Deliberate Contradiction: How the West Plays Dumb and Kills People in Gaza


by Ramzy Baroud | Dec 8, 2025 | 


First, let’s dissect this puzzle.

On February 29, 2024, US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin sent shockwaves when he informed lawmakers in the House Armed Services Committee that over 25,000 Palestinian women and children had been killed by Israel in Gaza up to that date. Austin, the military chief of the Biden Administration, delivered a fact that immediately subverted his own government’s rhetoric.

The announcement was shocking for two main reasons. First, Austin himself had orchestrated the relentless flow of US arms to Israel, directly enabling the very campaign that liquidated those innocent people. Second, the figure provided was noticeably higher than the casualty tally reported by the Palestinian Health Ministry in Gaza for the same period – 22,000 women and children in the first 146 days of the war.

The crux of the contradiction, however, is that Austin’s detailed account of the US-funded Israeli atrocities in Gaza directly subverted the official narrative regularly disseminated by the White House.

In fact, as early as October 25, 2023 – barely two weeks into the war – President Joe Biden himself began doubting the Palestinian Ministry of Health’s death toll estimates. “(I have) no confidence in the number that the Palestinians are using,” he flatly declared.

Naturally, Austin’s declaration neither eroded his unwavering endorsement of Israel nor softened Biden’s patronizing attitude toward the Palestinians. To the contrary, US military and political backing for Israel surged exponentially after that congressional hearing. US military and financial support for the Israeli genocide during the Biden administration in the first year of the war is estimated to be at least $17.9 billion.

These apparent contradictions, however, are not inconsistencies at all, but a perfectly calibrated, deliberate policy. Historically, this approach grants the US license to consistently flout its own declared principles. Iraq was invaded, at a horrific cost of life and societal destruction, under the banner of ‘good intentions’: democracy, human rights, and the like. Afghanistan’s protracted agony of war and instability endured for two decades in the name of fighting terror, exporting democracy, and women’s rights.

The operational part of the equation satisfies military and political strategists. Meanwhile, the hollow rhetoric of democracy and human rights keeps intellectuals, both on the right and the left, mired in a protracted, perpetually unproductive debate that serves to conceal rather than influence policy.

While the US government may have perfected the craft of deliberate contradictions, it is not the original architect. In modern history, this phenomenon has been owned almost entirely by the West: colonialism was advanced as a solution to slavery, and forced conversions were brazenly justified as civilizing missions.

The West’s stance on the Israeli genocide in Gaza, however, offers the most blatant and current example of this deliberate contradiction. A concise examination of Germany’s conduct in the last two years suffices to illustrate the point.

Germany is the world’s second-largest supplier of weapons to Israel, after the US. Not only did it refuse to accept the genocide definition recognized by many countries, and eventually by the International Court of Justice (ICJ), but it also fought ferociously to shield Israel from the mere accusation.

Domestically, it brutally suppressed pro-Palestinian protests, detained countless activists, and outlawed the use of the Palestinian flag, among numerous other draconian measures. Yet, in the same breath, Germany continued to champion freedom of speech and democracy, and criticize Global South nations that allegedly curtailed these same values.

Predictably, Germany continued to arm Israel, concocting every conceivable justification for its support of Tel Aviv, even after the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued arrest warrants for top Israeli leaders for the crime of extermination in Gaza. Only under immense pressure did Berlin finally yield and agree to stop approving weapons exports to Israel.

Fast forward to recent days. The BBC, among other outlets, reported on November 17 that Germany would reinstate its weapons exports to Israel, rationalizing the decision with the October 10 announcement of a Gaza ceasefire – one that Israel has flagrantly violated hundreds of times.

“Germany’s decision to lift its partial suspension of weapons shipments to Israel is reckless, unlawful and sends entirely the wrong message to Israel,” Amnesty International declared in a press release – a condemnation that, naturally, was utterly ignored.

A week later, new research conducted by two top, highly regarded academic institutions showed that the number of Palestinians killed as a result of the Israeli genocide is substantially higher than the Gaza Ministry of Health figures. Worse, life expectancy in Gaza has plummeted by nearly half because of the Israeli war.

Of the two institutions, the Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research (MPIDR) is German. The globally leading research organization is largely funded by public money coming directly from the federal government – the very entity that ships the weapons that, along with US support, have fueled Gaza’s escalating death toll.

In all these scenarios, the West serves as the simultaneous judge and executioner, the honest researcher and the weapons manufacturer, the violator and the self-appointed defender of human rights.

But the rest of us in the Global South must not simply yield to the role of the victim, whose lives are taken but precisely counted. To reclaim our collective agency, however, we must begin with a unified realization that the West’s calculated contradictions are specifically engineered to perpetuate the iniquitous relationship between Western powers and the rest of us for as long as possible.

Only by rigorously exposing and forcefully rejecting this hypocrisy can we finally liberate ourselves from the historic delusion that the solution to our problem is a Western one.


Antiwar.com.

Defending Israeli Mass Murder Isn’t Easy



by Sheldon Richman | Dec 11, 2025 |


Although much has already been said, I can’t not comment on Sarah Hurwitz, the former Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama speechwriter, who faults young people (especially young Jews) for applying their power of abstraction in thinking about the Holocaust.

What do I mean by that? Hurwitz thinks (or says she does) that the TikTok generation makes a big mistake by drawing general lessons from the National Socialist regime’s mass murder of European Jews last century. She is dismayed that young people have concluded that powerful bad people, no matter who they are, should not harm weak people, no matter who they are.

So what’s the problem? According to Hurwitz, they were supposed to learn that killing weak people of a particular ethnicity or religion is horrible only when the victims are Jewish. Moreover, they should have learned that Jews by definition can never constitute the oppressor. Therefore, TikTok’ers are wrong to think of the Holocaust when they see videos of powerful Israeli soldiers harming weak Palestinians in Gaza. Or so Hurwitz believes. See for yourself. (By the way, Ms. Hurwitz, in both cases, the mass murderers did not only harm weak, emaciated victims; they made them weak and emaciated in the first place.)

All this perplexes Hurwitz and others in the American pro-Israel constituency. Young people have drawn broad rather than narrow lessons – and she equates that with antisemitism. Of course, this is buncumbe. Abstracting – drawing generalizations—from real events is a virtue, not a vice. It is quintessentially human. Ayn Rand disparaged persons who refuse to abstract as “concrete-bound.” We think in concepts, and we wouldn’t be able to do much thinking without them. Concepts are abstractions. We observe reality, note differences and similarities among entities, and integrate similar things into a conceptual hierarchy (for instance, chairs, furniture, manmade things). This facilitates efficient thinking by economizing on mental units. (Rand explained all this.)

Of course, we can make mistakes. We can misclassify things. We’re not infallible, which is why logic and reason are indispensable guides. If Hurwitz thinks that certain generalizations drawn from the Holocaust are fallacious, let her argue for her opposing position. However, she can’t get away with the libel of attributing those generalizations to “people who don’t really love Jews.” For one thing, many Jews have drawn those generalizations. At demonstrations protesting Israel’s destruction of life and property in Gaza, Jewish participants have held signs reading, “Never Again Is Now.” Hurwitz thinks that “Never Again” means only that Jews should not be persecuted or exterminated. Apparently, she also believes that if officials and military forces of the Jewish state seem to be committing those crimes, it can’t really be so, no matter how it looks. “Who you gonna believe, me or your own eyes?” said Chico Marx.

Only an idiot or a demagogue could draw those conclusions. (I’ve drawn an additional lesson.)

Hurwitz might have made a stronger – though not valid – argument. She might have said that young people don’t know the full story of Gaza because their generation is post-literate and video-oriented. All they know is what they see on TikTok: nonstop images, day in and day out, of Israeli military violence against helpless Palestinians. She does not challenge the authenticity of the videos, but she is frustrated that her pro-Israel arguments stand no chance against those images. (Hillary Clinton – she still shows her face? – shares the same concern.) As Hurwitz put it, “I’m talking through a wall of dead children.” Yes, she is.

However, Hurwitz overlooks the fact that many videos from Gaza have been posted by Israeli soldiers – on TikTok – with audio sadistically celebrating their violence. Young viewers may not read, but I’m sure they hear.

Let’s concede that an image may not tell the whole story. If you saw a man taking a watch from another man, you would not know by that scene alone whether you were witnessing a robbery or the recovery of stolen property. But that’s not what we have with Israel and Gaza. The images of Israeli violence have not only been graphic, but they have poured out in an unending stream since Oct. 7, 2023. Gaza looks like August 1945 Hiroshima. Many tens of thousands of children and old people, as well as other noncombatants, have been killed, maimed, starved, and traumatized. Medical facilities have been destroyed, making the treatment of survivors and other sick Gazans virtually impossible.

Viewers of this material will properly ask, “What could justify such total violence over such a long period?” Viewers may also have heard that many international authorities on genocide and Holocaust studies, including Israelis, believe that Israel is committing genocide as the law defines it. (See this from Omar Bartov and this from Raz Segal.) The burden falls on Hurwitz and her colleagues to do more than repeat official Israeli propaganda, but that’s what they have done.

Yes, Hamas and other groups launched a brutal attack on Oct. 7, 2023, inexcusably committing atrocities against Israeli noncombatants and seizing hostages. But it is also true that Hamas, an abhorrent organization judging by its never-repudiated antisemitic charter and record of crimes, did not exist before the late 1980s, long after the wholesale dispossession, expulsion, and subjugation of the Palestinians began. Moreover, Israel encouraged the growth of Hamas, hoping it would weaken the Palestinian cause by becoming a religious rival to the leading faction, Fatah, which is secular. Later, Benjamin Netanyahu permitted Hamas to collect money, since he could use the group’s presence as a reason for not allowing a Palestinian state

This history does not excuse the Oct. 7 crimes, but neither do those crimes excuse Israel’s indiscriminate destruction of the people and places of Gaza.

The Europe-based Zionist movement has abused the Palestinians for more than one hundred years. Moreover, imperial Britain helped boost Zionism beginning in 1917. Nevertheless, it is a mistake to see Zionism as just another episode in a long-running story of Western imperialism, the solution to which is (presumably) worldwide de-Westernization, or “global intifada.” The history of Zionism has too many distinguishing features, including the real persecution of Jews at the hands of Europeans and the real, partially carried out “Final Solution” at the hands of the National Socialists.

Moreover, Jewish supremacy (so identified by Israeli human-rights organization B’Tselem) is not held to be generally applicable. Rather, it is a political device intended to guarantee Israel’s existence as a haven for Jews should virulent antisemitism arise elsewhere in the world. Thus goes the argument: in Israel (but not other places), Jews must be legally and politically privileged or else the Jewishness of the state will not be assured.

I don’t mean that the Zionist program – punishing Palestinians for what Europeans did – was the correct response to the historical record, only that this episode is importantly distinguishable from other colonial episodes, despite the similarities. The critics of Zionism who target Western civilization per se are attacking a strawman. If anti-Zionism is portrayed as anti-Western, Zionism wins. On the other side, Zionists who reject universalism in favor of blood-and-soil tribalism unwittingly make common cause with antisemites, who also reject universalism in favor of blood-and-soil tribalism.

Bottom line: supporting the individual natural rights of Palestinians – who are individuals before they are members of “a people” – to live where they have lived continuously for millennia is not anti-Western. On the contrary, it is in line with the glorious and, yes, superior liberal Western Enlightenment ideal (still to be fully realized) of individual sovereignty.

(See my Coming to Palestine.)

 Antiwar.com.

Sheldon Richman is the executive editor of The Libertarian Institute and a contributing editor at Antiwar.com. He is the former senior editor at the Cato Institute and Institute for Humane Studies; former editor of The Freeman, published by the Foundation for Economic Education; and former vice president at the Future of Freedom Foundation. His latest books are Coming to Palestine and What Social Animals Owe to Each Other.

Dr. Ramzy Baroud is a journalist, author and the Editor of The Palestine Chronicle. He is the author of six books. His forthcoming book, ‘Before the Flood,’ will be published by Seven Stories Press. His other books include ‘Our Vision for Liberation’, ‘My Father was a Freedom Fighter’ and ‘The Last Earth’. Baroud is a Non-resident Senior Research Fellow at the Center for Islam and Global Affairs (CIGA). His website is www.ramzybaroud.net

Was the Pentecostal Boom in Latin America a CIA Psyop?

Capitalism, Protestant Missions, and the War on Liberation Theology

By Colten Barnaby

November 30, 2025

Source: Kensington Koan

The surge of Protestant missionaries and charismatic revivals across South America didn’t happen in a vacuum; it unfolded within a Cold War landscape where the United States actively sought religious movements that could blunt the rise of Catholic liberation theology.

If you look closely at the historical record, declassified CIA cables, State Department memos, USAID contracts, congressional hearings, and the work of historians like Greg Grandin, Stephen Rabe, David Stoll, Martin-Baró, and Linda Rabben, the answer is no longer a dramatic conspiracy theory. It’s simply what happened. Not in the sense that every missionary was a covert agent. But because U.S. intelligence and diplomatic officials, from the 1950s through the 1980s, intentionally used Protestant missions as one tool in a broad counterinsurgency strategy designed to weaken liberation theology and preserve U.S.-aligned capitalist order in Latin America.

Before I expound I should let the reader know that I am no stranger to the world of Christian missions. I grew up the son of a Pentecostal pastor and went to school to get two degrees in church history. During college and seminary, I led and participated in mission trips to Fiji, the Philippines, and El Salvador. I worked at Oral Roberts University coordinating student missions trips across Latin America, Africa, and Asia. My intentions were completely sincere. Everyone around me believed we were spreading the gospel. What I didn’t understand at the time, what most missionaries never understand, is that the infrastructure we were plugged into had been shaped for decades by the Cold War, and that evangelical missions, especially the charismatic and Pentecostal branches, had been intentionally cultivated and supported by U.S. political and intelligence structures as an ideological counterweight to the very Christian movements the poor in Latin America were building for themselves.

To see why, you have to understand liberation theology. In the 1960s and 70s, Catholic priests, nuns, and laypeople across Latin America began reading the Bible with the poor in small base communities, and their work was shaped by theologians who helped give this movement its intellectual clarity. Gustavo Gutierrez in Peru, whose book A Theology of Liberation named the movement, argued that faith without a commitment to justice was empty. Leonardo Boff and Clodovis Boff in Brazil taught that the Gospel required solidarity with the poor and resistance to the structures that kept them poor. In El Salvador, thinkers like Jon Sobrino and Ignacio Ellacuria described the oppressed as the “crucified people,” showing that Christian faith was tested in the concrete suffering of those pushed to the margins.

These theologians did not invent liberation theology from above. They put into words what Christian base communities were discovering for themselves as they studied scripture in the shadow of military dictatorships, land monopolies, and U.S. backed elites. These communities did not just pray together. They examined the conditions of their lives. They asked why their societies were structured to benefit a small ruling class and what it meant that Jesus identified with the poor. Liberation theology took those questions seriously and treated them as a call to collective action, offering ordinary people new tools to interpret their own oppression and to organize for land reform, workers’ rights, literacy, and democracy.

Washington saw this as a threat because it encouraged people the empire needed to stay quiet to start asking political questions. The U.S. had already watched Cuba fall out of its orbit, and it was not interested in watching the rest of Latin America follow. So in the late 1960s, U.S. intelligence reports start describing liberation theology as a “subversive movement.” State Department briefings warned that Catholic priests sympathetic to the poor were helping create “pre-revolutionary conditions” in rural areas. The CIA produced internal assessments describing certain bishops as “radicalizing forces.” When the Brazilian bishops issued statements against torture under the military dictatorship, the U.S. embassy cabled Washington expressing concern that the Church was becoming politicized “in dangerous ways.”

So how do you stop a religious movement you can’t outlaw, that is spread through small communities, and whose leaders are clergy protected by the Vatican? The U.S. didn’t try to crush liberation theology directly. It tried to dilute it. Replace it. Counterprogram it. And evangelical missions became one of the most effective instruments for doing that.

This was not merely accidental alignment. It was intentional policy. The U.S. did this in several ways.

The first was through direct coordination with evangelical missionary organizations. One of the clearest examples is the Summer Institute of Linguistics, or SIL, the academic wing of Wycliffe Bible Translators. SIL specialized in going into remote Indigenous regions, studying unwritten languages, creating alphabets, and translating the Bible. These were trained linguists, many with graduate degrees. Their work, on the surface, was scholarly and humanitarian. But during the Cold War, SIL received contracts and grants from USAID, the U.S. Agency for International Development, which was a core part of U.S. soft-power strategy abroad. In several countries, including Guatemala, Peru, Brazil, and Ecuador, USAID partnered with SIL to carry out literacy programs among Indigenous groups. These literacy materials often included explicitly anti-communist lessons woven into biblical stories. In Guatemala, SIL teams operated in areas where leftist guerrillas were active, and the military government, backed by the U.S., gave SIL extraordinary freedoms and protection because they saw the missionaries as tools to pacify Indigenous resistance.

Anthropologists who worked in those regions documented how the presence of SIL often coincided with government resettlement programs designed to pull Indigenous people out of autonomous territories and bring them under state control. This was not because SIL itself was designing counterinsurgency tactics, but because SIL created the infrastructure, the literacy programs, the airstrips, the missionary aviation networks, that the state could use. Their aviation service, JAARS (Jungle Aviation and Radio Service), transported missionaries, medical supplies, literacy materials, and occasionally state officials in regions where guerrilla movements operated. JAARS pilots were not CIA assets, but they were operating in regions largely inaccessible to government forces without them, and the cooperation was mutually beneficial.

The second major example involves the Assemblies of God and Pentecostal missions more broadly. In Brazil, Chile, Argentina, and Guatemala, especially during their military dictatorships, the U.S. government openly preferred evangelical churches to the Catholic Church. During the Pinochet dictatorship in Chile, U.S. officials praised Pentecostal churches for “keeping the masses calm” and for reducing support for the left. In Brazil’s Amazon region, the military dictatorship encouraged American Pentecostal missions to expand because they provided a religious alternative to the radical priests who were helping Indigenous communities organize against land seizures. U.S. diplomatic cables from the 1970s note with approval that Pentecostal movements “lack the politicizing tendencies of certain Catholic clergy.”

Then there’s Campus Crusade for Christ, better known today as Cru. The founder, Bill Bright, made anti-communism a central part of his ministry from the 1950s onward. Campus Crusade programs were supported by U.S. embassies in various countries, especially during the authoritarian rule of Brazil’s military junta. In 1974, Bright launched the “Here’s Life” campaign in Brazil with the blessing of the U.S.-backed government. Internal documents show coordination between Campus Crusade and U.S. consular officials, who saw the campaign as a way to promote a depoliticized Christianity that discouraged support for leftist organizing. This was part of a broader U.S. strategy: if liberation theology created politically conscious Christians, evangelical revivalism created inward-focused ones.

The third major mechanism involved what the CIA called “psychological operations.” U.S. information agencies like USIA produced materials portraying liberation theologians as Marxist infiltrators who wanted to destroy the Church. These were circulated to conservative Catholic bishops, Protestant leaders, and local elites. The CIA also supported radio networks like Trans World Radio and HCJB (based in Ecuador), which broadcast sermons across the continent preaching submission to authority, anti-communism, and personal salvation rather than social transformation. Historians have shown that these broadcasts increased sharply in regions where liberation theology was strongest.

And then there is Guatemala under Efraín Ríos Montt. If there is a single moment when evangelical Christianity and U.S. counterinsurgency fully merged, it is this period. Ríos Montt was a general who took power in a 1982 military coup. He was a born-again Pentecostal and a member of an American-affiliated charismatic church. His weekly national TV addresses sounded like sermons, mixing Bible verses with calls for total obedience to the state. His government carried out one of the worst genocides in Latin American history against the Maya. Ríos Montt was not just supported by the U.S., Ronald Reagan personally praised him as “a man of great integrity.” American evangelical leaders visited him, prayed with him, and publicly defended him. Meanwhile, Catholic priests who supported Indigenous rights were being assassinated or disappeared.

Ríos Montt’s rule was not an outlier. It was the logical end of a decades-long project: replace politically engaged Catholicism with a politically harmless Protestantism, so that the structures of inequality remained untouched.

Even in countries without open dictatorships, the same pattern emerges. In Brazil, as Catholic base communities organized unions and landless workers, the Assemblies of God exploded in membership. In Chile, Pentecostal revivals surged under Pinochet. In Peru, evangelical missions expanded rapidly in the 1980s as Catholic priests began speaking against the military’s human rights abuses. In every case, U.S. officials described Protestant growth as a stabilizing force.

What makes all of this chilling is that it worked. By the 1990s, liberation theology had been sharply weakened. The Vatican, under pressure from conservative factions and geopolitical concerns, disciplined liberation theologians. Meanwhile, Pentecostal and charismatic Christianity had become the fastest-growing religious movement in Latin America. Today, Pentecostals form one of the strongest voting blocs for right-wing and authoritarian politicians across the continent.

Most missionaries who participated in this never knew. Their intentions were honest. Mine were honest. But the structure, the funding, the partnerships, the diplomatic support, the propaganda, the development projects, had been engineered long before any of us arrived. The U.S. didn’t need missionaries to be CIA agents. It just needed them to preach a version of Christianity that left the economic order untouched.

And that is exactly what happened.

---

Further Reading and Sources

For readers who want to investigate this history in more depth, the following books and primary source collections offer the most reliable and well documented accounts of the relationship between U.S. foreign policy, Protestant missions, and the suppression of liberation theology.

Greg Grandin, The Last Colonial Massacre. A detailed study of Guatemala and the Cold War with extensive analysis of how the U.S. opposed liberation theology and supported evangelical alternatives.

David Stoll, Is Latin America Turning Protestant? The Politics of Evangelical Growth. A careful examination of why evangelical missions expanded during military regimes and how that growth intersected with U.S. strategic priorities.

Phillip Berryman, Liberation Theology and The Religious Roots of Rebellion. Clear introductions to liberation theology and its political context.

Stephen Rabe, The Killing Zone: The United States Wages Cold War in Latin America. Focuses on U.S. foreign policy in Latin America with discussion of religious dynamics under military regimes.

Linda Rabben, Unnatural Selection. Documents missionary involvement in Indigenous regions and the political implications of their presence.

Manuel Vasquez and Anna Peterson, Christianity, Social Change, and Globalization in the Americas. A broader contextual look at how Christianity and politics interact in Latin America.

National Security Archive, Cold War in Latin America Collections. Declassified U.S. embassy cables, CIA reports, and military documents.

CIA CREST Database. Digitized declassified files related to psychological operations, USAID partnerships, and religious influence programs.

These sources provide the clearest window into how religious movements became instruments within larger geopolitical strategies across the Western Hemisphere.

 Ufmg.br

gpde.direito.ufmg.br/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/MAX-WEBER.pdf

The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism

' R. H. Tawney, Religion and the Rise of Capitalism. Page 3. Page 4 ...

The Angry Tide of the Latin American far right

By Vijay Prashad

November 30, 2025

Source: Originally published by Z. Feel free to share widely.

Protesters invade the National Congress of Brazil

The far right in Latin America is angry. Brazil’s Jair Bolsonaro and Argentina’s Javier Milei always look furious, and they always speak loudly and aggressively. Testosterone leaks from their pores, a toxic sweat that has spread across the region. It would be easy to say that this is the impact of Donald Trump’s own brand of neo-fascism, but this is not true. The far right has much deeper pedigrees, linked to the defence of the oligarchical families that have roots in the colonial era across the virreinatos (viceroyalties) from New Spain to Rio de la Plata. Certainly, these far right men and women are inspired by Trump’s aggressiveness and by the entry of Marco Rubio, a furious defender of the far right in Latin America, to the position of US Secretary of State. This inspiration and support are important but not the reason for the return of the far right, an angry tide that has been growing across Latin America.

On the surface, it looks as if the far right has suffered some defeats. Jair Bolsonaro is in prison for a very long time because of his role in the failed coup d’état on January 8, 2023 (inspired by Trump’s own failed coup attempt on January 6, 2021). In the first round of the presidential election in Chile, the candidate of the Communist Party, Jeannette Jara won the most votes and will lead the centre-left bloc into the second round (December 14). Despite every attempt to overthrow the government of Venezuela, President Nicolás Maduro remains in charge and has mobilised large sections of the population to defend the Bolivarian Revolution against any threats. And, in late October 2025, most of the world’s countries voted for a UN General Assembly resolution that demands an end to the blockade on Cuba. These indicators —from Bolsonaro’s imprisonment to the vote on Cuba— suggest that the far right has not been able to move its agenda in every place and through every channel.

However, beneath the surface, there are indications that Latin America is not seeing the resurgence of what had been called the Pink Tide (after the election of Hugo Chávez in Venezuela in 1998) but is experiencing the emergence of an angry tide that slowly has begun to sweep the region from Central America down to the Southern Cone.

Elections in South America

The first round of the Chilean presidential election produced a worrying result. While Jara of the Communist Party won 26.85 percent of an 85.26 percent turnout, the far right’s José Antonio Kast came in second with 23.92 percent. Evelyn Matthei of the traditional Right won 12.5 percent, while the extreme right candidate who was once with Kast and now to his right, Johannes Kaiser, won 14 percent. It is likely that Jara will pick up some of the votes of the centre, but not enough to overcome the advantage of the far right which looks to have at least more than 50 percent of the voters on its side. The so-called social liberal, Franco Parisi, who came in third, endorsed Kast in 2021 and will likely endorse him again. That means that in Chile, the presidency will be in the hands of a man of the far right whose ancestry is rooted in German Nazism (his father was a member of the Nazi Party who escaped justice through the intercession of the Vatican) and who believes that the dictatorship in Chile from 1973 to 1990 was on balance a good idea.

North of Chile, in Bolivia, the new president Rodrigo Paz Pereria, son of a former president, beat the far right’s Jorge Tuto Quiroga (a former president) in the second round of the election that had no candidate of the left (this after the Movement for Socialism governed Bolivia continuously from 2006 to 2025). Paz’ own party has a minority position in the legislature and he will therefore have to align himself with the Quiroga’s Libre coalition and he will likely adopt a pro-US foreign policy and a libertarian economic policy. Peru will have its own election in April, where the former mayor of Lima —Rafael López Aliaga— is expected to win. He rejects the label far right but adopts all the generic policies of the far right (ultra-conservative Catholic, advocate for harsh security measures, and favours a libertarian economic agenda). Iván Cepeda of Colombia is the left’s likely candidate in their presidential election in May 2026, since Colombia does not permit second terms (so President Gustavo Petro cannot run again). Cepeda will face strong opposition from Colombia’s oligarchy which will want to return the country to their rule. It is too early to say who Cepeda will face, but it might be journalist Vicky Dávila, whose far right opposition to Petro is finding traction in unexpected parts of Colombian society. It is likely that by the middle of 2026, most of the states along the western edge of South America (from Chile to Colombia) will be governed by the far right.

Even as Bolsonaro is in prison, his party, the PL (or Liberal Party), is the largest bloc in Brazil’s National Congress. It is likely that Lula will be re-elected to the presidency next year due to his immense personal connection with the electorate. The far right’s candidate – who will be either Tarcísio de Freitas, the governor of São Paulo state, or one of the Bolsonaro’s (wife Michelle or son Flavio) – will struggle against him. But the PL will make inroads into the Senate. Their control over the legislature has already tightened the reins on the government (at COP30, Lula’s representative made no proposals to confront the climate catastrophe), and a Senate win will further their control over the country.

Common Agenda of the Angry Tide

The Angry Tide politicians who are making waves have many things in common. Most of them are now in their fifties —Kast (born 1966), Paz (born 1967), Venezuelan politician María Corina Machado (born 1967), and Milei (born 1970). They came of age in the post-dictatorship period in Latin America (the last dictatorship to end was in Chile in 1990). The decade of the 1990s continued the economic stagnation that characterised the 1980s —The Lost Decade (La Década Perdida) that convulsed these countries with low growth rates and with poorly developed comparative advantages forced into globalisation. It was in this context that these politicians of the Angry Tide developed their common agenda:

Anti-Communism. The far right in Latin America is shaped by an anti-left agenda that it inherits from the Cold War, which means that its political formations typically endorse the era of US-backed military dictatorships. The ideas of the left, whether from the Cuban Revolution (1959) or from the era of the Pink Tide (after 1998), are anathema to these political forces; these ideas include agrarian reform, state-led finance for industrialisation, state sovereignty, and the importance of trade unions for all workers and peasants. The anti-communism of this Angry Tide is rudimentary, mother’s milk to the politicians and used cleverly to turn sections of society against others.

Libertarian Economic policies. The economic ideas of the Angry Tide are shaped by the Chilean “Chicago Boys” (including Kast’s brother Miguel who was the head of General Augusto Pinochet’s Planning Commission, his Minister of Labour, and his head of the Central Bank). They directly take their tradition from the libertarian Austrian School (Friedrich Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, and Murray Rothbard as well as Milton Friedman). The ideas were cultivated in well-funded think tanks, such as the Centro de Estudios Macroeconómicos de Argentina (founded in 1978) and the Chilean Centro de Estudios Públicos (founded in 1980). They believe the State should be a force to discipline the workers and citizens, and that the economy must be in the hands of private interests. Milei’s famous antics with a chainsaw illuminate this politics not only of cutting social welfare (the work of neoliberalism) but of destroying the capacity of the State itself.

Culture Wars. Drawing on the wave of anti-gender ideology and anti-migration rhetoric, the Angry Tide has been able to appeal to conservative evangelical Christians and to large sections of the working class that has been disoriented by changes seen to come from above. The far right argues that the violence in working class neighbourhoods created by the drug industry is fostered by ‘liberalism’ and that only tough violence (as demonstrated by El Salvador’s president Nayib Bukele) can be the solution; for this reason, they want to strengthen the military and police and set aside constitutional limitations on use of force (on October 28, the government of Bolsonaro ally Cláudio Castro in Rio de Janeiro sent in the police who killed at least 121 people in Operation Containment). It helps the far right that it adopted various conspiracy theories about how the ‘elites’ have spread ‘globalised’ ideas to damage and destroy the ‘culture’ of their nations. This is a ludicrous idea coming from far right and traditional right political forces that champion full-scale entry of US corporations into their society and culture, and that have no respect for the histories of struggle of the working class and peasantry to build their own national and regional cultural worlds. But the Angry Tide has been able to construct the idea that they are cultural warriors out to defend their heritage against the malignancies of ‘globalisation’. Part of this culture war is the promotion of the individual entrepreneur as the subject of history and the denigration of the necessity of social reproduction.

It is these three elements (anti-communism, libertarian economic policies, and the culture wars) that brings together the far right across Latin America. It provides them with a robust ideological framework to galvanise sections of the population to believe that they are the saviours of the hemisphere. This Latin American far right is backed by Trump and the international network of the Spanish far right (the Foro Madrid, created in 2020 by Fundación Disenso, the think tank of the far right Vox party). It is heavily funded by the old elite social classes, who have slowly abandoned the traditional Right for these new, aggressive far right parties.

Crisis of the Left

The Left is yet to develop a proper assessment of the emergence of these parties and has not been able to drive an agenda that sparkles with vitality. A deep ideological crisis grips the Left, which cannot properly decide whether to build a united front with the traditional right and with liberals to contest elections or to build a popular front across the working class and peasantry to build social power as a prelude to a proper electoral push. The example of the former strategy (the electoral alliance) comes from Chile, where first the Concertación de Partidos por la Democracia (Concertación) formed in 1988 to keep out the parties of the dictatorship from power and second the Apruebo Dignidad formed in 2021 that brought Gabriel Boric of the centrist Broad Front to the presidency. But outside Chile, there is little evidence that this strategy works. The latter has become harder as unionisation rates have collapsed, and as uberisation individualises the working class to erode working class culture.

It is telling that Bolivia’s former socialist Vice President Álvaro García Linera looked northwards to New York City for inspiration. When Zohran Mamdani won the mayor’s race, García Linera said, “Mamdani’s victory shows that the left must commit to boldness and a new future”. It is hard to disagree with this statement; although, Mamdani’s own proposed agenda is mostly to salvage a worn-out New York infrastructure rather than to advance the city to socialism. García Linera did not mention his own time in Bolivia, when he tried with former president Evo Morales to build a socialist alternative. The left will have to be bold, and it will have to articulate a new future, but it will have to be one that emerges from its own histories of building struggles and building socialism.Email

Vijay Prashad

Vijay Prashad is an Indian historian, editor, and journalist. He is a writing fellow and chief correspondent at Globetrotter. He is an editor of LeftWord Books and the director of Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research. He is a senior non-resident fellow at Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies, Renmin University of China. He has written more than 20 books, including The Darker Nations and The Poorer Nations. His latest books are Struggle Makes Us Human: Learning from Movements for Socialism and (with Noam Chomsky) The Withdrawal: Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, and the Fragility of U.S. Power. Tings Chak is the art director and a researcher at Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research and lead author of the study “Serve the People: The Eradication of Extreme Poverty in China.” She is also a member of Dongsheng, an international collective of researchers interested in Chinese politics and society.

Thousands rally across Syria on first anniversary of military operation that led to fall of Assad regime


Syrians gather to mark the anniversary of the “Operation to Deter the Enemy,” which resulted in the overthrow of Bashar al-Assad’s regime, carrying Syrian flags and chanting slogans emphasizing the unity and integrity of the country in Latakia, Syria on November 28, 2025. [Şevket Akça – Anadolu Agency]

November 28, 2025 

Middle East Monitor 

Thousands of people across Syria held rallies on Friday to mark the first anniversary of the launch of a military operation that led to the collapse of Bashar al-Assad’s regime. Demonstrators filled central squares in cities nationwide, emphasizing national unity and the country’s territorial integrity, Anadolu reports.

In Aleppo, large crowds gathered in main squares, waving Syrian flags and chanting slogans calling for a united and democratic future. Protesters carried signs rejecting division and separatist agendas, underscoring the need to safeguard Syria’s social cohesion.

Participants said the gatherings aimed to highlight the importance of protecting Syria’s territorial unity and strengthening collective solidarity after more than a decade of war.

Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa congratulated the Syrian people Thursday on the anniversary of the military campaign, inviting citizens to celebrate what he called a “historic victory.”

Syrian president rejects calls for separation, federalism, says coastal region remains ‘priority’

In a statement published on the presidency’s social media account, Sharaa described the day as “the beginning of the struggle that liberated all of Syria” and urged the public to celebrate the anniversary with enthusiasm.

“Dear people of Syria, today we mark the anniversary of the great deterrence war in which the former regime, with all its oppressive structures, was overthrown and our country was freed from its chains,” he said.

Calling on all segments of society, regardless of ethnic or religious differences, to gather in public squares, Sharaa urged Syrians to “demonstrate their commitment to the great struggle for freedom and show strong national unity.”

“On this great occasion, I invite all components of the Syrian people to take to the squares and streets to express the joy of this great victory and to demonstrate national solidarity, national unity, the territorial integrity of Syria, and the unity of the homeland. Long live free Syria,” he added.

Opposition forces led by Hayat Tahrir al-Sham launched a major offensive from Idlib into Aleppo province, which was under the control of the Assad regime at the time. The surprise operation resulted in the rapid capture of Aleppo and ultimately the collapse of the Assad regime in December 2024.

Democratic option in Syria

Establishing a system based on democratic, decentralized, federal, autonomous or strengthened local governments is the most realistic option.

ZEKİ BEDRAN
ANF
Wednesday, November 26, 2025 


The Turkish state insistently wants a centralized nation-state structure in Syria. As it is known, the Baath regime also dominated an extremely centralized state structure. The single-party system did not allow opposition and differences to exist. This structure was essentially a fascist regime in which the people could not breathe. While these facts are in the middle, what could be the reason why Turkey wants a monolithic, rigid central state structure? Of course, to prevent the Kurdish people from having a status! Syria is wanted to be put into a more oppressive and dark tunnel than the Baath regime so that the Kurds do not see their mother and have no status.

HTS is ideologically sectarian, based on religion and against democracy. He has a monistic mindset that sees differences as a threat and does not give them a chance to survive. It is closed to an egalitarian and pluralistic political structure. It is based on allegiance instead of freedoms. He massacres those who do not obey, as he did with Alevis and Druze. It has adopted as a policy to bring the society to suffocation by taking some outdated discourses as a reference and to destroy those who are not themselves by issuing fatwas saying that murder is mandatory.

LET'S REMEMBER THE BAATH PERIOD

HTS is a structure that aims for power due to its structure and mentality. The destination of structures aimed at excessive power is fascism. He does not accept those who oppose him. It cannot tolerate the organization of different political forces and competing on equal terms. The practice of the Baath is obvious. The Baath excluded those who were not from it, who did not participate in the party system. It was necessary to be one of them in order to take part in the bureaucracy, to have a career, to benefit from the opportunities of the state. He would unleash intelligence and the police after those who thought differently and criticized. Such people would become open to all kinds of dangers. Torture, unquestioned and defenseless years of imprisonment in decay were increasingly routine. People in this situation would either surrender, beg for mercy or lose their lives. The lucky ones who could not hold on in Syria and whose lives were in danger would throw themselves abroad.

The country's intellectual and intellectual accumulation would have been destroyed. Society would be excluded from politics. It would deprive them of ways to organize and seek their rights. The people were told, "Leave politics and management to us, you go and deal with livelihood problems." Because of this, there would be no possibility for a democratic culture to emerge in the country. The Baath regime also held elections to gain legitimacy, but there was never a real election. Everything was planned and determined from the center. There were never any surprises or differences in the election results. Hafez or Bashar al-Assad was elected with close to 100 percent of the votes.

SO WHAT IS HTS DOING?

Now, HTS has formed an interim government without involving anyone or cooperating. They elected the president. They made the provisional constitution themselves. It did not include intellectuals and different social segments in the constitutional debates and construction. They will establish a so-called parliament. One third of them will be directly appointed by Ahmet Shara, and the rest will be appointed by a committee that he has determined them. Is it possible to call this an election? Can this be called a reflection of democracy and the will of the people? Of course not.

HTS says it will form an army. Those who are recruited into the army undergo rigorous training based on religion. They feed their own ideologies. It is clear that a national army will not emerge from such a structure. In addition, they say that they have included dozens of armed groups originating from ISIS and Al Qaeda, involved in all war crimes and crimes against humanity, into the army as they are. There is no military force that ensures the defense of the country and the security of the people, there is the opposite. Internal security and police force are the same. They determine all police chiefs and personnel themselves. They appoint the governors themselves. They appoint the imams of the mosques themselves. They clean up the bureaucracy and place their own staff in all administrative levels of the state as the remnants of the Baath regime. They monopolized all the press organs and televisions belonging to the state and the remnants of the regime and established a one-sided propaganda mechanism. They tied the existing opportunities, revenues and economic resources of the state to themselves.

IT COLLAPSES ON SOCIETY

As can be seen, a power-oriented policy and administration gradually centralizes all powers and opportunities within itself. Such a centralized state structure collapses on society like a nightmare. This also creates a very cumbersome and expensive, costly form of management. All the resources of the country are at the mercy of those who hold this wheel. Corruption, abuse and injustice will be unpreventable. A great injustice in income distribution becomes inevitable. Instead of dispensing justice, the judicial system protects the interests of those in power and the powerful and turns into a weapon against those who object.

THE NEED FOR DEMOCRATIC CONSTRUCTION

It is possible to list the consequences and negativities of a monolithic and centralized state further. There is also the practice of Baath. In this respect, establishing a system based on democratic, decentralized, federal, autonomous or strengthened local governments is the most realistic option. There is a need for a pluralist, libertarian and democratic construction in Syria.

 

Third Constitution of the United States

Latest Update–September 4, 2025

LONG READ

by Roger Copple / September 10th, 2025 / ANTIWAR.COM

September 1, 2025: I (Roger) asked Chat GPT.com, an artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot created by OpenAI, this question:

“Chat GPT, will you analyze all the different proposals for a Third Constitution of the United States and reveal to us your best recommendation for creating a Third Constitution of the United States that creates peace and happiness in our nation and throughout the entire world?”

Here is the response from  Chat gpt . com.  It mentioned my constitution first, but it did not narrow its critique to my latest version.

I then asked Chat GPT this question:  How Come We Don’t Have Peace on Earth?   An excellent answer was given.

I asked Chat GPT to analyze this latest September 4, 2025 version of the Third Constitution specifically. I share Chat GPT’s response at the end of the Third Constitution below, but please read the constitution first.

*****

Preamble to the Third Constitution of the United States

We the People of the United States of North America establish this Third Constitution to promote freedom, democracy, human rights, social justice, ecological wisdom, peace, and happiness for our nation and the world.

The United States government should never be subservient to something like the Earth Constitution  unless the majority of its citizens approve it through a national  referendum (which is a direct vote by the electorate), and the majority of other nations also approve it through their own national referendums. Moreover, any international constitution, as a basis for a democratic world government, must state that the citizens of each nation shall vote once a year to decide whether to continue the democratic world government or abolish it and return back to the status of nation-states once again.

It is truly foolish and tragic that in this modern age that many nations are spending half of their federal budgets for military defense, which is the primary reason there is no peace on the planet.

As a nation, let us ask the individuals and  nations we have harmed or exploited in the past for forgiveness.  As a nation, let us vow to promote world peace and happiness for every nation and for every person and sentient being on the earth.  Let us understand that we are one world, one earth, one humanity–we are like all the cells and organs of a human body that must cooperate and work together.

The first United States government with a constitution was under the Articles of Confederation, implemented in 1781.  The second constitution was implemented with the presidency of George Washington in 1789, and now this Third Constitution will be the basis for the third constitutional government.

An Overview of the Third Constitution

One of the aims of this Third Constitution is to preserve the best of the former constitution and government. It differs from the second constitution in the many ways that it empowers average Americans by making our democracy more inclusive and participatory.

Under this Third Constitution of the United States, there will be 435 Federal Legislators (the same number that was in the House of Representatives under the previous government), based on districts (including Washington D.C.) of equal population. The election of lawmakers to the new Federal Congress or House of Federal Legislators, under the Third Constitution, will be based on the system of Proportional Representation among the 7 largest national political parties. United States citizens can choose Federal Legislators from the 7 largest national political parties–each party will be empowered with the same privileges, ballot access, rights and responsibilities.

The United States Senate, which existed under the former constitution has been eliminated in the new Third Constitution, which means that the new federal legislature will be unicameral not bicameral, and it will have 100 fewer federal legislators since the former US Senate has been abolished. All federal laws in this one-chambered Congress must be passed with at least a 51% majority.

Under the second constitution, California, whose population was about 70 times the population of Wyoming, unfairly had the same number of senators as Wyoming. The former undemocratic U.S. Senate has been abolished since it is not based on geographical districts that have an equal number of people.

The Third Constitution reduces the Supreme Court from 9 members to 7 members, and each member may serve an unlimited number of 4-year terms.  Each of the 7 largest national political parties–not the President–will appoint a Supreme Court Justice.

The 7 Supreme Court Justices will be appointed on the first Tuesday of November, in the same year that the president is elected, and the new Justices  will take office on January 20 of the following year. Supreme Court Justices can serve for an unlimited number of 4-year terms if they are appointed again by the political party they represent and if the political party they represent is still one of the 7 largest national political parties.

The election of Federal Legislators will occur on the first Tuesday of November in the same year that the new President is elected, and the Federal Legislators will take office as the new President and Supreme Court Justices likewise do on January 20 of the following year.  Federal Legislators can serve an unlimited number of 4-year terms, if they are the choice of the people.

The election of the President will occur during the first Tuesday of November, and he or she will take office on January 20. The president can serve a maximum of two 4-year terms.

The Third Constitution eliminates the Federal Reserve, and has the Treasury Department oversee a National Public Banking System.  The Treasury Department will be audited by the U.S. Congress or their chosen representatives every 4 years.

This Third Constitution also eliminates the previous Electoral College System for electing a President of the United States, choosing instead to elect the presidential candidate who gets at least 51 percent of the popular vote using a system of Ranked Choice Voting.

This Third Constitution is much shorter and easier to understand.  The Constitution is not just for lawyers. It is written in a clear way that even elementary school children will be able to understand it and become empowered by it.

The Third Constitution promotes honesty, fairness, and transparency at all levels of government.  Average Americans will now feel more empowered to participate in political decision-making.  As we create a truly democratic society, civics and citizenship should become supremely valued as never before.

Our Founding Fathers of the second, current Constitution of the United States never told how to properly abolish it, apparently thinking they knew what was best for all future generations.

Previous articles by Roger Copple explained a Twenty-Eight Amendment proposal to revise Article V of the current second constitution to show how the second constitution can be amended and abolished in an easier, quicker, orderly, and very fair way.

If that revised Article V  of our current second constitution is ever officially ratified as a new amendment to our current constitution, then the American people could have a systematic way to abolish the second constitution in order to have a Constitutional Convention to establish the Third Constitution. And the same Constitutional Convention process to establish the Third Constitution can also be used to create the Fourth Constitution of the United States when the people are ready to abolish the Third Constitution.

Revising Article V of our current second constitution through the ratification of a new Twenty-Eight Amendment may seem like a long time coming.  However, the 26th Amendment to lower the voting age to 18 was accomplished in about 3 months.

The Founding Fathers did not foresee the establishment of political parties, which began to emerge almost immediately after our current constitution was ratified.  In fact, they actually feared and warned against political parties, referring to them as “factions”–a threat to the unity and stability of the new republic.

Equally empowering the 7 largest national political parties is the most important component of the Third Constitution.  And the good news is that even under the current second constitution, our current bicameral US Congress could, without a new amendment or constitution, equally empower 7 national parties.  But there would have to be a very large demand for it.  A mass movement of people would have to demand it because the Republicans and Democrats have agreed to make it very difficult for third parties to have a greater voice.

World Peace Is Coming Sooner Than You Might Think

It could be the nightmare of a permanent technocratic, authoritarian police-state peace, or it could be the paradise of a fully democratic peace on earth in a world without empire.

We cannot create the ideal learning environment until we create the ideal world, a world working together as one body.

Chat GPT (AI) and others coming down the pike can provide individualized instruction if we ask what we truly want to know, but  as artificial intelligence analyzes the world and us, we the people must always have the last word.         

How Proportional Representation Works 

Voters in federal legislative districts will study and evaluate the platforms of the 7 largest national political parties.  Each voter will choose just one political party that he or she identifies with the most.

In the United States, there are 7 political archetypes which could be the 1. Republican 2. Democratic  3. Libertarian 4. Green 5. Socialist  6. Constitution Party, and 7. the Anarchists, who usually don’t form political parties.  But the 7 political archetypes may not coincide exactly with the actual 7 largest national political parties. Here is what Chatgot (AI) said are the 7 largest national political parties: 1. Democratic Party 2. Republican Party  3. Libertarian Party  4. Green Party of the United States  5. Constitution Party  6. Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL) and  7. Socialist Party USA (SPUSA).

The 7 largest political parties in the United States could contain the following percentages:  30% Republican, 30% Democratic, 10% Libertarian, 10% Constitution Party, 10% Green Party, 5% Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL), and 5% Socialist Party USA.

The State of Indiana, for example, currently has 10 federal legislative districts out of a total of 435 US federal districts.

The National Elections Committee 

Under the Third Constitution, there will be a National Elections Committee whose 7 executive directors will come from the 7 largest national political parties at that time.

The National Elections Committee will guarantee that in every precinct of every county of every state that there will be impartial and professional election officials.   The election officials at every poll will ensure that uniform or standardized procedures of voting are established.  The National Elections Committee will also verify and ensure that the national political parties provide an accurate count of their actual numbers.

Equal Media Time for  Political Parties

The 7 largest national political parties will have all the rights,  ballot access, and free television exposure that the Republicans and Democrats exclusively had under the Second Constitution, (End of Third Constitution Overview)

Summary of Historical Events that Led to the Establishment of the Second US Constitution

The Parliament of Great Britain passed the punitive Intolerable Acts which caused the Boston Tea Party to occur.   Then the British Navy implemented a blockade of Boston Harbor.

Twelve delegates from the 13 colonies then decided to form a meeting, which became known as the First Continental Congress.  The First Continental Congress met for about 7 weeks in the fall of 1774 in Philadelphia.

After the Battles of Lexington and Concord, the delegates met again at the   Second Continental Congress  which began meeting on May 10, 1775 and disbanded on May 1, 1781 (6 years).  During this period, on July 4, 1776, the 56 delegates to the Second Continental Congress adopted the  United States Declaration of Independence.

The Declaration of Independence is the founding document of the United States.  The Declaration explains to the world why the Thirteen Colonies regarded themselves as independent sovereign states no longer subject to British colonial rule.

The 56 delegates who signed the Declaration of Independence came to be known as the nation’s Founding Fathers, and the Declaration has become one of the most circulated, reprinted, and influential documents in world history.

After the Declaration of Independence was signed and adopted in 1776, the fighting of the  American Revolution  continued another 5 years until the  Revolutionary War  ended in 1781.

The Second Continental Congress (1775-1781) established the bond of Perpetual Union, managed the war effort, and adopted the Articles of Confederation, which was the first US Constitution.

The final draft of the Articles of Confederation  was completed on November 15, 1777.  It was ratified on February 2, 1781 and it became effective (or was implemented) on March 1, 1781.  The Articles of Confederation was superseded on March 4, 1789 when the first president George Washington, under the new second US Constitution, took office.

The government under the Articles of Confederation was considered to be weak, and the desire to make it stronger was realized when the second constitution was created, adopted, and implemented on March 4, 1789.

The current  Constitution of the United States  is our second constitution.  The process of drafting or framing the US Constitution occurred during the Constitutional Convention that met at Independence Hall in Philadelphia from May 25 to September 17, 1787.

The final draft of the US Constitution was completed on September 17, 1787, the last day of the Constitutional Convention, and it was ratified on June 21, 1788 by 9 of the 13 states. It became effective on March 4, 1789 when the new stronger federal government, based on the new US Constitution, began with George Washington as the first president.

Third Constitution of the United States

The Human Rights of United States Citizens 

15. Our human rights preceded government, and the purpose of government is not to grant rights, but to protect pre-existing rights.  We The People have a right to vote on any amendments added to this Third Constitution, and we also have a right to vote every four years on whether we want a  constitutional convention to create a new national constitution. It will take a 51 percent majority to start the process of having a constitutional convention, in which representatives to the Convention will be selected using a system of proportional representation from the 7 largest national political parties.
16. All individuals have freedom to speak and write about their personal, political, and spiritual beliefs.  They may worship God through the religion of their choice, or they may choose ethical behavior or spiritual disciplines not based on any religion.
17. The government has powers granted to it as determined by the people’s democratic decision making.   The government must protect the human rights of each individual.  The government must also represent the collective will of the people, as it is developed through the democratic process.
18. Government authorities must have probable cause to search our bodies, homes, cars, or any other property.   What consenting adults do in the privacy of their homes or bedrooms that does not infringe on the property or the rights of others should not be the concern of our government. Thus, individuals have a right to privacy.
19. Property owners are entitled to a generous compensation if through eminent domain the government needs to seize the property for a higher, socially justifiable purpose, such as necessary road construction, for example.
20. No person shall be tried for a serious crime unless there is a Grand Jury indictment that states valid reasons for the upcoming court trial.
21.   No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property unless there is due process (or fair procedures) in carrying out the law.
22.   In all criminal cases and prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury in the district where the crime was committed.
23. In all criminal cases and prosecutions, the accused must be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation.
24. In all criminal cases and prosecutions, the accused has a right to a counselor who may or may not be an attorney. The accused, or a counselor of the accused, may confront (or cross examine) all witnesses testifying against him or her.
25. In all criminal cases and prosecutions, the accused may require witnesses to testify if the witnesses have important information to share in the case.
26. Unless it is a minor charge (or a misdemeanor), citizens have a right to a trial by jury.  Juries may determine a person’s guilt or innocence, and if a person is found guilty, the jury may determine the sentence of the accused, as advised by the judge.
27. Excessive bail shall not be required of a person, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted.
28. Citizens may choose where they want to live.  Citizens may also visit any country they choose, including Cuba.  If they choose to move to another country, they will not be dispossessed of their personal assets by our government.
29. The US Congress shall determine uniform policies regarding a citizen’s possession, use, and registration of firearms, or it may agree to let each State make that determination.

ARTICLE I: The Legislative Branch of the Federal Government

Section I  

All federal legislative powers shall be granted to the Federal Congress of the United States, which shall be a unicameral body consisting of Federal Legislators. There will be 435 separate congressional districts in the 50 states of the United States, including the District of Columbia, based on equal population.    Federal Legislators will be elected based on the system of Proportional Representation.  All new federal laws must pass with at least a 51% majority vote of the federal legislature. Proposed amendments to the Third Constitution must also be approved by a 51% majority national referendum vote of the people.

Section 2

All Federal Legislators of the United States Congress will be chosen for four-year terms that coincide with presidential terms of office.  Federal Legislators may serve for an unlimited number of 4-year terms.  The election of Federal Legislators will occur on the first Tuesday of November.  They will take office on January 20 of the following year.

Section 3

Each state will have at least one Federal Representative under the system of Proportional Representation, and the District of Columbia will also have at least one Federal Representative.

Section 4

When vacancies in the Federal Legislature occur because of sickness, death, or resignation, the state of the removed legislator will vote for a replacement, chosen from the 7 largest national political parties.

Section 5

The Federal Legislators will vote among themselves to elect a Federal Legislator to be the Speaker of the House at the start of every new 4-year term.  The elected Speaker of the House will choose the chairpersons for the established committees.  The chairpersons, in turn, shall select committee members.

Section 6

The Federal Legislators  will be allowed to try, impeach, and remove any high-leveled federal officer in the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of the federal government.  Any officer impeached is also liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment, and punishment, according to the law.

Section 7

All proposed bills must deal with one issue only.  Lawmakers have the responsibility to clarify the pros and cons of every proposed law or amendment to their constituents in their home state.      The best arguments for and against a bill must be expressed in writing for the lawmakers’ constituents.

Citizens of a voting precinct in a state can electronically register their vote on a particular proposed federal bill before the Federal Legislators make their final voting decision.

Section 8

The salaries of Federal Legislators will be three times the federal minimum wage, based on a 40-hour work week.  Legislators cannot accept from corporate lobbyists any money, gifts, or fringe benefits at any time before, during, or after their tenure in office.

Section 9

After the passing of a particular federal law or constitutional amendment, the President cannot veto it, if he or she disapproves of it.

Section 10

Congress must strive to balance every budget and not engage in deficit spending, unless there is a national emergency.

Section 11

In all elections of Federal Legislators, the 7 largest national political parties (based on officially registered memberships) will have the same requirements, privileges, media access, and public financing as Republicans and Democrats had under the former government and constitution.

If Indiana has 10 of the 435 federal legislative districts based on the latest national census, its 10 Federal Legislators could hypothetically consist of the following: 6 Republicans, 2 Democrats, 1 Libertarian, and 1 Legislator from the Constitution Party.

Section 12

Federal Legislators may be elected for more than one term to provide continuity and experience in government.

Section 13

Federal Legislators must have permanent residency in the districts of the states they represent.

 

ARTICLE II: The Executive Branch of the Federal Government

Section 1

Executive power shall be invested in the President of the United States.  His or her term of office will be four years, the same 4-year period in which Federal Legislators and Supreme Court Justices will be elected.  The president will choose a Vice President who will serve in the President’s absence. Presidents will be elected on the first Tuesday of November, and they will take office on  January 20 of the following year.

Section 2

A president cannot become president unless he or she wins at least a 51-percent majority of the popular vote.

The Electoral College System for electing a president has been abolished in this Third Constitution.

Section 3

If a president resigns, dies, is impeached, or is unable to hold the office, then the vice president will replace him or her.  If the vice president is unable to serve at that time, the order of succession will be the Speaker of the House of Federal Legislators, followed by the Secretary of State.

Section 4

The president’s salary shall be 3 times the federal minimum wage.  The president cannot accept money, expensive gifts, or fringe benefits from citizens or corporate lobbyists before, during, or after his or her term of office.  Such money or gifts could bias his or her decisions.

Section 5

The president shall be Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States. The President is not required to wait for the approval of Congress  to deploy troops on a moment’s notice during a national emergency that requires it.  A state governor will be the Commander-in-Chief of the National Guard of his or her state.

Section 6

The president cannot make a declaration of war, unless 51 percent of US citizens approve it, as expressed through a national referendum.

Section 7

All executive orders or presidential directives made by the current and former presidents that are in effect must be fully disclosed, explained, and clarified to the people.

 

ARTICLE III: The Judicial Branch of the Federal Government

Section 1

The Supreme Court, under the Third Constitution, will have Judicial Review regarding federal and state legislation that possibly conflicts with the federal constitution.

Section 2

Under the Third Constitution, the Supreme Court will consist of 7 Justices—no longer 9. Before the new government under the Third Constitution begins, the 7 largest national political parties will each appoint one Justice to serve on the first Supreme Court.

The 7 Supreme Court Justices will be appointed by the 7 largest national political parties on the first Tuesday of November, and  the 7 Justices will take office on January 20, at the same time that the new president and 435 federal legislators take office.

The appointed Justices will each begin a 4-year term of office.  Supreme Court Justices may serve for an unlimited number of 4-year terms.  If a Supreme Court Justice dies or resigns, the political party he or she came from will provide a new Justice.  If the political party that the Supreme Court Justice came from is no longer one of the 7 largest national political parties, then a new political party will make the Supreme Court appointment.

Section 3

Currently there are over 850 federal judgeships in the United States. A term of office for a federal judge will be four years.  Through a referendum vote, citizens of the district that a federal judgeship represents will elect a new federal judge on the first Tuesday of November during the same year that presidents are elected.  Federal judges may serve an unlimited number of 4 year terms.

Federal judges not assigned to a particular state will be selected by the Federal Congress or Federal Legislators.

There will continue to be two distinct federal and state judicial systems under the Third Constitution as there were under the second constitution.

Section 4

In addition to the 12 Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal based on geographical areas, there will also be, as previously established under the second Constitution, the Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth Circuit, which will have national appellate jurisdiction over certain types of cases, such as those involving patent law and those in which the United States is a defendant.  The Court of International Trade, The Court of Federal Claims, and similar courts may appeal to this Thirteenth Circuit Court as they did under the previous federal government.

Section 5

The federal Supreme Court can also review and cancel State Supreme Court decisions and state laws if the federal Constitution is violated.

Section 6

States cannot be sued in federal courts of a foreign country.

Section 7

The Federal Congress with a 51 percent majority can make modifications in the structure of the Supreme Court and the federal court system.  Congress will determine how much of the federal budget is needed to finance the Supreme Court and the federal court system.

Section 8

The job of the Supreme Court is to make judgments based on the Constitution and existing federal statutes, not to change or make new laws. Federal statutes under the second constitution will continue unless they are modified or abolished by the unicameral federal legislature of the Third Constitution.

Section 9

Every individual must do what he or she promises to do by contract.  An important role of the judiciary is to determine that legal contracts are honored.

Section 10

Government officials in any of the three branches of government will not have immunity from prosecution while they are in office.

Section 11 

Every individual shall have equal justice under the law.

 

ARTICLE IV:  States Desiring to Withdraw from the Country

A state cannot withdraw, or secede, from the rulings and protections of the United States government based on the stipulations of this Third Constitution, unless the Federal Congress votes for it with a 51 percent majority, and it is approved and ratified through a referendum of US citizens with a 51 percent majority.

ARTICLE V: Nations Desiring to be United with the United States

Only if approved by the Federal Congress and also approved through a referendum of the people can new nations that desire to be united with the United States be admitted.

If ever one of the United States’ protectorates desires sovereignty from the United States, Congress will grant it sovereignty because the days of colonialism and empire are over.

ARTICLE VI: The National Debt Problem

The Federal Legislators should strive to pay off the enormous national debt within 20 years through large reductions in military spending.  The Federal Legislators can propose laws for the people to vote on regarding whether to have a graduated income tax. When a nation repeatedly has annual deficits, it causes the national debt to skyrocket, which then puts an enormous burden on taxpayers of future generations.

ARTICLE VII:   The National Census

The US Census will continue to be taken every ten years.  Accurate statistics enable the government, private companies, and individuals to have a better understanding of the nation’s demographics, which then promotes better planning for the future.

ARTICLE VIII: Approving Corporate Charters

County or municipal governments have the right to approve or revoke corporate charters and to impose taxes on corporations operating within their boundaries.  They may revoke the charter of any private corporation in their district if they determine that a particular corporation does not serve the community or benefit the environment.

A corporation is not a natural person and should not have the same rights as a natural person.  A corporation cannot make any financial contributions to any local, state, or federal government election campaign.

The federal congress or a state legislature can also revoke a corporate charter in a particular county if it considers the company is detrimental to surrounding counties within the state.

ARTICLE IX: An Alternative to the Federal Reserve

The former Federal Reserve System will be eliminated when the Third Constitution is implemented.  Public Banking in the United States shall be organized and supervised by the US Treasury Department and audited periodically by the US Congress.

ARTICLE X: The Primary Role of Government

The primary role of government is the protection of its citizens.  Actions such as, murder, rape, robbery, pollution, theft, embezzlement, fraud, arson, kidnapping, battery, trespassing, harassment, and nuisance–violate the right of others.  The government should investigate, prevent, and have consequences for individuals who engage in these types of illicit or illegal actions.

ARTICLE XI: The Need for Habeas Corpus

Habeas Corpus is a concept of law in which a person may not be detained by the government unless the government has a valid reason for putting that person in jail or prison.  Even in a national emergency, an individual’s right to Habeas Corpus should not be violated.  Prisoners of war or alleged terrorists, foreign and domestic, must also be given a fair trial.

ARTICLE XII: The Need for Social Security 

The national Social Security System must not be abolished.  Some American citizens (because their employers did not offer pensions, or because of misfortune or unwise financial planning) will need monthly Social Security payments (money that they themselves paid into throughout their entire life-working history) in order to survive financially in their old age. The federal government does not have the right to take money from the Social Security fund for any other purpose than what the fund was designed for.

Article XIII: Keeping the Best of the Former Government

Under this Third Constitution, the Federal Congress must not attempt to eradicate the good policies that existed under the previous constitution.  However, previous policies, statutes, regulations, and protocols can be changed as needed under the Third Constitution to reflect the ever-changing new attitudes, beliefs, and values of the current age.

ARTICLE XIV: A New Era of Honesty and Transparency

Wealthy individuals and large corporations must not be able to influence the political decision-making of voters.  A new era of openness, honesty, and transparency in government, private business, the media, and foreign affairs is vital to our well-being. Moreover, it is also important that individuals are open, honest, transparent, and vulnerable in their interpersonal relationships.

ARTICLE XV: Income Tax Laws

Federal income tax laws should be simplified in ways that do not allow clever people to cheat the government. The Federal Legislators will determine the federal tax for private corporations and possibly religious organizations as well.  The Federal Congress can also choose to eliminate the federal income tax.

ARTICLE XVI:  Bottom-up Reorganization of the 50 State Governments: Only A Recommendation  State governments are encouraged to rewrite their state constitutions so that they are organized from the bottom-up, not the top-down: from the elementary public school district (which could also be a voting precinct district) to the township level, up to the municipal or county level, and up to the state level.

Each level of state legislative government can make, not just legislative decisions but also executive and judicial branch appointments for that level.  Elected legislators at each level may vote among themselves to send a legislator to the next level above it.  This method is better than the previous system in which state and local citizens have often voted a straight ticket for many officers from two parties for candidates whom they know nothing about.  States are also encouraged to consider direct democracy at precinct, township, city, and county levels of government.  Here is an  expanded explanation  for reorganizing state governments.

State governments are also encouraged to allow the residents of any public elementary, middle, or high school district to abolish its public school with a 51 percent majority so that money can be given to parents directly for private schooling, public charter schools, or for home schooling with additional private tutors.

ARTICLE XVII: How this Third Constitution Can Be Amended and How It Can Be Abolished When a Fourth Constitution Is Desired.  

The United States government under the Third Constitution can be changed when new Federal Laws are passed with a 51% majority.  But the United States government can also be changed by adding Amendments to the Third Constitution.  But to change the federal government completely and abolish this Third Constitution, there has to be a Constitutional Convention to create the Fourth Constitution of the United States.

How to Add Amendments to the Third Constitution

Under the previous second constitution, new amendments were added only if passed by Congress with a ⅔ majority and ratified by ¾ of the 50 state legislatures.  That was an extremely difficult task to accomplish, and it only happened 27 times.

Under the Third Constitution, amendments can be added if the Federal Legislators approve it with a 51 percent majority, and the American people approve it with a 51 percent majority vote referendum. Then the new amendment to the Third Constitution will be ratified.

In a modern, rapidly changing world, new laws, new amendments, and new constitutions should be easier to ratify to adapt to the changing times and changing preferences of each new generation.

How to Abolish the Current Third Constitution to Create the Fourth Constitution 

The Constitution is the supreme civil law of the land.  A radically new constitution and government can be created by having a Constitutional Convention.  If done properly in the way prescribed here, it will be achieved in a fair, orderly, and democratic way.

The American people have a right to choose whether they want a new Constitution on a regular basis. Through their chosen representatives, an entirely new constitution can be written and adopted. Here is the procedure for having a Constitutional Convention to create a new constitution, the Fourth Constitution.

The American people will vote to determine if they want a Constitutional Convention to create a new constitution every 3rd year after a presidential election. If approved by a 51-percent majority of the American people, then the following 8-month timeline will be used to make it happen.

The 8-Month Timeline for Creating the Fourth Constitution 

Three years after every presidential election on the first Tuesday of November, the American people with a 51 percent majority can decide if they want a constitutional convention to create the Fourth Constitution.

If American voters  decide they want a Constitutional Convention, they will have about 7 weeks from the second Tuesday in November till January 14 of the following year to officially register with a national political party that truly expresses their values and worldview. Various websites describe all the major national political parties that voters can choose from.

Then from January 15 till the end of January, no switching of parties can be made as the official count of all national political parties is determined by the National Elections Committee, which will be appointed by the current 7 largest national political parties.  Each of the 7 largest national political parties will appoint one person to serve on the Executive Council of the National Elections Committee.

The National Elections Committee will know by the end of January which national political parties received the most votes.  The National Elections Committee will determine what are the current 7 largest national political parties.

The National Elections Committee will be responsible for counting and verifying the membership of national political parties, and the National Elections Committee will guarantee that local election officials are impartial and professionalized.  The National Elections Committee may use voting machines that are standardized, or it may decide on other fair methods of voting that prevent dishonesty and corruption.

Starting in the month of February and going to the end of March (a 2-month period), the 7 largest national political parties will get official, equal, free, national public television exposure.

The 7 largest national political parties will be able to make public speaking presentations and will be allowed to participate in town hall meetings and debates on national television stations.  The 7 largest national political parties will also be required to give their written responses to standardized questions determined by the National Elections Committee, not exceeding the maximum number of words that the question allows.  Each of the political parties will be allowed to share their party platforms, any proposed national constitutions, and various articles from their websites.       

Then during the first two weeks of April, there will be a second counting of registered voters in each of the 7 largest national political parties.  Party identifications cannot be changed during this time period.  As a result of this second counting, some voters will stay with the party they picked in January, while others will pick a new political party that better expresses their values and worldview.

So after the second counting of party memberships, it will be announced on April 14 the percentage of votes each of the 7 largest national political parties received.  So here is how the results could be, hypothetically speaking:

If the Constitution Party gets 5 percent of the votes, then there will be 5 Constitution Party delegates sent to the Constitutional Convention.  If the Green Party gets 9 percent of the votes, then there will be 9 Green Party delegates sent to the Constitutional Convention.  If the Republican Party gets 14 percent of the votes, then there will be 14 delegates from the Republican Party sent to the Constitutional Convention, and so forth.

On May 1, the Constitutional Convention delegates will meet at the Capitol Building in Washington D.C. for the month of May and June.  The 100 delegates will work during May and June to create the best constitution that 51 percent or more of the attending delegates approve.

When the Constitutional Convention begins in May, each of the 7 largest national political parties will nominate one of their attending party delegates to be the potential chairperson of the Constitutional Convention.  The 100 delegates will vote to elect one Constitutional Convention Chairperson from the slate of 7 potential candidates.

If delegates reach a 51 percent majority before the 2-month period elapses, they must use the remaining days of the 2-month time frame to hear dissenting delegate voices in the constant effort to keep improving their document in order to get an even higher percentage of approval than 51 percent.  If at any point 60 percent of the constitutional convention delegates approve the new document, the delegates may choose to adjourn and go home before the maximum 2-month time limit has elapsed.

If only 50 percent or less of the delegates approve any new proposed constitution after working on it for 2 months, then any document becomes void, and the current Third Constitution will continue to be official and valid.  However, if the new constitution is approved with a 51 percent majority by the end of June, then the American people must also approve the new document on the second Tuesday of July with at least a 51 percent majority in a referendum vote.

This Constitutional Convention process that started the first Tuesday in November (3 years after a presidential election) until the second Tuesday of July, is roughly about 8 months.

If the American voters approve or ratify the new document on the second Tuesday of July, the new Fourth Constitution will not be implemented immediately.  There has to be an election of new government officers, as there normally would be in a presidential election year on the first Tuesday of November.

Then in the following year on January 20, the new constitution will be implemented, and the new legislative, judicial, and executive officers (who were elected during the previous first Tuesday of November) will begin their terms of office.

When the Constitutional Convention delegates meet during May and June, the delegates should make their day-to-day proceedings public.  As mentioned above, whatever document the delegates approve with a 51 percent majority will not be ratified until 51 percent of the American voters approve it in a referendum vote.

End of the 8-Month Timeline for Creating the Fourth Constitution 

End of Article XVII of the Third Constitution

End of the Third Constitution of the United States

*****

September 7, 2025:  I copied and pasted the September 4, 2025 latest version of my 28-page Third Constitution of the United States into the little Chat GPT question box window and asked Chat GPT to summarize and critique it, and this is Chat GPT’s response, which gives me food for thought when I do the next revision.

FacebookTwitterRedditEmail

Roger Copple retired in 2010 at the age of 60. As a high school special education teacher, he taught algebra, English, and history, and as a general education teacher he taught mostly 3rd grade. Roger lives in Gulfport, Florida. Read other articles by Roger, or visit Roger's website.