Updating the Militarization and Annexation of North America

The title refers to the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP), also known as the North American Union — formally launched at a March 23, 2005 Waco, Texas meeting attended by George Bush, Mexico’s President Vincente Fox, and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin. It’s for a tri-national agreement, below the radar, for greater economic, political, and security integration with secret business and government working groups devising binding policies with no public knowledge or legislative debate.

In short, it’s a military-backed corporate coup d’etat against the sovereignty of three nations, their populations and legislative bodies. It’s a dagger through the heart of democratic freedom in all three, yet the public is largely unaware of what’s happening.

Last April, New Orleans hosted the last SPP summit. Ever since, progress may have stalled given the gravity of the global economic crisis and top priority need to address it. Nonetheless, what’s known to date is updated below plus some related information.

Last September, the Army Times reported that the 3rd Infantry’s 1st Brigade Combat Team in Iraq would be re-deployed at home (October 1) as “an on-call federal response force for natural or manmade emergencies and disasters, including terrorist attacks.”

“This marks the first time an active unit has been given a dedicated assignment to NorthCom, a joint command established in 2002 to provide command and control for federal homeland defense efforts and coordinate defense support of civil authorities.”

Then on December 1, the Washington Post reported that the Pentagon will deploy 20,000 troops nationwide by 2011 “to help state and local officials respond to a nuclear attack or other domestic catastrophe.” Three “rapid-reaction” combat units are planned. Two or more others may follow. They’ll be supplemented by 80 smaller National Guard units trained to respond to chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, high-yield explosive, and other domestic “terror” attacks or disturbances. In other words, homeland militarization and occupation are planned using troops trained to kill.

The pretext is national security. In fact, they’ll be on-call against another major terrorist attack, real or contrived, as well as civil unrest given the gravity of the economic crisis, its effect on millions, and likelihood that sooner or later they’ll react. Armed combat troops will supplement militarized local police in case security crackdowns are ordered or martial law declared.

“Catastrophic Emergency” procedures are in place to react to situations, “natural or manmade,” according to DHS/FEMA’s March 2008 “Preparedness for the Next Catastrophic Disaster” policy paper. Should conditions warrant, initiatives to suspend the Constitution and declare martial law are in place, but militarizing America for business is also at issue.

Last October 1, the Canadian Action Party posted a “COUP IN USA ALERT” after the Bush administration announced the homeland deployment of troops with “$100 billion (bailout) dollars” to do it.

What’s Likely in Prospect

SPP efforts paused during the Bush to Obama transition, but “deep integration” plans remain. On January 19, Ottawa’s Carleton University’s Centre for Trade Policy and Law outlined an agenda for America and Canada going forward. It called for “early and sustained cooperation” at a time of continuing global crisis, to include security, defense, trade and competitiveness.

It said the “most pressing issue is the need to re-think the architecture for managing North America’s common economic space (including) trade liberalization.” It used language like “re-imagining (and) modernizing the border” that reads like erasing it and doing the same with Mexico. In a similar vein, it recommends “integrating national regulatory regimes into one that applies on both sides of the border.” It called the arrival of a new Washington administration “a golden opportunity” to forge a “mutually beneficial agenda (that) will define global and North American governance for years to come.”

It mentioned the specter of protectionism and need to avoid it given the current economic climate. It advocates a “more ambitious Canada-US Partnership” beyond NAFTA,” in co-partnership with Mexico.

Titled “North America Next,” a recent Arizona State University North American Center for Transborder Studies report called for “sustainable and security competitiveness” and deeper US-Canada-Mexico integration through “sustainable security and effective trade and transportation (to) make (the three nation) North America(n partnership) safer, more economically viable, and more prosperous.”

Both Carleton and Arizona State University project participants want SPP initiatives invigorated under a new Washington administration, especially in a climate of global economic crisis when addressing it takes precedence.

Other Issues in Play

“The Canadian’s” Mike Finch “North American Union (NAU) watch” reports that US and Canadian organizations want to end free flow Internet information. He cites an “net-neutrality activist group” discovery of “plans for the demise of the free Internet by 2010 in Canada,” and by 2012 globally.

Canada’s two largest ISPs, Bell Canada and TELUS, are behind a scheme to limit browsing, block out sites, and charge fees on most others as part of a 2012 “planned full (NAU) launching.” Web host I Power’s Reese Leysen called it “beyond censorship: it is killing the biggest (ever) ‘ecosystem’ of free expression and freedom of speech.” He cited big company inside sources providing information on “exclusivity deals between ISPs and big content providers (like TV studios and video game publishers) “to decide which sites will be in the standard package offered customers, leaving the rest of the Internet unreachable except for fees.”

Leysen called his source “100% reliable” and cited similar information from a Dylan Pattyn Time magazine article, based on Bell Canada and TELUS sources. Plans are for “only the top 100-200 sites making the cut in the initial subscription package,” likely to include major news outlets at the expense of smaller, alternative ones. “The Internet would become a playground for billion-dollar content providers,” like cable TV providers, unless efforts are made to stop it.

Leysen thinks US and global ISPs have similar plans that include free speech restrictions and privacy invasions. The stakes are high if he’s right. Yet the profit potential is huge and friendly governments may oblige. Also involved are “deceptive marketing and fear tactics” (like citing child pornography threats) to gain public approval for subscription services masquerading as online safety. The time to stop it is now.

Earlier Plans to Rename SPP/NAU

Last March, Canada’s Fraser Institute proposed it in an article titled: “Saving the North American Security and Prosperity Partnership” at a time of mounting criticism. It recommended discarding NAU in favor of the “North American Standards and Regulatory Area (NASRA)” to disguise its real purpose. It called the “SPP brand” tarnished so changing it was essential to continue where NAFTA left off by combining security with quality of life issues like food safety, global warming, climate change, and pandemic diseases. It also wants better communications to sell it to the public. Their idea is to fool most people until it’s too late to matter.

Rumblings in America at the State Level

Running counter to “deep integration,” News with Views (NWV) writer Jim Kouri headlined on February 23: “Individual States Declaring Sovereignty.” He cites political strategist Mike Baker saying “Americans are becoming disenchanted with the federal government’s lack of perspective on” matters like: “illegal aliens, crime, (and) economic turmoil — while intruding into the private lives of citizens with gun-control laws and other intrusions,” issues our Founding Fathers “relegated to the individual states.” Bothersome also are unfunded mandates that states can’t handle given their over-stretched budgets and need to cut back. In addition, Washington’s intrusion into local law enforcement is a big issue.

So far, nine states have declared sovereignty and another dozen or more are considering it. Enacted or proposed legislation varies from all states’ rights to selective ones like gun control and abortion.

As of January 30, Washington State is one of the former under House and Senate bill HJM-4009 stating:

The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States specifically provides that, ‘The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people;’ and The Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being those powers specifically granted to it by the Constitution of the United States and no more.

Earlier in January, New Hampshire enacted similar legislation (HCR-6) “affirming States’ rights based on Jeffersonian principles.” Other states doing it totally or in part include California, Arizona, Montana, Michigan, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Georgia. In addition, the following states are considering similar measures: Colorado, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Arkansas, Idaho, Alabama, Maine, Nevada, Hawaii and Alaska, and reportedly, Wyoming and Mississippi may as well.

Besides states rights issues, driving the current movement are:

  • the grave and deteriorating economy;
  • Wall Street’s harmful control over policy;
  • its effects on checks and balances;
  • excessive bailouts for an insolvent and corrupted banking system at the expense of local state budgets and rights; and
  • reckless and unsustainable spending and national debt levels driving the nation to bankruptcy and placing untenable burdens on states.

Overall, concern is that Washington is complicit in driving the nation to ruin, and they want out or at least lean that way. If this movement gains strength, at the least it will slow “deep integration,” stall it for a considerable time, but won’t likely halt it. Corporate America wants it, and most often what it wants, it gets.

It may just take longer than planned, much longer given the gravity of the global crisis, how hard it will be to resolve, and how long doing it will take. Some experts predict another Great Depression as bad or worse than the first one and far worse than Japan’s “lost decades” — from 1990 to the present.

Top priority in world capitals and corporate boardrooms is preventing it if possible. Except for “national security,” other initiatives are secondary.

Stephen Lendman wrote How Wall Street Fleeces America: Privatized Banking, Government Collusion and Class War. Contact him at: lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site and listen to The Global Research News Hour on RepublicBroadcasting.org Mondays from 11AM-1PM US Central time for cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests. All programs are archived for easy listening. Read other articles by Stephen.

19 comments on this article so far ...

Comments RSS feed

  1. Sam said on March 13th, 2009 at 11:18am #

    So I don’t get the whole 10th amendment business. What good could come from a state acting on it?

  2. john doraemi said on March 13th, 2009 at 1:14pm #

    Must see video documentary:

    The Obama Deception

  3. catherine said on March 13th, 2009 at 1:35pm #

    How is this not a violation of the Posse Comitatus act? Not that anyone cares about the law (anyone in power, I mean) anymore, but wouldn’t such actions against civilians (as opposed to responding to disasters, etc.) be illegal? Just asking.

  4. rg the lg said on March 13th, 2009 at 2:15pm #

    The 10th amendment has proven a toothless tiger … but the theory is that any action/power not specified as national is a state responsibility. While we go on and on about Lincoln preserving the Union, the cost of such an action was the 10th amendment. In my opinion, though I agree he was doing it for all of the wrong reasons, Calhoun was correct. The rise of the empire with its complicit corporatism in controlling not only US wage-slaves, but tromping on others at will is a direct result of Lincolnism. Sure doing away with slavery was a good thing … but it was strictly a side affect of the war … not a cause.

    Regarding the OBAMA DECEPTION … what the hell did you expect? That the world really worked the way those idiot government/civics teachers you had claimed? BS! In the MILITARY-INDUSTRIAL/CORPORATE-CONGRESSIONAL world that runs our kives, an honest politician simply can not exist. [At the end of the last sentence is a PERIOD … see it?]

    In cynicism and disgust,*
    RG the LG

    * – I am disgusted by how damned naive most people are. Democracy, my ass … isn’t now and ain’t never been. And as greedy as Home Americanus is, NEVER will be.

  5. joed said on March 13th, 2009 at 6:42pm #

    cathrine, posse comitatus no longer applies. bush did away with it in 2007. i think it was Military Commisions Act. anyway it doesn’t matter because the bad guys won and, as hunter s. thompson said, our children will drink dirty water for the rest of their lives.
    we are doomed. jonathan schell’s book, the unconqurable world, tells how to survive in a police state. it is worth reading.

  6. Brian Koontz said on March 13th, 2009 at 6:57pm #

    In reply to rg the lg:

    “Sure doing away with slavery was a good thing … but it was strictly a side affect of the war … not a cause.”

    The best slave is one who doesn’t realize he’s a slave. Getting rid of chattel slavery led to the integration of imported blacks into imperial America.

    It was a huge propaganda and mind control victory. By eliminating chattel slavery and instituting wage slavery throughout the states, the elite could claim that they had “eliminated slavery”, and most of the people believe it. The people also believe that Lincoln himself “eliminated slavery”, thus making it all the easier for the executive branch to increase it’s power.

    There’s also “moving up the corporate ladder” – which is another way of saying “I’m a slave now, but I might become a master later (and my life’s work is to become the most powerful master I can be)”. This is appealing to Americans, to become a master and have slaves of one’s own. “Everyone can be a plantation owner” is another phrase for the American Dream. In terms of morality there is no difference between a corporation with masters (executives) and slaves (workers) and a plantation. The same shape with a different paint job.

    Examine Americans and their historical reaction to the “end of the American Dream”. The primary reaction was depression and despair – depression and despair at no longer having the expectation of mastery and possessing slaves. How many Americans celebrated the end of the American Dream? Does Hunter S. Thompson’s “life as burnout” strike you as a celebration? Yet we are told by the left of all people that Thompson is a “good guy”. Americans of all political persuasions need to take a very hard look in the mirror.

    There’s no proof that getting rid of chattel slavery was a good thing. It’s riddance led to a relatively unified America and paved the way for American Imperialism, which officially began in 1898 and increased dramatically after WWII. If we use the judgment that what is good for the elite is bad for the people, the elimination of chattel slavery was a terrible thing.

    One might note that this kind of analysis applies to many other “activist” issues. An activist is someone who pressures the elite to institute some change. But since the elite control the propaganda machine, any change they institute (pressured or otherwise) they can and will claim credit for, thus building their own power in the minds of the people. Thus, according to Americans, Lincoln was a “hero”. According to this thinking, Obama is a “possible hero”. Thus they have “hope in Obama”. With this additional power and people’s trust they further entrench their power. We can trace Neoliberalism from this line.

    The only way around this problem is to seize power from the elite, such that the people themselves become the power structure. The elite *as a class* must be destroyed.

    Activists who don’t see the big picture and act accordingly often do more harm than good. And they are the people who are the most self-righteous, the most incapable of believing in their own errors. Everything they do is fine as long as it’s “for a good cause”. The point of activists is not to save the world or really even help the world – it’s to feel good about what they are doing. At that they always succeed.

    Activism is the greatest drug in the world. They get high and then get higher, and then go home while the people give the elite all the credit.

  7. joed said on March 14th, 2009 at 8:41am #

    Brian Koontz,
    “The point of activists is not to save the world or really even help the world – it’s to feel good about what they are doing. At that they always succeed.”
    hello brian, i agree with you except it seems there are a few activists who really do put themselves on the line. seems a few understand that hardship and sacrifice are the keys to real change.
    personally, i hold a sign once a week at a local farmers market. sign says, WAR CRIMES ARE BEING COMMITTED IN YOUR NAME.
    the reason i do this is because i don’t want the “fuck the pig” attitude in me to die. like you say, it’s an ego thing for sure. anyway i like your comment and what you say about activism doing more harm that good. if people aren’t willing to sacrifice then they are better off staying home becaue they are playing into the system when they protest.
    i have been saying for years that the people should hit the streets and hit’em hard. but this is too much for the activists. and besides, it is too late now–the bad guys won.

  8. joed said on March 14th, 2009 at 8:53am #

    brian, i do have to call you on this really dumb line you wrote,
    “There’s no proof that getting rid of chattel slavery was a good thing.”
    if massa’ had sold your children and taken your woman and daughter as a concubine you would say something very different about “chattle slavery” slavery was is and always will be imoral and wrong. and the slave has the right to do ANYHTING to free his self and other slaves.

  9. Tennessee-Chavizta said on March 14th, 2009 at 2:48pm #

    https://new.dissidentvoice.org/2009/03/updating-the-militarization-and-annexation-of-north-america/ <–The capitalists are gonna unite USA, Mexico and Canada into a corporate machine of plunder and death. I told the pizza and cake-slaves that live around my house to vote for an alternative party and not for Democrats and Republicans. but they thought i was crazy

  10. Boyd Collins said on March 14th, 2009 at 4:59pm #

    “The only way around this problem is to seize power from the elite, such that the people themselves become the power structure. The elite *as a class* must be destroyed.”

    This is the goal toward which we must aim and short-term strategies must never lose focus on the ultimate aim. A number of forces are converging in the present crisis. David Harvey’s analysis of the bailout strategy highlights one element: “…the banks are using the money not to lend to anybody but to buy other banks. They are consolidating their class power.”

    In other words, the bailout is part of a new power consolidation by the ruling elite who understand that the current class division is insufficient to maintain their dominance in the face of ecological crisis and resource wars. Therefore, we explain the crisis as “a class event in which a certain structure of exploitation broke down and is about to be displaced by an even deeper structure of exploitation.” as David Harvey puts it.

    The fact that bailout money is being redirected to troop buildups demonstrates that the elite is placing its faith in military force as the guarantee of continued dominance. The recent Gaza massacre in which new DIME weapons were tested on a captive population is indicative of the repression strategy likely to be pursued in case of civil unrest.

    The Obama phenomena has managed to absorb and divert most of the progressive political forces that might have been able to work for fundamental change, as was Wall Street’s intention in promoting him. The “Obama strategy” has turned out to be a brilliant move so far. It has allowed them to cover the renewed centralization of their financial power through the transfer of Treasury funds to their coffers. This accomplishes two key purposes: 1) It weakens the financial power and capacity for independent action of the majority; 2) It allows them to consolidate bank ownership into a few major players.

    What’s remarkable about this web site is how many of the commentators are starting to converge in their analysis of the phony progressivism of Obama. This sentence from Brian Koontz summarizes the attitude well: “With this additional power and people’s trust they further entrench their power. We can trace Neoliberalism from this line.”

    I would also like to add an obligatory denunciation of conspiracy theories. They are counterproductive and unnecessary. The motivations behind this “conspiracy” are not hidden. They are summarized in a recent blog post in the Nonviolent Jesus blog (http://nonviolentjesus.blogspot.com): “It is very doubtful that the elite gather together in secret to plan world domination. It is simply the case that those who control political and economic power instinctively understand the best ways to continue their dominance and act on that understanding both individually and as a class. They are not “evil”, but are usually acting in good conscience, though with a conscience formed in a peculiar way. Their conscience is formed by their experiences of economic success, which they generalize into working tools for the formation of mass economic policy. They do not speculate on the roots or final ends of their policy, but they are certain that obedience to their policy will maintain their control and their success. And for them that is only goal worth achieving.”

  11. joed said on March 14th, 2009 at 5:40pm #

    Boyd Collins says,
    “The only way around this problem is to seize power from the elite, such that the people themselves become the power structure. The elite *as a class* must be destroyed.”
    seems no body is will to sacrifice and accept the hardships necessary to reclaim what belongs to the people.
    general strike, and boycott of almost everything is all i can think of but atleast 25-30% of folks are necessary to make it work.
    people just dont care and they are ignorant of their plight. civil disobedience like shuting down roads, bridges, major business areas etc. would work but no body seems to care.
    fuck the pigs!

  12. Jeff said on March 14th, 2009 at 7:27pm #

    Well everyone, look at your birth certificate. Burn it if you dare. Without that piece of, hold it to my heart, paper you do not exist. HUH! That is right, burn it. THEN YOU WILL NO LONGER BE A SLAVE. Are you prepared for the challenge when you do burn your piece of paper. ALL of you are registered animals. Break free of that. I dare you. You cannot. It would make you an Illegal Alien. In your country of birth at that. All of you are so f@cked up that the very thing which enslaves you, you will die for. The elite have won!

    Chew on that for awhile.

    Get back to me.

    Looking for a better way forward.

    some call me frank

    others call me crazy.

  13. Brian Koontz said on March 16th, 2009 at 6:01pm #

    In reply to joed:

    “brian, i do have to call you on this really dumb line you wrote,
    “There’s no proof that getting rid of chattel slavery was a good thing.”
    if massa’ had sold your children and taken your woman and daughter as a concubine you would say something very different about “chattle slavery” slavery was is and always will be imoral and wrong. and the slave has the right to do ANYHTING to free his self and other slaves.

    All forms of slavery should always be destroyed.

    My argument is for the recognition that the elite got credit for “ending slavery” and they leveraged the resulting populist good will into increasing their own power. The result of ending chattel slavery, however much better it made the lives of African-Americans as well as white chattel-masters (masters are enslaved too – just on the other end of the chain), increased the power of the elite, which they then used to increase their imperial domination of the world finally resulting in neoliberal monstrosities.

    To be a successful activist then is not just to “do a good deed” – it’s to make sure the elite don’t *exploit* that good deed thus not only making all one’s hard work for naught but converting a good deed into a bad one.

    “The point of activists is not to save the world or really even help the world – it’s to feel good about what they are doing. At that they always succeed.”
    hello brian, i agree with you except it seems there are a few activists who really do put themselves on the line. seems a few understand that hardship and sacrifice are the keys to real change.”

    I’m always worried when people talk about hardship and sacrifice, because what often follows from it is a jail sentence or getting run over by a bulldozer.

    Hardship and sacrifice come with the territory of course, but it seems to me that the things most lacking among activists are wisdom, education, and organizational vision. A lot of times the best thing an activist can do is to read an important book. Though I suppose that isn’t sexy enough or raises his social standing among his peers.

    Perhaps the next best thing an activist can do is to attain solidarity with activists in other movements – for various activist groups to join together in their fight against the elite.

    Another good step is to increase the intimacy between the people of the activist group. This makes the activist experience more rewarding to individual activists and encourages them to become more committed and become ongoing activists, as well as decreasing the likelihood of a traitor in the ranks.

  14. joed said on March 16th, 2009 at 7:12pm #

    hardship and sacrifice are the keys to real change. without them you are just pissin’ in the wind. and if you are going to fight evil you better arm yourself . and like the mahatma said, if you go somewhere to let the man beat on you then you deserve that beating. self defence is legal, necessary and required sometimes.
    brian, i dont know where you are getting your infor from but the only way to change things now is for a lot of people to go to dc and arrest the murderous thugs, that’s 99% of congress, 8 of the scotus and bush/cheney and obama. all of them. but that wont happen will it. so there it is. the bad guys won because the people dont know how to defend self and are too ignorant to know what to defend. it’s all over brian and the bad guys won. and they took the commonwealth with them.

  15. Brian Koontz said on March 17th, 2009 at 8:00am #

    Sheesh, it’s never over, because the masters always need slaves and they would always rather have humans as slaves than as corpses.

    The battle of freedom vs. slavery is constant regardless of the current situation – in a state of freedom would-be masters try to enslave others, while in a state of slavery would-be freemen try to become free.

    I don’t know what the exact outcome would be if a mass movement tried to arrest the government, but it would surely take a lot more than some rifles and handguns and a lot of people to be successful. Probably what would happen is the military would be called in, lots of arrests would be made (not of the people you hope for), or if the people became violent in order to avoid arrest there would be sufficient violence used against them to pacify them, regardless of how much violence it took, up to and including killing all of them. It’s not inconceivable that all of this would have a positive outcome (except for those who sacrificed their lives or non-jailed status), but I have no confidence in that.

    Arresting someone is a matter of superior use of force. So unless you believe that the American people have more force than does the American state it’s unwise to pursue a policy of arresting the government, or at the very least it’s a policy that has far too much risk for it’s expected pay-out, especially for those people taking the risk upon themselves.

    In terms of violence it’s probably far wiser to use *explosives* against the elite, especially since they sometimes convene together at various corporate headquarters, conference rooms, and governmental facilities. It’s a lot easier to kill someone than to arrest him, at least for the relatively powerless, which is why Al Qaeda is a death force rather than a police force.

    One nice thing about how far weapons technology has progressed is that it’s relatively easy to obtain powerful weapons. A weapon doesn’t ask questions about which human being is at it’s receiving end.

    As long as the people understand that the targets are *just* the elite, they have no (direct) reason to fear the violence and no justification for turning against the elite-killers.

    But violence should never be used as a substitute for a mass movement for freedom, and without going hand-in-hand with that mass movement will surely fail.

    Probably the best thing about a mass movement having a violent ally is that the elite can’t simply crush the mass movement with impunity. Violent capability acts as a deterrent.

  16. joed said on March 17th, 2009 at 11:05am #

    brian, i can tell you have given much thought and energy to what you say here. ten years ago some of what you say may have had value. but now, it seems you are running on empty.
    the bad guys won and that left you amerikans to stand around in your FREE SPEACH ZONES (DissidentVoice, BuzzFlash ETC.) and think of things to say that may get someone’s attention. and to whine and cry about those darned war-mongors and that darn cheney, and why doesn’t someone do something?
    brian, it is over for you guys. the bad guys won and you guys lost because you didn’t have the care and concern and knowledge to know and see what the bush/cheney/clinton/obama gang was doing to you.
    jonathan schell’s book THE UNCONQUERABLE WORLD tell how to live in a police state. you may want to take a look at chapter 6. you may want to try to create the community you want to live in and ignore the govt as much as you can–that is the furture brian, that is the present.
    of coarse there is orwell’s view; if you want to know what the future will be like just picture a boot smashing a human face.

  17. bozh said on March 17th, 2009 at 11:31am #

    i don’t know how violence wld work out against a state with an army, cia, fbi, police, spy agencies, ? 50mn rabid empire-lovers. no, count me out. tnx

  18. Barry99 said on March 17th, 2009 at 12:12pm #

    Bozh – as you imply, it would be a mess for anyone trying to organize violence against the state. I once toured Fort Hood in Texas – and that arsenal alone would slaughter millions. And all those gun-toting right-wingers, who say they need their guns to go up against an intrusive goverment? They’re just pretending, the reality is they’d be on the side of the state as it mass-murdered its citizens.

  19. joed said on March 17th, 2009 at 2:41pm #

    the Honorable Louis Farrakhan knows that violence will not work.
    gandhi did the right thing in the right way but you amerikans are confused about “non-violence” and “civil disobediance” if you ever figure out the difference you will have more power that you can handle. here is a hint for you kids.
    and this is just one guy doing something. check out gandhi and the salt tax.