**The following is my response to an ongoing discussion discussing non-violence that I am having with some individuals.**

I think that misses the point I was attempting to make. Although the leadership of countries may view the US with hostility, at a micro level, this may not be the case. Take Iran for example. Their regime is certainly a hostile government towards the US, however, as we have seen, is struggling to hold onto power because of its oppressive policies. It would be a grave mistake to consider all Iranian people as hostile because of the Iranian regime. And when we speak about war, the consequences of violence overwhelmingly falls on the people; the bystanders who have very little influence over policy.

Yes, 9/11 was a tragedy. Not just for the United States, but for all of humanity. Yet, in the aftermath of 9/11, our country has murdered more innocent people in Afghanistan and Iraq than those who died on 9/11. Was our response after 9/11 proportionate to the tragedy that occurred on that day? If the answer is no, then our wars cannot be considered justified by just war theory.

I am a religious man. Because of my religious principles, there is no other option except non-violence. I take this seriously for two important reasons. When there is no violent option available to me, I am forced to not only conduct myself in a manner that does not cause others to want to do harm unto me, but also forces me to have only non-violent options available to resolve conflict.

Martin Luther King, Jr. taught us to hate evil, but to never hate the person caught up in evil. He also said that peace cannot come out of violence and that violence will never solve social problems. Our wars will not end terrorism. On the contrary, our violent policy has made the world more complicated and dangerous. We may not see the consequences of our wars immediately, but they will come.

War will never be an option for me. There has never been a war to end all wars, and there never will be. I believe that we can use our resources in a much constructive manner than to support our destructive military complex.

Government of the Corporation, by the Corporation, for the Corporation

"Corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed." ~ Abraham Lincoln, 1864

"We the elitists of the United Oligarchs of America, in order to form a more powerful plutocracy, establish concentration of wealth, insure domestic subjugation, provide for the defense of unfettered capitalism, promote corporate welfare, and secure the blessings of wealth and prosperity to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United Oligarchs of America."

If you have not heard, this will be the new preamble of our now defunct Constitution. On January 21, 2010, with a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court of the United Oligarchs (formerly known as the United States) further extended constitutional rights to corporations that would usually be reserved for actual sentient human beings. "Constitutional rights for corporations?" you may ask. Yes, I tell you; if you were not aware, corporations have constitutional rights (often more rights than actual people). Yes, it is hard to mentally grasp, believe, and comprehend.

Of course I am writing in hyperbole, however, this new reality may not be too far off.

The idea of corporate personhood was established as law in the 1886 Supreme Court decision, Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad. In this case, the Supreme Court determined that the rights provided by the 14th Amendment extended to corporations. In case you are a little rusty from middle school and high school civics courses, the 14th Amendment was added to the Constitution after the Civil War and theoretically extended constitutional rights to former slaves. This amendment was later used in Brown v. Board of Education to fight racial discrimination in public schools; Brown can rightly be seen as the impetus for the commencement of the Civil Rights Movement.

It is sinisterly ironic that an amendment meant to extend justice and equality is now being used to undermine such purposes. How? Well, if corporations are granted equal protection under the Constitution, this means corporations have the right to free speech. Although this may seem innocent enough, I will explain how this is harmful to the health of our democracy.

According to the Supreme Court, free speech includes political speech. Of the forms of political speech, monetary contributions are included. Therefore, according to a majority of the current Supreme Court justices, monetary contributions made by corporations for political reasons is a protected form of speech provided to corporations by the 1st Amendment by way of the 14th because of the decision in Santa Clara County. (I made that line of reasoning complex and confusing with the hopes of demonstrating the obvious distorted interpretation of the Constitution by these justices). It gets worse.

To really defile the purpose of the 14th Amendment, on January 21, the Supreme Court decided that it would be unconstitutional to limit the amount of money corporations can contribute to political campaigns in the case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Corporations can now spend freely to further influence (control) politicians and public policy. Essentially, you and I do not matter anymore. Any remaining semblance of a democracy will be subject to serious attack by enormous wealth of corporate America. The public interest has been completely replaced by moneyed interest.

There is still hope to reverse the potential consequences of this decision. However, it will not come without committed action by we the people. The corporations have time and again demonstrated that there is too much to gain for them not to be involved in politics. Corporate America will fight relentlessly to protect their "personhood." Each one of us can do our part to urge our Congresspersons to pass legislation that will strip corporations of any constitutional rights. If Congress is unwillingly to do so, this will be a signal to change the political landscape in America. There are alternatives to our current political parties. For instance, the Green Party of the United States refuses to accept any money from corporations. Our democracy is degenerating into a plutocracy. If it does, the United Oligarchs of America will be the government that we deserve because we will have failed to perform our civil duty to remain ever vigilant in protecting our rights and freedoms as citizens of these United States of America.

I am a proponent of non-violence. I always find it puzzling when people question the power of non-violent alternatives. After all, it is hard to deny the legacies of Gandhi, King, and Mandela.

Terrorism is not a new phenomenon. Violence, especially state sanctioned violence, will not defeat terrorism. Yes, our military may eradicate the current leaders of this particular movement, but there will be no moment when we will be able to say "ah yes, this is the moment of victory."

Instead of September 11th being a teachable moment for the United States, our leadership was determined to use the event to perpetuate our imperialistic policies abroad and to erode our civil liberties at home. Furthermore, as our military expenditures grew and grew domestic expenditures decreased. These wars have been nothing but a distraction from issues that really matter for our prosperity and happiness.

Do not get me wrong, I believe in justice as well. However, I believe there are non-violent alternatives to state sanctioned, unilateral violence. We can undermine the resources (both human and capital) that fuel these ideologues.

On a pragmatic level, we must rely upon international efforts to hold those accountable through international intelligence, multi-national policing, and the international justice system. On a more profound level, we must address the root causes. This means being honest about our own policies. If our policies, whether political or corporate, promote oppression and impoverishment abroad, then we are culpable. Our security does not exist in isolation from the security of others. If we as a nation undermine the security of others, we undermine our own security. Thus, violence will not defeat violence.

If we fail to address terrorism holistically and honestly, we will simply fail. Sure, we may kill the current figureheads of international terrorism (and many innocent bystanders in the process), but the environment that fuels terrorism will still exist.

After a short hiatus from the blogosphere, I thought I'd post a short poem that I have recently written. I think it represents well the values and ideas by which I try to live my life.

LIVE.    Live life as if your actions can make a difference.
BE.       Be the change that you want to see.
LOVE.  Love as if there was no other choice.
GIVE.   Give to others so that we all may prosper together.

"Let me give you a word of the philosophy of reforms. The whole history of the progress of human liberty shows that all concessions yet made to her august claims have been born of struggle. . . . If there is no struggle there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom and yet deprecate agitation, are men (or women, gays, the poor, the disenfranchised, the prosecuted, etc.)** who want crops without plowing up the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters. The struggle may be a moral one; or it may be a physical one; or it may be both moral and physical, but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. . . ."

~ Frederick Douglass, 1857

** My addition to the quote.