portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary united states

anti-racism | corporate dominance


This is commentary on the candidates in the presidential 2008 election, and thier appeals to the american public.
People have been asking me what I think of the various candidates recently my response has largely been that they are mostly lapdogs of capitalism. Not satisfied with my own lack of critical judgment of towards the positions of these people I spent a while on the internet yesterday checking out their positions on issues that I find relevant.


Perhaps I am dreadfully conservative but really I believe that all rights are inalienable. This is the appeal of a democratic society right? I've been told my whole life that democratic pluralistic societies believe that all people are treated equal under the law. When social inequality is based on a persons race or ethnic background this is racism right? When this racism is enforced by individual, societal, institutional, or governmental pressure, this more or less characterizes the form of racism more than anything else. When race based societal inequity is enforced by a government this is "government racism."

When a government treats people differently under the law they lift up some, and hold down others. This inequity foments resentment and violence.

A number of the candidates referred to displaced workers as illigals and aliens. How can anyone be illegal when the very basis of our credibility as a democratic nation rests on the principle that our rights are inalienable?


The term inalienable rights (or unalienable rights) refers to a theoretical set of human rights that are fundamental, are not awarded by human power, and cannot be surrendered. They are by definition, rights retained by the people. Inalienable rights may be defined as natural rights or human rights, but natural rights are not required by definition to be inalienable.

Samuel P. Huntington, an American political scientist, wrote that the "inalienable rights" argument from the Declaration of Independence was necessary because "The British were white, Anglo, and Protestant, just as we were. They had to have some other basis on which to justify independence".

So when political candidates speak of "illigals, and aliens" I think that maybe they just want to shred the constitution, and the declaration of independence, and start a fire in the halls of democracy. When someone running for a leadership position in government fails to pass the very basic litmus test that EVERYONE has the right and freedom to pursue basic happiness, work, and feed their family. Politicians that fail this test betray a very basic tenet of the American promise.

Our nations policy on immigration? "Go back to the sweatshops!" Our domestic policy, Jim Crow law. Political candidates that claim to be against NAFTA, and free trade law, yet support Jim Crow Borders are "CLOSET RACISTS." Our border policy is a primary component of the violent enforcement which makes NAFTA work. The other end of this equation is the military aid we provide under the pretext of the drug war. This military aid is used in a way that puts a gun to Mexican workers backs and says work in sweatshop conditions or flee to another country.

Correct me if I'm wrong. Every Republican candidate in the recent Iowa debates referred to displaced workers as "illigals, and aliens." With this kind of politics towards Hispanic people, we can only imagine how they will treat the imprisoned populations of America. How will treat the other victims of the drug war?

More commentary will be forthcoming. Including my thoughts on Democrats and Ron Paul.