plan for Global Military Domination

The New Federalism: Mining the Wealth From the Middle Class

Convincing America: Through the Looking Glass

Conclusion

Foreword

"Those who are willing to sacrifice their basic liberties to assure their security deserve neither."

--Benjamin Franklin

I had questions and doubts about the American Foreign Policy towards Iraq because of glaring inconsistencies between what the administration was saying and the objections stated by the rest of the world. I had been uncomfortable with Bush since his election and my fears had grown since 9-11 and the attempts to tie that event with unrelated events. I formed an anti war sentiment as it became obvious that the Bush administration was determined to have a war without exhausting all other avenues. I decided to participate with a small group against the war to raise local consciousness. I, like many, had kept my activism buried for the past 30 years since Viet Nam; I had just wanted to live life and not worry about it.

Even though I had an undergraduate degree in American Diplomatic History, I had not done any serious research on American Foreign Policy beyond reading the newspaper since the end of the Viet Nam War. Little did I know where it would lead me when one of the members of our group encouraged me to look up a website on the Project for a New American Century. He offered no other information. When I did I had the realization that this dramatic change in American Foreign Policy proposed first in 1992 by Paul Wolfowitz and expanded into a plan supported by a powerful group of people in 1997 was being instituted in Iraq. As I began to explore the connections of these people with other groups, a picture started to form of what had been going on while we were all distracted by Monica's blue dress. And the war in Iraq is only the tip of the iceberg.

War is big business, maybe the biggest business in the world. According to Alvin Toffler, over 50 million people have died in wars since the end of WWII, only one fifth of them combatants. (source: Alvin Toffler, War & Anti-War) Probably ten times that many have been wounded, raped, dislocated, diseased or impoverished. The United States military budget is bigger than the next nine biggest military budgets combined. (source: Women's Action for New Directions) History has shown that when war is sanctified by and imbued with religion it tends to have the most cataclysmic results. We are on the threshold of just such a time.

What we are witnessing is the public appearance of a long-term focused movement to change the fundamental nature of America and its domestic and foreign policy without explaining to the American people the nature or consequences of such a change. It has been sold under the guise of simplistic solutions to complex problems. But as H. L. Menken said, "For every complex problem there is a solution that is concise, clear, simple, and wrong."

What you find here is an outline of the Neo Conservative plan for America's future drawn from some of their critics but mostly their own words. They are not shy about their desires; indeed, they pursue them with a religious zeal. In fact religion and ideology is the source of their self-righteousness. Hopefully their egoism is their Achilles heel. The question is, if I can find out this information in a few hours on the Internet, where has our press been? As you will find, the consolidation of press ownership is part of this power structure.

For your sake, my sake and the sake of our children and grandchildren I hope you will consider what is offered here and investigate my assertions thoroughly for yourself. If the zealots succeed, the world will be a very inhospitable place for the majority of God's creatures no matter where they live or what they believe.

Introduction

These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman.

--Thomas Paine (1737-1809) American political theorist, writer

Much of the debate about the Bush administration's war on Iraq has centered around whether it is morally right to enter a war "preemptively", whether it should be fought unilaterally or multilaterally, or whether or not it is about oil. While these arguments are all relevant, they miss the larger shift in American policy that underlies the actions of this administration. This shift in American policy deserts what America has represented to both Americans and the rest of the world for the last century. This is a battle for the hearts and minds of Americans that will determine the fate of the world and the legacy that we leave to our children, grandchildren and whatever generations are to follow. Never in history has man wielded so much power. We truly stand at the turning point of history. Many of us will be so overwhelmed by the enormity of the issues that we will choose to sit on the sidelines and hope it will pass. Many will choose to take the symbols for reality, giving up their free will and allowing others to make their decisions. We do either at our own peril. This is a fight that will affect each of us deeply in material, psychological and spiritual ways. It is truly a battle between whether love or hate will rule the world for the foreseeable future.

Many people do not understand that our war against Iraq is not an isolated event to control a tyrannical dictator but the first major and public expression of a philosophy deeply held by the primary power brokers and ideologues of the Bush administration. The first public discussion of it was a vague reference made by Pat Buchanan (who is on record as against this doctrine) on a PBS program, Point – Counterpoint, Sunday March 9, 2003. He referred to what he called the Bush Doctrine. He also mentioned the New American Century. These references are not without background.

The major thrust of a pre-emptive attack on Iraq is not part of an isolated response to Iraq but the first demonstration of a doctrine called The Project for a New American Century (http://www.newamericancentury.org/ ) that is centered around American global military domination as a foreign policy and a supportive and corresponding domestic program called the New Federalism (http://www.reagan2000.org/ ). These policies are a reflection of how the major conservative players in the Post Reagan/Cold War era plan to shape the United States of America and the world in the 21st century.

The powers that are this movement are an unholy trinity of Reagan Era Ideologues, Multi-National Corporations including big oil and defense contractors, and a coalition of Right Wing Christians and Sharon Zionists. To achieve their goals they have put on a major campaign to shape our view of the world and demonize their enemies here and abroad. They do this through a complex web of not for profit organizations, favorable media outlets, church organizations and traditional political forums. They spin the perception of current events to bolster their position by using their favorite tool, repeatedly joining a value neutral noun with a negative adjective. Together these techniques represent a propaganda subterfuge meant to take control of the United States government for global military domination, control of global markets and the abandonment of the American working class.

Pax Americana: The Plan for Global Military Domination

"If ever time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin."

-- Samuel Adams

The foreign policy goals of these conservative power brokers are to dominate the globe through the use of American military power, unilaterally if necessary, to refuse to sign or withdraw from treaties or multilateral agreements which may interfere with this objective, to build a defensive missile system that will protect American interests throughout the world, and to dominate space militarily, all for the purpose of establishing what they call "democracy" and "economic free markets" wherever possible.

Following is the 1997 Statement of Principles of the Project for the New American Century:

The Project for the New American Century is a non-profit educational organization dedicated to a few fundamental propositions: that American leadership is good both for America and for the world; that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle; and that too few political leaders today are making the case for global leadership.

The Project for the New American Century intends, through issue briefs, research papers, advocacy journalism, conferences, and seminars, to explain what American world leadership entails. It will also strive to rally support for a vigorous and principled policy of American international involvement and to stimulate useful public debate on foreign and defense policy and America's role in the world.

Signatories of this 1997 Statement of Principles in the Bush Administration include:

Richard B. Cheney- Vice President to George W. Bush,

Donald Rumsfeld- Secretary of Defense,

Paul Wolfowitz-Deputy Secretary of Defense,

Richard Perle- Chairman, Defense Policy Board, Department of Defense,

I. Lewis Libby- Chief of Staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, Assistant to the Vice President for National Security Affairs,

Elliott Abrams- National Security Council Senior Director for Democracy, Human Rights, and International Operations,

Paula Dobriansky-Undersecretary of State for Global Affairs,

Zalmay Khalilzad-U.S. Special Envoy to Afghanistan, Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Gulf, Southwest Asia, and other Regional Issues, National Security Council,

Peter W. Rodman-Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs.

Some of the other prominent Signatories include:

Gary Bauer - 1999-2000: Republican presidential candidate,1989-99: Founder and President, Family Research Council,

William J. Bennett, Co-director, Empower America ; Chairman, Americans for Victory Over Terrorism, Distinguished Fellow, Heritage Foundation,

Jeb Bush- Governor, State of Florida,

Eliot A. Cohen- Professor and Director of Strategic Studies, The Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies,

Midge Decter- Board of Trustees of the Heritage Foundation,

Steve Forbes-President and CEO of Forbes magazine, 1996 and 2000: Campaigned for Republican presidential nomination

Frank Gaffney - CEO of Center for Security Policy,

Fred C. Ikle- Senior scholar at the Center for Strategic and International Studies,

Donald Kagan-Professor of History and Classics, Yale University,

Norman Podhoretz- Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute,

Dan Quayle- 1989-93: U.S. Vice President,

Henry S. Rowen- Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution,

Vin Weber- Chairman of the Board of Directors, National Endowment for Democracy, Vice Chairman of Empower America, Director, Urban Institute,

Bruce P. Jackson-Project Director, Project for the New American Century, Member of Board of Advisors of the Center for Security Policy, Vice President, Strategy and Planning, Corporate Strategic Development for the Lockheed Martin Corporation, 2000: Chairman for Republican Party platform's subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Policy,1997-99: Director, Global Development for Lockheed Martin Corporation,

Reuel Marc Gerecht-Director of the Middle East Initiative, Project for the New American Century, Resident Fellow and Scholar, American Enterprise Institute

Robert Kagan- Cofounder and Project Director, Project for the New American Century,

Jeane Kirkpatrick-Senior Fellow, Scholar, and Director of Foreign and Defense Policy Studies, American Enterprise Institute, Co-director of Empower America,

William Kristol-Cofounder and Chairman of the Project for the New American Century, Resident Fellow, American Enterprise Institute,

R. James Woolsey-1993-95: Director of the Central Intelligence Agency

Most of these individuals are not only committed ideologues, they also just happen to have lobbyist jobs or own interest in corporations that will benefit financially from these policies.

In September 2000, PNAC issued its strategic plan to achieve its goals:

· "Develop and deploy global missile defenses to defend the American homeland and American allies, and to provide a secure basis for U.S. power projection around the world."

· "Control the new 'international commons' of space and 'cyberspace,' and pave the way for the creation of a new military service-- U.S. Space Forces-- with the mission of space control."

· "Increase defense spending, adding $15 billion to $20 billion to total defense spending annually."

· "Exploit the 'revolution in military affairs' [transformation to high-tech, unmanned weaponry] to insure the long-term superiority of U.S. conventional forces."

· "Need to develop a new family of nuclear weapons designed to address new sets of military requirements" complaining that the U.S. has "virtually ceased development of safer and more effective nuclear weapons."

· "Facing up to the realities of multiple constabulary missions that will require a permanent allocation of U.S. forces."

· "America must defend its homeland" by "reconfiguring its nuclear force" and by missile defense systems that "counteract the effects of the proliferation of ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction."

· "Need for a larger U.S. security perimeter" and the U.S. "should seek to establish a network of 'deployment bases' or 'forward operating bases' to increase the reach of current and future forces," citing the need to move beyond Western Europe and Northeast Asia to increased permanent military presence in Southeast Asia and "other regions of East Asia." Necessary "to cope with the rise of China to great-power status."

· Redirecting the U.S. Air Force to move "toward a global first-strike force."

· End the Clinton administration's "devotion" to the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty.

· "North Korea, Iran, Iraq, or similar states [should not be allowed] to undermine American leadership, intimidate American allies, or threaten the American homeland itself."

· "Main military missions" necessary to "preserve Pax Americana" and a "unipolar 21st century" are the following: "secure and expand zones of democratic peace, deter rise of new great-power competitor, defend key regions (Europe, East Asia, Middle East), and exploit transformation of war."

If one doubts the Bush administration's commitment to these goals, then just examine its record with respect to international agreements. In addition to ignoring the United Nations on Iraq, it withdrew, refused to sign, or watered down all of the following international agreements: the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, the Kyoto Accord on Global Warming, the UN Conference Agreement to Limit the Trade of Small Arms, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, the International Agreement on Torture, and inspection standards for the 1972 Biological Weapons Treaty. Recently the Bush administration has asked congress to examine the effects of withdrawing from the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty on Tactical Nuclear Weapons. These can only be the actions of an administration that fully plans on acting on its own outside the restraints of the international community and its laws.

Other recent actions indicating this aggressive plan is in play include the handing over of prisoners to foreign countries known to torture prisoners for "interrogation", the funding of a private army made up of former American service men to operate in Peru and other South American countries as part of the "War on Drugs," and the movement of American troops and advisors into Columbia and the Philippines in addition to Afghanistan.

Why would anyone want to pursue this idea of global military dominance? In 1992 Paul Wolfowitz, Undersecretary of Defense under George Bush Sr., wrote a policy paper outlining what he believed the shape that American military power should take in the future. He outlined a program that eventually became the Project for a New American Century. It was based on the premise that the Soviet Union and the U.S. were able to maintain peace among most of their allies because of the threat of mutually assured destruction ("MAD"). With the end of the Cold War and subsequent loss of that control, Wolfowitz saw a need for the U.S. to be prepared to fend off "rogue" states, to promote "moderate" Islam, act unilaterally if necessary to keep peace and promote free trade.

This original document was softened by Dick Cheney after it was leaked to and questioned by the press. Little was heard about this plan during the Clinton years. But rather than licking their wounds, the Reagan-Bush Neo-Conservatives were shoring up their allegiance with Evangelical Christians and the military/oil/industrial complex in order to create the vehicles to win the acquiescence of the average American for this ambitious empire.

THE NEW FEDERALISM: MINING THE WEALTH OF THE MIDDLE CLASS

"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little."

- Franklin Roosevelt

Many people wonder how Bush plans on paying for his foreign military incursions and still give record tax cuts to the rich. One doesn't have to look far to find the answer. He plans on abdicating responsibility for all programs not specifically attributed by the Constitution to the federal government but continuing to tax the middle and lower classes to pay the federal bill. Part of this will be done by direct cutting of programs, the other part will be done by passing tax cuts for the rich which will cause huge deficits down the road. The deficits will likely be so high that the conservatives will be able to accomplish what they never could have passed through Congress: the destruction of the New Deal and other social programs. They will be simply de-funded as our immediate military and "terrorism" costs strip out what's left of the federal budget.

The first step of this process is the cutting of the inheritance tax and the tax on dividends. This will allow the very wealthy to accumulate more wealth faster and pass it on to their children. The result will be the destruction of the middle class. As social unrest becomes more prevalent, internal dissenters will be labeled as terrorists. The power structure can always find a certain portion of sociopathic henchmen willing to keep the masses in line for special privilege and the ability to commit violence at will. The United States is likely to become like many third world countries oligarchies with perhaps 15% of the population very wealthy, 15% poor and 70% very poor.

The New Federalism is a view that holds that we should follow a strict constructionist view of the constitution as it was originally designed. By this they mean that the constitution is not a flexible living document that was meant to be expanded as times and circumstances changed, but only as it was originally practiced. To read the full text of the New Federalism platform go to http://www.reagan2000.org/.

The main tenets of the New Federalism from Reagan 2000 include:

· Replacement of the national income tax with a national sales tax (the most regressive tax)

· Requiring all judges and members of congress swear a new oath to the constitution and reviewing them for "bad behavior" or non-compliance with their adherence to their oath.

· Returning all powers not specifically given to the federal government under the constitution, such as affirmative action, environmental regulation, social welfare, education, health care, business regulation, worker rights and others, to the states to fund and manage.

· Encouraging competition among state governments for business that "would allow" citizens and companies to "vote with their feet" by moving to where the laws were most favorable to their operations and where jobs were available.

· Non-involvement in multilateral agreements except to further commerce.

· Withdrawal from international treaties and agreements that hinder these goals.

· Expansion of the military budget to insure global supremacy.

· Removal of tort laws that inhibit (irresponsible) business practices.

It is questionable under this interpretation whether slavery would have been terminated. For example, one Bush initiative has been to attempt to remove the ability of a private citizen or group to sue the federal government to force it to enforce environmental laws. When the administration has not been able to get the conservative Supreme Court or Congress to unload federal responsibilities it refuses to spend appropriated money for programs it doesn't want. In effect, such vetoing of previous legislation and programs instituted by previous administrations illegally alters government by edict without either congressional or judicial action.

The right wing coalition interestingly also labels the "New Federalism" as "Liberal Democracy". This is interesting, because it is hard to find anything liberal or democratic about their ideas. Liberal Democracy, as defined by John Fonte in a Hudson Institute (http://www.hudson.org/ ) Policy Paper titled Liberal Democracy vs. Transnational Progressivism: The Future of the Ideological Civil War Within the West, is an extension of the "New Federalism" concepts put forth in http://www.reagan2000.org/.

This excerpt from Fonte defines the enemy:

"Similarly, "transnationalism," like "multiculturalism" and "global governance," like "diversity," are not "forces of history" but ideological tools, championed by activist elites. The success or failure of these values-loaded concepts will ultimately depend upon the political action and political will of these elites contrasted to the political actions and the political will of their opponents: the forces of the liberal democratic nation-state.

On issue after issue, a wide range of Western non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are attempting to achieve political ends that they would not be able to achieve through the normal democratic process. They do so by going outside the liberal democratic framework, using extra-constitutional or post-constitutional means. These issues include:

• the International Criminal Court

• the UN Convention on Women's Rights

• reservations on the UN treaty against racial discrimination

• policing United States borders

• implementation of affirmative action legislation

• imposition of the death penalty

• the Kyoto Treaty on global warming

• legal rights of non-citizens in a constitutional regime

The major NGOs supporting transnational progressivism include:

• Amnesty International USA

• Human Rights Watch

• Oxfam

• American Friends Service Committee

• American Civil Liberties Union

• Leadership Conference on Civil Rights

• Mexican-American Legal Defense and Educational Fund

• NAACP

• National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium.

• National Council of Churches, USA

• International Human Rights Law Group

• Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights under Law

Fonte (a Hudson Institute Fellow) believes these people and concepts are against what the founders of this country wanted and should be fought on every front. Its enemies are groups that defend the rights of minorities, pacifists, environmentalists, mainstream churches and international bodies. Only a tyrant would consider such people the enemy.

One only needs to look at the Bush legislative and judicial initiatives to see its adherence to these goals. In addition to the withdrawal from international agreements already mentioned the Bush administration has already accomplished or advocated privatization, reducing funding or federal return to the states of the following programs:

· Social Security

· Medicare

· Medicaid

· Headstart

· Welfare

· Substance Abuse & Mental Health Treatment

· Environmental Regulation including clean air, clean water & endangered species protection

· "Tort Reform"

· Corporate Regulation

· Energy Policy

· Abolition of the Estate Tax

· Reduction of Income and Dividend taxes for the rich.

· Affirmative Action

Of highest priority in this battle for the hearts and minds of Americans is the battle for the schools. Unfortunately one of the areas that they have been most successful in is "education reform". The argument advanced to the public is that the public schools are failing. As proof, they offer statistics showing that test scores of American students when compared to students in other countries have declined steadily since the 1950's. They argue that the problem is teachers unions, "liberal" curriculum, and moral relativism and the only thing to do is to force schools to show that they can measure up or else lose their funding. The only problem is that their premise is based on faulty assumptions.

The most telling change that has effected American education has been the makeup of the student body. In many parts of the country during the 1950's, law or social practice generally excluded minority groups such as Hispanics and African Americans from the education system. Children of the poor and working classes many times dropped out to work because there were many good paying jobs available in industry that did not require a high school education. The result was that in 1950 only 50% of the students entering school graduated with a diploma. In 1990 85% of students entering school graduated. In other words, as more students who lacked innate ability, or who had language, financial or social barriers entered the schools, demands on the educational system grew. And without a corresponding expansion of finances or innovation, scores thus declined.

The right knows this. By raising the bar and making funding contingent on high stakes testing, they have guaranteed the dismantling of the greatest public school system in history under the guise of improvement and along with it the necessary educated electorate to maintain a democracy. While school funding continues to decline, schools that don't meet goals three years in a row may be dissolved and the parents given a voucher for less money than is given to the public school now, to get a "better" education in a private, probably religious school. (source: No Child Left Behind)

"Goals 2000" and "Workforce 2020", both programs being pushed by the Hudson Institute, state that the need for universal public education is not necessary. Thomas Sticht, advocate of this plan, states "Many companies have moved operations to places with cheap, relatively poorly educated labor. What may be crucial, they say, is dependability of a labor force and how well it can be managed and trained, not its general educational level, although a small cadre of highly educated creative people are essential to innovation and growth." (source: http://www.sntp.net/education/OBE_explained.htm)

History has proven that the cheapest way to guarantee a dependable, manageable labor force is to keep the mass of workers fighting each other for any kind of job. And the history is recent. The auto companies paid starting wages of $25,000 per year plus benefits to assembly line workers. Now those jobs are filled by 13-15 year old Mexican girls working in maquiladoras just south of the border. Young girls are hired because they are very unlikely to organize. What would it do to your family if your 13-year-old daughter were the family breadwinner? The devastation to these children and their families and culture will be irreparable in the foreseeable future.

Access to education is becoming more expensive all of the time. One of the areas of current federal budget cuts is the college loan program. At the same time direct federal and state support for higher education is being cut causing massive tuition increases. Especially effected are state colleges attended by the working and middle classes. One of the growing ways of affording it is to serve in the military. In the future the only way the working class may be able to access the middle class lifestyle of the present will be by serving in the military as a career or as a way to obtain funding for a higher education.

Many of the same organizations listed below under "the Chorus" have pursued similar methods of propaganda on this and other domestic issues. They flood the media with press releases, "policy papers", and advocate at the national, state and local level to shape change. A partial list includes: the Hudson Institute (http://www.hudson.org/ ), The Center for Education Reform, the School Choice Program Network and the Education Policy Institute (both part of the Heritage Foundation), the Family Research Council, the Moral Majority, the Council for National Policy, and the Urban Institute (http://www.urban.org/).

Convincing America: THROUGH THE LOOKING GLASS

The most effectual engines for [pacifying a nation] are the public papers... [A despotic] government always [keeps] a kind of standing army of newswriters who, without any regard to truth or to what should be like truth, [invent] and put into the papers whatever might serve the ministers.

Thomas Jefferson to G. K. van Hogendorp

Oct. 13, 1785. (*) ME 5:181, Papers 8:632

Americans have been the victims of the largest and longest propaganda blitz in American history. It began during the Reagan administration and continues through the day you read this. The Bush administration is the most secretive in history. It expands its police power and shuts off public access to information at every opportunity. In addition, consolidation of the media by Neo-Conservative supporters like Rupert Murdoch has essentially squelched traditional media investigation and provided a direct outlet for propaganda.

The conservative model's publicity policies are Madison Avenue all the way. Their advertising campaigns are cleverly constructed of misinformation, biased information, and non-related associations all made to alter public opinion and demonize the opposition. These fears are then wrapped in a robe of patriotism and religious certainty and delivered by the perfect pitchman, George W. Bush.

The Pitchman: The Guy Down the Street

Our current president is the dream candidate for his right wing supporters/handlers, who are much more intelligent then he. The truth is that the bell curve exists, and the president is of average intelligence (his IQ has been reported as 91-93, Low Average). He appeals to the average American because he comes across like their neighbor, an average Joe. He obviously lacks the ability to produce a major policy concept on his own. For this he relies on a group of conservative ideologues from the Reagan and first Bush administrations-- almost all signatories on the Project for a New American Century.

George W. has made political hay of this very issue in the past when he was asked about his lack of national government experience. His response frequently pointed to his vice president and those conservatives from the Bush Sr. and Reagan administrations as the experience he was relying on. Indeed, his policies reflect a step by step commitment to the stated objectives of the Plan for a New American Century and the New Federalism.

The ideologues recognize that a public that votes primarily on gut instinct wouldn't even elect one of them dogcatcher. One of the weaknesses of democracy is that politicians must cater to mediocrity of thought. It is a statistical fact that 75% of any population has an average IQ or less, an unfortunate majority that votes for whom it identifies with, not who is the brightest or best. Franklin once wrote, "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!" Most candidates of either party that have shown too much intelligence or tried to discuss issues in depth never made it out of the primaries.

Bush on the other hand thinks only in what columnist David Broder calls "reductionist terms". He takes a complex issue and reduces it to two or three disconnected concepts, which he repeats over and over again when dealing with an issue. The public desperately wants to trust the president. With his swaggering "we'll kick their ass" stance he reflects the gut level reaction of the average American who is frightened by events like 9-11, and doesn't have the time, information or patience to get involved in the deeper long term solutions.

Bush sees himself as the deliverer of modern civilization fighting the forces of evil in an archetype that fits his religious and political constructs. He has this delivery down pat because it's who he really is. The scariest thing about George is that he probably believes everything he says. This sincerity is especially compelling when speaking to the public's fears.

Politicians and parties have too much invested in getting elected and staying in office to advance visionary platforms. Consequently, special interest groups and well-organized ideologues decide who the candidates are, develop sound bites to package their truth and manipulate fear to manage the public. Terms are frequently spun to meet the objectives of the campaign rather than to reflect the truth. The association of unrelated concepts, events and words works perfectly when managing a reductionist president. Throw in the word "evil" and you have a full-fledged political campaign. The public welfare is the last thing that comes into play in our modern democracy. This is the perfect environment for a C student president.

The Players: Beware The Military Industrial Establishment

The real players are behind the president and the architects of their plan include William Kristol and the more well known Cheney, Perle, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, I. Lewis Libby, and Elliott Abrams. It is not a coincidence that these people also profit from these policies. They make the profit in war, they set themselves up as controlling history's most powerful military that can be brought to bear for or against the interests of the elite of the world, and they create a way, through tax cuts, to avoid their public responsibility for the rest of the world they live in.

They believe that the rich of any country (including China, Russia, and other former enemies) are an entrenched upper class that wishes to maintain power. When our president says "Either you are with us or against us," the meaning is clear to the rich and powerful everywhere. He is talking to them, not to their countries. They see an overpopulated future world of free trade made up of multi-national corporations that are richer and more powerful than states. The only thing the multi-nationals lack is a military. These aristocrats plan on having a military that will take care of potential rivals to U. S. military power (China), rogue states and "terrorists" that threaten business as usual. The people who control this power will effectively control the world.

The Message: Fear Evil and Let Us Tell You What is Evil

The most common technique used to sell a concept is to combine two unrelated terms and repeat them over and over through various outlets to establish an archetype in the mind of the public. It's the oldest advertising technique in the world. You associate strong feelings like sex or fear with an unrelated term, object or person, repeat them over and over again, and the public soon associates the two in their mind. This works whether it is cars and girls, or Palestinians and terrorists.

Evil is a great catch term for anything human beings can't understand or accept about themselves or others. It hooks that part of us that wants to be more than human. The part that doesn't want to admit that given the same background and circumstances, we could commit the same acts that repel us in others. The technique of labeling the enemy as evil is an old tactic that offers great advantages. First, it cancels out the need to support your position with rational, logically sound arguments. Second, it nullifies the need to act ethically towards your enemy. And lastly, you seize the moral high ground, warding off legitimate moral questions of your actions by others. And if there is any opposition left, you label them as evil or unpatriotic, anti-Semitic or un-Godly. All the way around it's an age-old marketing miracle that successfully evokes and promotes fear.

The conservative message is built on fear. If you can get someone to be afraid for their family, their livelihoods, their safety or their afterlife and then promise to relieve that fear you can pretty much plan on getting what you want. The most conveyed emotion in this campaign is fear. We are told what to fear (terrorism), who to fear (Saddam Hussein) and where to fear it (everywhere) Be afraid of terrorists, Palestinians, foreigners, Muslims, blacks, Hispanics, public schools and liberals. Be very afraid of people who want you to feel afraid.

One of the most glaring examples of a shift in public understanding produced by this tactic is the term liberal. Being a liberal was once a proud tradition. We have come to see Democrats shy away from the word liberal like the plague. John F. Kennedy was a liberal, Franklin Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln. To be a liberal by definition is to be open-minded . Yet the right wing uses the term like it is a character defect. This movement hit its prime during the Clinton-Monica Lewinsky hearings when being a liberal was equated with supporting adultery. It's gotten so bad that former Governor Howard Dean made headlines when he introduced himself as representing the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party.

The success of this technique became apparent in the Bush-Dukakis presidential race. At a time when crime was at historically low levels, the Republican Party (remember Willie Horton) attacked Democrats for being soft on crime and making it sound as if crime was out of control. Soon democrats were doing the same to other democrats in primaries and there was a mad scramble to the right on crime. Ironically the main reason this campaign was successful was the sudden but regular appearance of mentally ill people on the street as a result of the Reagan administration emptying the public institutions. While most of these people were harmless, the public feared them. The result was a prison building binge that made prisons a pork barrel issue in many rural areas of the country, enriched a few private prison companies, promoted an expensive and failed war on drugs, and dismantled one of the most progressive mental health and substance abuse treatment approaches in the world.

The same strategy is being advanced against national and international opposition. Lately we have seen the same techniques aimed at the United Nations. The security counsel has been told to agree with the Bush administration's strategy on Iraq or face being "irrelevant". How does the leader of less than 5% of the world's population (with a military budget larger then the next nine biggest countries in the world combined) dismiss the representatives of almost 6 billion people as irrelevant without being seen as an arrogant, dangerous bully? Bush risks our position in the world as a nation of freedom and hope.

France, the country to whom we owe our very independence, who gave us the Statue of Liberty in celebration of the centennial of our independence, and who has been our ally in the War of 1812, WWI & WWII, and NATO, has been the subject of an ongoing attack for disagreeing with us. The attacks of the right are always obvious. When you can't argue the facts call them a name or trivialize the issue and hence the opponent. The French have, in so many words, been labeled cowards by Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, Rush Limbaugh (the master of right wing misinformation) and other public figures. The declaring of French Fries as Freedom Fries in the congressional dining room demonstrates a deplorable trivialization of world altering events and is only relevant in a reductionist world.

In the conservative mind the concept of democracy is viewed and imbued with equal amounts of capitalism and evangelism. The beliefs that motivate these people and organizations are a strange mix of economic expansionism through free (but American controlled) trade markets overseas, control of energy sources, "democracy" beholden to and under the auspices of the U.S. government, and fear of loss of sovereignty to international bodies along with a domestic policy of a "New Federalism".

When they talk about spreading democracy overseas, they are talking about a democracy that is responsive to the needs of corporations and ideologues. These goals are pursued with a religious zeal by some of the wealthiest multinational corporations, right wing individuals and religious policy groups in the world. President Bush talks about his need to protect Americans and liberate the Iraqi people in spite of how the world's citizens feel. The white man's burden is indeed heavy. The real event is that Iraq is simply the activation of the Project for a New American Century.

The Chorus: Information Engineers

To convince American news media, policy makers and the general public that this course of action was in their best interest, a number of "think tanks" were formed and traditional ones were given a focused mission. Justify to the American public this vision of global dominance by flooding the media with stories produced by various policy "experts". Actually most of these "think tanks" are a group of closely related organizations using a "non-partisan, not for profit status (tax exempt)" to push a narrow agenda of interests. By packaging this "information" as being from many different organizations they make themselves larger than life. They prepare and release press releases on foreign policy and domestic issues about everything from world affairs to school policies. The media, always hungry for authoritative quotes and having less and less independence from corporate America, gladly sucks up this information and feeds it to the public.

The leader in this effort seems to be the The Weekly Standard, a Rupert Murdoch publication that is edited by William Kristol, Chairman of the Project for a New American Century and Resident Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. The following is a partial list of the organizations involved in disseminating information supporting the principles and objectives of the Project for a New American Century as foreign policy. If you check the officers, resident fellows and directors of these organizations, signatories of the Project for a New American Century pop up with surprising frequency. The Heritage Foundation (http://www.heritage.org/), The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) (http://www.aei.org/), The Hudson Institute (http://www.hudson.org/), the Center for Security Policy (http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/), the Center for Strategic and International Studies (www.csis.org), Middle East Forum (http://www.meforum.org/), Middle East Media Research Institute (http://www.memri.org/), Washington Institute for Near East Policy (http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/) and the Council for Foreign Relations (http://www.cfr.org/)are just some of the organizations that produce policy papers and information for consumption by the media in order to justify this shift in American foreign policy. If you start checking interlocking Board of Director memberships, these organizations are intermingled with many others with similar agendas including our old friends from the Viet Nam conflict, the Rand Corporation.

One example of how these organizations use a strategy of misinformation and unbalanced reporting to advance their position and demonize its opposition in the eyes of the American public is the Middle East Media and Research Institute. MEMRI translates the most anti-American – Anti-Israel statements they can find from Arabic sources and promotes them to western media outlets for distribution as representative of the normal Muslim view. Interestingly enough, MEMRI is run by Meyrav Wurmser, the wife of David Wurmser (Head of American Enterprise Institute's Middle East Studies) and Col. Yigal Carmon, a former Israeli Intelligence Officer.

Another organization that seems to specifically target the American public with a Pro-Israeli view and the branding as suspect of domestic opposition is Empower America (http://www.empoweramerica.org/), led by William Bennett. On its main web page, Empower America lists 20 Facts About Israel and the Middle East which when read cannot in any way be construed as being a balanced presentation of the picture in the Middle East. Empower America has two sister organizations, Americans for Victory Over Terrorism (http://www.avot.org/), led by Bennett himself, and the American Council of Trustees and Alumni (http://www.goacta.org/), led by the Vice President's wife, Lynne Cheney.

Americans for Victory Over Terrorism's primary initial funding came from Lawrence Kadish, chairman of the Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC) and a top donor to the Republican Party. Kadish, a real estate investor in New York and Florida, was cited by Mother Jones magazine as one of the country's top individual donors, having given $532,000 to the GOP. In their Sunday, March 10, 2002 New York Times ad, AVOT declared their intention to "take to task those groups and individuals who fundamentally misunderstand the nature of the war we are facing. Both [internal and external] threats," the $128,000 ad continues , "stem from either a hatred for the American ideals of freedom and equality or a misunderstanding of those ideals and their practice." To expose the internal "threats," AVOT has compiled a sample list of statements by professors, legislators, authors, and columnists that it finds objectionable. An example of those dangerous people is President Jimmy Carter, who assailed Bush's use of the phrase "axis of evil," arguing that it was "overly simplistic and counter-productive."

AVOT was the main sponsor of billboards that appeared across the country, equating support of the troops as synonymous with support of the President in order to drive a wedge between anti war forces in the country and friends and relatives of those serving in uniform. In order for the signs to appear within a day of the war starting one has to question the relations between the administration and these private organizations.

Nor were colleges and universities-- the traditional crucibles of dissent-- ignored in this campaign. The American Council of Trustees and Alumni led by Ms. Cheney published a similar list of academicians who they felt made statements disparaging of America after 9/11 and sent them to colleges and university implying that action should be taken against these professors. Some of the statements were as innocuous as "War created people like Osama bin Laden", and "more war will create more people like him," by Oberlin freshman Jim Casteleiro, and "It is from the desperate, angry and bereaved that these suicide pilots came," by former US ambassador at large to Russia, Strobe Talbott. Another dangerous person to be included was Arun Gandhi, the Mahatma's grandson, who told a UNC-Chapel Hill gathering, "We must acknowledge our role in helping to create monsters in the world, find ways to contain these monsters without hurting more innocent people and then redefine our role in the world."

The Orchestra and the Reserve Seating Audience: The Music and the Laugh Track

One of the most interesting phenomena that has resulted from efforts to blend unrelated concepts has been to wed Democracy (a political concept) with Capitalism (an economic system) with Evangelical Christianity (a religious belief). These concepts have become one thing in the minds of many Americans. For example most Americans do not understand that you can have Democratic Socialism, Fascist Christians or Muslim Capitalists. To a large but powerful minority of Evangelical Christians, the merging of these three concepts is not just seen as a worldview, it has become a reality.

The ideologues of the right tapped into the mutual views and messianic interests of the evangelicals. What began in the Moral Majority evolved into an organized coalition to bond together Jewish supporters of Sharon/Likud type Zionism and the Christian Right. It brought together a Conservative Ideology, the Military/MultiNational Complex, and a Zionist/Messianic Fervor. The conservative ideologues exploited every fear it could in its wooing of the religious right: humanistic education, secular humanism and Islam. Rush Limbaugh conducted the ceremony, William Bennett was the best man and Pat Robertson gave away the bride. It was a perfect marriage.

The direction of this coalition of the religious right is steered largely through the efforts of an organization called the Council for National Policy (http://www.ifas.org/). (source: http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/council_020501.html) Many Evangelical, Pentecostal, Charismatic, Baptist, and other conservative religious people are members of the CNP. Jerry Falwell, former head of the Moral Majority; Pat Robertson, 700 Club, conservative financiers such as Amway's Richard De Vos are some of over five hundred CNP members. To see a complete listing of CNP members go to http://www.seekgod.org/. How closely does the CNP agree with PNAC? Bush's justification for a pre-emptive strike on Iraq was not accepted as legitimate by any major religious group except evangelicals and the Southern Baptist Convention.

One of the constructs of the Neo Conservative is to see themselves in a war to save civilization. The right wing believes that Western Civilization and fundamentalist Judeo-Christian paradigms are the culmination of human progress and there can be no advancement beyond them. Internally they demonstrate their fears by trying to minimize, deride and demonize those who disagree with them, especially liberalism which sees all cultures and religions of having value. They associate patriotism with religion and seek to impose their moral standards on others by laws such as anti-abortion. They seek to control textbook content, promote payment of state money to private schools and believe that educational information should be limited to what the parents choose even if it denies reality. In their minds this is a Christian nation with a biblical role in the Second Coming of Christ.

The Christian right believes Heaven can only be found (and Hell avoided) through accepting Jesus as one's personal savior. It has long prospered on such promotion of the fear of Hell. Its evangelical movement encounters Islam wherever its tries to carry its message in the world. It has resented being legally prohibited from proselytizing in some Muslim countries and has encouraged missions to secretly teach Christianity. The resulting arrests in Afghanistan of two evangelical women missionaries received extensive coverage and sympathy in the press just before invasion. To the Christian right, Islam is the concrete embodiment of the devil. It fits with the picture of messianic prophecy that sees Armageddon as a necessary precursor to Heaven on earth. To them, global disaster just represents one last opportunity to save the rest of the non-believers. What they don't understand is that Muslim extremists are their enemy only because they are their own mirror reflection.

The concept of this being a Biblical conflict between Islam and Christianity has been promoted by the Council for National Policy. Talks by supporters of Sharon and the Likud Party have been regular events in fundamentalist churches. Sharon has actively pursued an agenda to eject Palestinians and continue the expansion of Jewish settlements in the occupied territories. The Judeo-Christian fundamentalists have made the term Muslim synonymous with terrorist by not differentiating moderate majorities seeking justified redress with more extremist minorities.

Much of the truth is self-evident by its absence. How often do you see violence committed against Palestinians on the evening news? Rarely. But no opportunity is missed to show the damage caused by a suicide bomber. This isn't an accident; the Israeli government strictly controls access to occupied areas by the news media. If Israeli actions against Palestinians are questioned, the inquisitor is quickly branded as an anti-Semitic by a variety of organizations and dismissed. The aggressive actions of Israel against Palestinians have created thousands of martyrs that are used by Islamic extremists (the counterpart to the Christian Religious Right) to fuel hatred of Israel. In this country there are implied and direct slurs against Muslims bandied about on the public airways, from the pulpit and in "policy briefings". This is the cycle of violence that will destroy us all unless the focus shifts to solutions rather than blame.

The Use of Current Events: Beat the Drums Loudly

In May of 2001, only a few months before 9/11, the Bush administration gave the Taliban government $43 million dollars in aid because it suppressed heroin production in Afghanistan. The administration knew that the Taliban had a terrible human rights record. They knew the Taliban harbored Osama Bin Laden, the most virulent hater of America alive. It just didn't matter then.

At the same time, the Bush administration pursued a hands-off attitude toward the Palestinian situation, freeing Sharon to use the most oppressive tactics in the history of the conflict. This strategy laid a groundwork for a predictable event, a terrorist act in America. The CIA had predicted it, the administration was aware of the prediction. In fact, one must question the motive of this policy (or rather, this lack of policy) in light of the increased danger of terrorist attack that it posed.

When 9/11 happened, any questions about the President's legitimacy were forgotten. The nation, indeed the world rallied around the president and the country. There was universal support for the first excursion in a New American Century. The invasion of Afghanistan offered an opportunity to test the military innovations that had come about after the first Gulf War, a military base in the Middle East and an opportunity to control Russian oil flow to southern ports.

The administration was quick to take advantage of the situation by passing the Patriot Act, the greatest attack on civil rights since the Civil War. Since its passage, long-term aliens living and working here legally were deported without reason. Several hundred Afghanis captured in Pakistan were blindfolded, shackled, placed on planes and are still held almost two years later in outdoor cages at Guantanamo Bay without charges, representation, trial or even accorded their rights under the Geneva Convention. Eighteen were dumped on the street in Afghanistan the 26th of March, 2003 without money or even a bus ticket home after being found to have committed no crime.

Then there is the case of Jose Padilla, a gang member turned Muslim who allegedly had conversations with Al Qaeda over the possibility of creating a "dirty bomb" to detonate in the United States. There is no evidence that Padilla did anything more than discuss the idea. It is doubtful he had the means or resources to carry it out. That didn't stop President Bush from declaring him an "Enemy Combatant". He was picked up when he re-entered the country and whisked away to a military brig where he has been for the last nine months. He has not been arraigned, he has not been allowed to see an attorney, he has not been allowed visitation. Jose Padilla is an American Citizen who has no rights because of the Patriot Act.

Patriot Act II is even more ominous. It would allow the stripping of American Citizenship of anyone the administration deems as assisting terrorism. It could easily be used to silence dissent in this country. After it was leaked to the press, Attorney General Ashcroft withdrew it because of the outcry. However, as civil disobedience or another terrorist act creates the fear necessary to allow its passage, it could easily resurface.

Conclusion

With the war in Iraq in full swing the propaganda machine is now running twenty-four hours a day. Even though the military plan is bogged down, the administration is telling us everything is on plan and I wonder if it already isn't too late. I wonder now about my easy dismissals of those who said the election was a coup. I wonder where we will be one year from now. I worry not for me but for my children and grandchildren and yours. As I write this, March 28, 2003, the President has accused Iran and Syria of assisting Iraq-- facts they have known for some time. Donald Rumsfeld stated the administration considers this a "hostile act and [that] Syria [would] be held accountable". One can only wonder when one looks at the writings of the Project for a New American Century if the ground is being laid for an expansion of what Cheney calls the "Endless War".

I can only hope and pray that anyone who reads this will take the time themselves to find out the truth in these statements and act on their conscience in their own way and in their own time. I can and will write more in the future but for now there are other actions to be taken. Events are happening too quickly to write only. As the environmental "radical" Edward Abbey said "A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government".

How? For me I choose to look to Mahatma Gandhi for guidance.

"Be the change you want to see in the world."

"Live as if you were to die tomorrow. Learn as if you were to live forever."

"Strength does not come from physical capacity. It comes from an indomitable will."

"Unity to be real must stand the severest strain without breaking."

"I offer you peace. I offer you love. I offer you friendship. I see your beauty. I hear your need. I feel your feelings. My wisdom flows from the Highest Source. I salute that Source in you. Let us work together for unity and love."

And remember, "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win ."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------