A Special Report.
One of our biggest mistakes is not knowing that we are fighting a dictatorship. The main reason for our mistakes is that we have in our minds the image of the old traditional dictatorship. Right after the “fall” of the Soviet Union in 1991, a new type of dictatorship was created by communists all around Latin America and Africa.
The Traditional Dictatorship.
One of our biggest mistakes is not knowing that we are fighting a dictatorship. The main reason for our mistakes is that we have in our minds the image of the old traditional dictatorship. If we look around, we can’t find that type of dictatorship anywhere. So we keep on playing baseball, the game that all those traditional dictators used to play.
Leaving out the Islamic dictatorship, we had two types of traditional dictatorships: the right wing (including the fascists) and the communist dictatorships. These old-type or traditional dictators usually took power after a coup d’état. Some of them, like Alberto Fujimori (1990-2000) in Peru or Gerardo Machado (1925-1933) in Cuba, just to mention two of them, were first elected by votes in clean elections and then turned dictators. The rest of them rose to power after a war, a revolution or a traditional coup d’état. Recently, they were either backed by the Soviet Union or by the United States of America, generally speaking. They kept power by means of violence… killing and persecuting their people.
That we know of, only five declared-dictators were thrown out of power by or after an electoral process: Alberto Fujimori in Peru, Slobodan Milošević in Serbia, Ferdinand Marcos in Philippines, Augusto Pinochet in Chile, and Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua. Fujimori, Milošević and Marcos were kicked out of power after rigged elections, with people in the streets, uprising in non-violent manners: hundreds of thousands of people out in the streets of their countries, “from coast-to-coast”, so to speak.
It took a civil war to take Ortega to the election in Nicaragua and Pinochet accepted his defeat after the Chilean opposition, together, fought for the right conditions before going into a plebiscite process. The rest of the traditional dictators needed violence and a lot of killing in order to step down from power. Old traditional dictators were baseball players and we knew how to get rid of them; with the help of the people or with the help of the so-called “international community”. By evaluating our current United States government, we would have to come to the conclusion that we are not facing a traditional dictatorship, but a terrible “normal” government, and that is where we are making our big mistake. A terrible “normal” government, like Jimmy Carter’s – for example – is deposed by elections: simple! So we are preparing ourselves for the upcoming Presidential election, in November 2012. We don’t have any idea of how disappointed we will be.
The Constitutional Dictatorship
Right after the “fall” of the Soviet Union in 1991, a new type of dictatorship was created by communists all around Latin America and Africa. So far we can count José Eduardo dos Santos in Angola (who turned “constitutional” later on), Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua (who turned “constitutional” in 2007), Hugo Chávez in Venezuela (1999), Evo Morales in Bolivia (2006) and Rafael Correa in Ecuador (2007). Two more dictators are ready to “sign the contract”: Ollanta Humala in Peru… and Barack Hussein Obama Jr. in the United States of America.
The only constitutional dictator who was deposed from power, was Manuel Zelaya in Honduras, in 2009, after trying to change the constitution in order to keep on ruling forever. The Honduran people knew that after changing their constitution, Zelaya would never-ever leave power.
These constitutional dictators wait for the right moment to join the electoral struggle. The “right conditions” include three type of general or national crisis: 1) economic, 2) political and 3) social. After winning the elections appealing to the poorest people and those who are claiming for a “change”, they will start to prepare the conditions to stay in power for ever. Their schedules include:
1. Increasing the original conditions found when they won their first elections.
2. Create chaos and ungovernability.
3. Re-found their republics through a new constitution.
A populist message will keep their popularity fairly on top and, with the help of corruption
and depuration, they will move their “chips” on the right direction, controlling the Judicial and the Legislative branches… and the armed forces.
Big corporations, including banks, will start or increase to fall down and they will “help” them by bailing them out, taking control of them, even for a specific amount of time.
At the end – and pretty soon – these new constitutional dictators will control everything: currency, economic, political institutions, banks, big corporations, small businesses, health institutions, educational system, Congress, Supreme Court, electoral system, family, religion, people in general… you name it!
They will create a situation in which everything and everybody will depend – in higher or lower levels – on them. If someone wants to “win” an election, even as candidate from a different party, they will have to dance to their music. If judges want to keep their jobs, they will have to rule their ways or according to their interests… even if sometimes they seem to go against the regime. Congregational representatives will have to legislate in their favor, most of the time. They will all turn “co-suckers”, sucking together from the same breast, even from a different party.
The general citizens will depend more and more on the regime, directly or indirectly. Laws will be passed to keep people behind the “yellow line”. Just as an example, we can all review Bill S1867 – “The National Defense Authorization Act” or “Indefinite Detention Act” – that our Senate got behind closed doors in secret meetings during Thanksgiving (2011) with the approval of 93 out of 100 senators, or the “Enemy Expatriation Act”.
It will not be a dramatic change at all, not – at least – from the “revolutionary”, old traditional-dictatorship’s point of view. It will be like placing a frog inside a pan with boiling water: the frog will jump immediately; however, if the frog is placed in a pan with warm water, it will stay calm, but it will soon die when the water reaches boiling point.
These new dictators, with the needed help of “co-suckers”, will make you believe that the way to get rid of them is through an electoral process. Both, the regime and the “opposition” will promote elections, but these will be shamelessly rigged. Rigging elections, by the way, seems to be the American politicians’ sport, at least, since the beginning of the Nineteenth Century.
Regarding this phenomenon, we Americans have made a great mistake: failing to realize that we are now facing a new kind of dictatorship and that we are now playing cricket, not baseball. The Constitutional Dictatorship is not possible without the co-suckers’ help.
Intimidation will be a great tool from now on. We have beginning to watch “repudiation acts” in our country, the same intimidation strategy applied in Cuba by Castro’s mobs.
Another way of intimidation will be found through the regime’s meddling in how we should educate our children.
A New Constitution the last stage for these dictators before “turning” communists right up front, is to write a brand new constitution. They will start preparing the right atmosphere right away, even before they are elected. They all share the same excuses: the current constitution is too old; constitutions are living documents, they are full of flaws and contaminated with a colonialist spirit, they are not right for these “new times”,etc. Since the crises become intolerable and there are no margins for the regime to govern, a new constitution is “needed”. Eventually, when these new dictators have everything under control, they will propose a new “law of the land”, sometimes also called “social contract”. After that, we can be sure that we have lost our country for good. They even like to change the names of their nations and the national symbols too. As a matter of fact, in the “Emerging Constitution”, by Rexford Guy Tugwell, published in 1974, the new name for our country would be “The Newstates of America”. Rexford Guy Tugwell (July 10, 1891 – July 21, 1979) was an agricultural economist who became part of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s first “Brain Trust”, a group of Columbia academics who helped develop policy recommendations leading up to Roosevelt's 1932 election as President. Tugwell subsequently served in FDR's administration for four years and was one of the chief intellectual contributors to his New Deal. Later in his life, he also served as the director of the “New York City Planning Commission”, and was the last appointed governor of Puerto Rico. After the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Tugwell saw global planning as the only sure way to prevent a nuclear apocalypse. He participated in the “Committee to Frame a World Constitution” from 1945 to 1948. He also viewed a revised national constitution as necessary to enable economic planning, and late in life composed a constitution for the Newstates of America. In it, planning would become a new branch of federal government, alongside the Regulatory and Electoral branches. In his book, published by Harper & Row, Tugwell illustrates with chilling clarity the final objective of regional governance conspirators. The goal is a corporate state concentrating economic, political and social powers in the hands of a ruling elite. “A Constitution for the Newstates of America”, is the fortieth version of this revolutionary document prepared by a team of social experimenters at the “Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions”, funded by the Ford Foundation.
Technically speaking, our constitution is based on the consent of the governed. If the governed – we the people – decide to replace our Constitution, that is certainly possible, complicated but possible. Politically speaking, that is another story.
When Hugo Chavez decided that he wanted to write a new constitution for (himself) Venezuela, which he was successful in doing, he began the process like this: he started to talk about giving Venezuela a new “Law of the Land”, people laughed at him then. Once he became president, he came up with that new “concept” called “The Original Power”. We in the United States have never heard of this term. If we look it up in Google-English, we will not find one page. The same thing will occur if we try to look it up in Wikipedia; however, if we look it up in Spanish (“Poder Originario”) we will find hundreds of pages full of information.
The moment that Chavez started to explain “The Original Power” to Venezuelans, the country became acutely aware of the danger they were facing having Hugo as president. Constitutional lawyers frantically started to “study” the concept and they couldn’t come up with an explanation which would refute Chavez’s hidden agenda and this new “political weapon”.
“Power resides in the people”, Chavez said over and over. This of course is “technically” true, there in Venezuela and here in the United States of America. We, the people have agreed to a constitution that is and should remain the premier contract between us and our leaders. This contract gives our leaders permission to hold limited powers granted to them by “we the people”; this is the concept behind the American Constitution.
The first and only constitutional convention that our country ever had, took place in Philadelphia from May 14th, to September 17th, 1787. It was intended to revise the “Articles of Confederation”, but ended up creating a new government, rather than fixing the existing one. The United States Constitution was born.
According to Article 5 of our Constitution, we would need of two-thirds of states in order to call a constitutional convention, 34 states, that is. Politically, it would be an uphill battle, however, with the same sneak attack used by Chavez, Obama could overcome that “minor” inconvenience by simply appealing to the mob and the claim he is doing it for the people.
Here is where the “Original Power” will come in, as it has done in all those countries in Latin America which have fallen to the claws of what we now know as “XXI Century’s Socialism”: Nicaragua, Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador… and soon, Peru.
When we start hearing that term, “Original Power” (also known as “Native Power” or “Original Constitutive Power”), we will know what is coming.
Alejandro Pena, a Venezuelan freedom fighter, went to Honduras and warned the Honduran people about the “Original Power” line. The minute that then-Honduras’ President Manuel Zelaya mentioned those two words; he got kicked out of the country in his pajamas by a group of patriot generals, saving Honduras – for the time being – from the XXI Century’s Socialism nightmare.
Of course, Obama will do it “right”. He will “not need” the approval of 34 states of the Union. He could, very well (with the right political atmosphere and all kinds of crisis), call out a referendum and propose the “participation” of the whole nation, something that our Founding Fathers didn’t do. With the help of Chavez’ electronic voting machines, winning that referendum would be as easy as peeling tangerines with long finger nails.
After the BRAND-NEW constitution is written, Obama would call out another referendum for “we the people” to approve it, something that our Founding Fathers didn’t do either. At the end, Obama will make us believe that our Founding Fathers were fascists; we already know he thinks they were; of course, another round with Chavez’ electronic voting machines and that will be it. We will all vote WITHOUT CONDITIONS and once we “lose”, the new Constitution will be legitimized! It will be over; all our military members and politicians will be sworn to the new Obamafied Constitution… and that will be the end or our story.
The big question would be: are we willing to do something to keep our freedom? Do we sit idle and watch our Republic deteriorate? We need to learn, think, understand, and react. Join a tea party, patriot group and engage in Conservative activism.
Watch for Part 4. To be continued soon in the Bear Essentials column.
