911 Truth… Is it a YOU Do or Die?

By WJ Anthony

In less than two and a half months, we voters will be expected to elect officials who will follow the purposes and ideals that we believe are appropriate for our government to follow. Recently another book is being offered that will claim that the founders of the United States intended to construct this country as a Christian nation. The claim is made that the colonial settlements of the English on the eastern coast were following the teachings of Jesus, as did the men who later designed the Constitution of the United States.

It seems that books of that theme apparently intend to convince the readers that our dismal US future as a nation can be changed if we cause our government to adhere to the premises and practices of the colonial governments back then.

Do you remember reading about those governments? Were they following the teachings of Jesus? When the first colony landed on Plymouth Rock and tried to assemble the means to avoid starvation and survive the upcoming winter, the record shows that the native people recognized their predicament and generously taught the immigrants, how to plant crops that would save them from extinction.

It wasn’t long, however, before the gunpowder and colonial traditions of their European origins surfaced and induced the immigrants at Plymouth and those at other colonies to reject and disdain the occupancy traditions of the native people as their neighbors, using the physical and deadly forces to scalp and kill the natives who refused to be uprooted and removed from their native ancestral home lands.

That colonial behavior wasn’t a singular unwitting aberration of one or a few English immigrants. It was a defined and practiced conviction in which they believed before they had chosen to depart from their fatherland.

The early settlements were structured, as a rigid command by elite men who dominated the formation of all practices in the colonies. The male elite soon recognized that the intuition of women had the potential to make women self-sufficient and able to compete with the established authority of men. To preserve their advantage, the elite male preachers used portions of Old Testament scripture to adopt and justify the sanctioned controls of earlier European Churchianity. In behalf of the name of God, they condemned women as witches, who were independent believers, and burned some as heretics – as had been the custom in Europe’s Roman Churchanity.

Were the leaders of the colonists, who revolted against the English king George, faithful followers of the teachings of Jesus? Is it true that those founding fathers kept their sight fixed on the teachings of Jesus or pursued and obeyed the meanings of the parables and sermons of Jesus?

The term Christian is derived from the word Christ and can only be attached to the life and teachings of Jesus. To be known as a follower of Jesus, or a Christian, a person would need to be inclined to try to live among other people in a personal relationship that respects the lives and rights of others. It is true, that, the Declaration of Independence, was written by American men, and it is also true that the beginning statement of that document, effectively supports the teachings of Jesus, when it said:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

And then it continues:

“That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

As destructive as our past and present governments have been and might be, the Declaration goes on to warn:

“Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

The author of the book seems to claim that the current Government of the United States has abandoned its foundation as a Christian country. But why, we might ask, did each of the administrations of US Government in some way or other become Despots who ordered one or more or some of the hundreds of horrible wars to slaughter the native peoples, who sought to defend their occupancy of their homelands and defend themselves from being subjugated or liquidated? Why did so many US Governments, during their terms, act as Despots, to slaughter the millions of innocent people in countries throughout the world, when they refused to be subjugated by a US tyrant? Were these US governments exemplifying the teachings of Jesus, the Christ?

Who did these presidents of Government follow? Who did the men of Congress and the courts follow? Jesus said, “By their deeds you shall know them.” What were their deeds? Are they known to this day, by their wars, conquests, and subjugation of native peoples? Were they known for the enslavement first of the Irish and then the African people, shipped in chains to the plantations of the US? Did Jesus teach his followers to propose the Monroe Doctrine or preach “our country right or wrong”?

President Obama created a stir, when he said, “The United States is no longer a Christian country.” What proof is there that the US ever followed the teachings of Jesus, the Christ? Have we been a godless country?

Many Americans believe the Constitution gave them the right to Free Speech, probably meaning the Bill of Rights – which, were not originally intended to be part of the Constitution. Did the president, George W. Bush, shock you, with his reply to a reporter, who accused Bush of violating a person’s Constitutional right to Free speech: “That’s just a god-dammed piece of paper!” sneered Bush, adding in his following words, that he determines the rights of people. G W B claimed to be a Christian, while he said he would hunt down and capture Osama bin Laden, be he dead or alive.

“My kingdom is not of this world,” said Jesus to Pilate. Would the Government, described in the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, be acceptable, according to the teachings of Jesus?

Would Jesus “… hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”?

How about the rest of the second paragraph? “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”?

Why doesn’t the Constitution say or express the concept that we “are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights.”?

Why doesn’t the Constitution say the words “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men.”?

Look at the meaning of the word ‘unalienable’ now spelled as ‘inalienable’. It has a profound meaning: “incapable of being transferred or given up.”

It means those rights are yours, as an individual person, here or at anywhere in this world; you cannot sell them or give them to anyone else, for a period of time or permanently, because every other person also has been given those rights.

Jesus said his kingdom is different from the government of this world. If we were to live with and love our neighbors and enemies and “do good to those who despitefully use” us and if we were to consent to institute Governments to secure those rights among Men and those Governments would derive “their just powers from the consent of the governed”; does that mean that we are the Government if we consent to give the Government the powers … –

What powers? The just powers; What are they? “Those, which are reasonable, correct or proper, morally legal or deserved.” Are those the powers that our Government is using in the wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan and Iraq? Did they use those powers in Vietnam, Korea, Japan, Bosnia, Panama, etc.? Were they reasonable, correct or proper, morally legal or deserved?

Those wars were all based on the lies that George W. Bush and the Congress blamed on 19 Arab hijackers who supposedly flew two aircraft into Buildings One and Two of the World Trade Center and flew another plane into the Pentagon.

The evidence, however, proves that the 91l attacks were perpetrated by people in the US Government in collusion with interested parties in foreign governments to deceive American people to believe the lies that were claimed within hours of the staged events by President Bush, Vice-President Cheney, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, members of Congress and others in the media, in the US and Britain.

Thousands of us now know the story and the reasons for the events. Members of the federal government had written a plan, based on the PNAC report, years before, which told how a Pearl Harbor type event could trigger the sympathies and beliefs of American people to change their opposition to war into a crusade to destroy the perpetrators of 911.

We are now almost 8 years since the malicious 911 calumny of the US Presidency and Congress caused the American people to ignorantly support the US wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and threaten other Islamic people of the Mideast nations of Asia. Is our Government guilty?

If our elected representatives in the Bush Presidency and the elected members of Congress are guilty of the two million deaths and the destruction that were caused by the criminal collusion of the President and Congress to use the powers of Government to deceive the consent of the People? The trial by the people should be overwhelming supported!

To this day, the Congress has refused to conduct a genuine investigation of all evidence that now exists, pertaining to the events of 911. Why do the 535 members of Congress do nothing to demand an investigation? Why do all of the political parties of this country avoid any promise that they will investigate this greatest crime of American history?

Which brings us back to the assumption that the US is a Christian nation.

If the conservative Christian Right were genuinely true to their claim as Christians, they would enlist their Tea Party troops and the Evangelicals to join a mass surround of the US Capitol and the White House – like Jericho - with millions of their men, women and children demanding the trial, prosecution, and punishment of President George W Bush and the members of his cabinet; and all members of government at all levels, who had anything to do with the planning or destruction of 911 and the consequential wars and crimes that ensued from their evil.

If you and your believers do that, then you can claim it is possible that the Founders had intended the United States to be founded as a Christian Government.

erna4 State's Unalienable Rights

ISRAEL TO USE IRANIAN AND PAKISTANI DUPES IN DIRTY NUKE PLOY

By Gordon Duff STAFF WRITER/Senior Editor

This week, the last piece fell into place.  The National Research Council, part of the National Academy of Science, heavy on politics and light on science, announced that America was no longer able to track nukes threatening our shores.  Their report titled Nuclear Forensics: A Capability at Risk, released last week, outlines the details of a secret study requested by the Departments of Homeland Security, Defense and Energy, specifically the National Nuclear Security Administration.   The gist of the story is easy, if a nuke goes off in America, dirty nuke in Times Square, one in a container at a port, anywhere, America won’t be able to tell who made it.  Not a word of the report is true.  It is wild speculation and disinformation written in broad language with no hard science, written for a reason.

A powerful group within the United States, one with influence over the press and the ability to derail an investigation as was done with 9/11, has been “tasked” with laying the groundwork for a terrorist attack on America, one using nuclear material.  This report, unneeded, and highly inaccurate was printed in the New York Times to provide “cover.”  It isn’t just this report, the pieces are falling together around the world.  The Wiki-Leaks story, pre staging Pakistan’s ISI as a terrorist organization, a story built out of almost no information but fleshed out with massive speculation by “operatives” in the press is part of the process.

The Defense Authorization Act of 2006 allows, “in case of a terrorist attack” for the president to declare martial law, disband congress and rule by executive decree.  With the suspension of habeas corpus by the Military Commissions act, also in 2006, America as we know it officially comes to an end the second a weapon of mass destruction in used.  Only then will America learn who has been pulling the strings all along, who is scripting Wolf Blitzer and Glen Beck.

British Prime Minister David Cameron’s attacks on Pakistan, made from New Delhi last week, seen by most as a serious political blunder, are part of the narrative.  We will get to more background on a younger David Cameron later.

Another piece of the puzzle involved a federal task force, Defense, Energy, FBI, descending on a warehouse in Greenfield, Indiana under the guise of a “records search.”  This “Waco style” assault on a facility storing furniture for college dorm rooms was much more than it seemed.  No case, criminal or civil, provided any underlying reason for the search.

Further, the bizarre tale of rumored missing nukes, illegally transported on a B-52 from Minot AFB to Barksdale AFB in Louisiana, a major Defense Department scandal, is meant to create, not only fear and doubt, but “plausible deniability” if a weapon is exploded inside the US.  These, however, are not, by far, the only missing nuclear weapons America has to fear as we will get into later.

Two recent attacks, the “Times Square Fizzler” and the Detroit “Crotch Bomber” were both amateurish affairs except for a couple of things.  Both perpetrators had strong ties to Israeli organizations, one actually employed by an Israeli-American financial firm, the other the son of Israel’s primary partner in their defense industry complex in Nigeria.  None of this was reported or investigated once discovered.  It was shoved under the rug immediately.  When cursory investigations of both suspects showed travel histories only possible with significant help from an intelligence agency, both stories disappeared from the news entirely.  It is as though everyone involved vanished from the face of the earth like the second person arrested in Detroit or the “well dressed Indian” who aided the “Crotch Bomber” onto the plane in Amsterdam.

LEGAL JUSTIFICATION FOR ATTACKS ON GENTILES

Conservative interpretations of Jewish law, currently being used to justify resettlement of Palestinians and even total removal of all non-Jews from greater Palestine and adjacent areas have long been used to justify acts such as the attack on the USS Liberty, bombings of US facilities in Egypt and, less openly, “false flag” terror attacks attributed to Muslims but performed by Israeli security forces.  Rabbi Yitzhak Shapira and Rabbi Yosef Elitzur, seen as the ethical conscience behind the Netanyahu government have taken the following position as reported by Jonathan Cook:

“In the 230-page book, Shapira and his co-author, Rabbi Yosef Elitzur (The King’s Torah,currently Israel’s best selling book) argue that Jewish law permits the killing of non-Jews in a

THE KING’S TORAH, ISRAELI “BEST SELLER” JUSTIFIES TERROR

wide variety of circumstances. They write that Jews have the right to kill Gentiles in any situation in which “a non-Jew’s presence endangers Jewish lives” even if the Gentile is “not at all guilty for the situation that has been created”.

The book sanctions the killing of non-Jewish children and babies: “There is justification for killing babies if it is clear that they will grow up to harm us, and in such a situation they may be harmed deliberately, and not only during combat with adults.”

The rabbis suggest that harming the children of non-Jewish leaders is justified if it is likely to bring pressure to bear on them to change policy.  The authors also advocate committing “cruel deeds to create the proper balance of terror” and treating all members of an “enemy nation” as targets for retaliation, even if they are not directly participating in hostile activities.” (false flag terrorism)

This rationale allows deadly force to be used against Christians if their deaths advance the cause of Israeli security even if only through economic profit.  Thus, if an attack such as 9/11 were to lead to America fighting wars against enemies of Israel or if, as in Afghanistan, Israeli companies were to profit from weapons or narcotics sales, any deaths of gentiles, no matter how innocent, would be justified by Jewish law as stated in the Torah.

Were an attack on the United States to bring that country to war against Iran, even if that attack were perpetrated by Israelis, it would be legal according to Israeli law, the same law being relied upon for justice in the attack on the Mavi Marmara.

More often however, attacks on Israel itself are believed to have been staged, not only to instill the population with fear and rage but to continue the “holocaust” tradition of Jewish victimhood as a justification for policies that have led to 62 vetoes in the United Nations by the US, vetoes against sanctions imposed against Israel for violations of international law.

We expect increased attacks on Israel, quickly tied to Hezbollah and Iran, attacks that will either involve no casualties or the deaths of either foreign workers or Russian emigres.  This pattern has been used repeatedly, such as the March 18 “attack” killing a lone Thai ”guest” worker time to coincide with the visit of the European Union’s high commissioner for security, Catherine Ashton, a critic of Israel’s apartheid policy in Gaza.

On a side note, 400 children of “guest workers” are being expelled from Israel this week.  Eventually all will be expelled, guilty of destroying “the Jewish character” through lack of “racial purity.”

When the US and Israel released Sharam Amiri, alleged Iranian nuclear scientist, we learned one thing.  There is an inventory of Muslims, perhaps arrested, perhaps kidnapped, maybe lured into custody, rendition, imprisonment or “cold storage,” whatever you want to call it.  Each one has an elaborate “legend” built around them, describing them as a “lone gunman” or “terrorist mastermind.”  This is the group that will supply the names and photographs we will see after the next terror attack.

As Wayne Madsen described to us this week, this was the process the CIA and Mossad used to create Osama bin Laden from nothing.  The organization we know of as Al Qaeda is, in itself, a false creation, an invention initially to serve as terrorist when we needed them and as enemies when we needed them too:

“Press clips gathered by the CIA and discovered in the National Archives’ stored CIA files point to an agency keenly interested in any leaks about the highly-classified CIA-Mossad program to establish Osama Bin Laden and the most radical elements of the Afghan Mujahidin as the primary leaders of the anti-Soviet rebels in the 1980s.

WMR [Wayne Madsen Report] has pored through the CIA files and a complicated picture emerges of America’s and Israel’s top intelligence agencies, in cahoots with Saudi Arabia, establishing financial links and carve out intelligence programs to provide manpower and financial support to Bin Laden and his allies in Afghanistan. It was these very elements that later created the so-called “Al Qaeda,” which the late British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook described as nothing more than a “database” of CIA front organizations, financial supporters, and field operatives. However, one component omitted by Cook in the Al Qaeda construct is the Israeli participation.”

A pattern of evidence is emerging that “cold storage” dupes and CIA/Mossad nurtured organizations may have had a hand in, not only the Mumbai attacks but the London and Madrid bombings as well.  Additional trails are leading to attacks on American troops inside Iraq and Afghanistan and against security forces inside Pakistan, particularly against Pakistan’s ISI, primary target of press stories on the recent Wiki-Leak.

AMERICA AND THE “TORY NUKES”

VELA satellites: Detect signatures of nuclear explosions

There are two reasons to attack America’s “forensic capabilities” when it comes to nuclear weapons.  A leak the press chose not to cover, one bringing Israel under scrutiny for egregious violations of international treaties on Nuclear Proliferation, treaties Israel has never signed, were brought to the surface recently.  Back on September 22 1979, Israel and South Africa tested a nuclear device, an 18.2 kiloton bomb.  This test in a remote area of the Indian Ocean was detected by America’s VELA satellite system and confirmed by acoustic sensors.  A forensic signature of this weapon was developed, not only through optics but through particle emissions.  When an identical weapon was detonated by North Korea on May 25, 2009, a question was raised.  How did a nuclear weapon built by Armscor, an Israel company operating in South Africa, end up in North Korea?

This is the story of the “Tory nukes,” nuclear weapons purchased by Margaret Thatcher in 1991 from South Africa under a secret authorization describing the weapons as “cylinders.”  Those involved in putting this bombs into special containers, transporting them to Durban and then off to a container storage facility in Oman from which they disappeared are now filling volumes.  When the weapons containers which had laid unguarded for months in a container yard in Oman were forwarded to the United States for dis-assembly in accordance with treaty requirements, only concrete blocks were found.  The disappearance has been directly tied to two arms traders who ran illegal trafficking for Israel and South Africa during the Iran-Iraq War.

The accused were business partners in the “Ollie North era” Reagan hijinks known as Iran Contra.  The “thieves” were connected to the highest levels of, not only Israeli intelligence but the CIA as well.

Israel says Saddam stole the weapons.

As late as 2003, Tony Blair used this “tale” to back what Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg calls “the illegal invasion of Iraq.”  Blair had financial incentives to back the invasion, several million of them, as secret letters leaked to the press but never printed have shown.

PRIME MINISTER DAVID CAMERON, DR. DAVID KELLY AND ARMSCORE

Back in 1990, a very young David Cameron, later to become Prime Minister David Cameron, was offered a free trip to South Africa, paid for by Israeli owned Armscor, a nuclear weapons manufacturer.  Cameron was supposedly working with Dr. David Kelly investigating weapons of mass destruction in South Africa.  In fact something much different was going on.  On January 16, 2005, Tim Shipman, Defense Editor of the Sunday Express released the following story, one never reported in US papers.  Today, Dr. David Kelly is dead, clearly murdered because of what he knew and David Cameron is in India carefully reading from a script written in Tel Aviv.  This is the 2005 story from the Express:

”Dr. David Kelly, the weapons expert who died in mysterious circumstances after the Iraq war, may have been about to reveal alarming details concerning missing nuclear weapons. Sources familiar with Dr Kelly’s work with South Africa’s security services say he also knew damaging details of how nuclear weapons decommissioned by South Africa were lost in the Middle East in 1991……..

DR. DAVID KELLY, “SUICIDED” MISSING NUKE WHISTLEBLOWER

Informed experts who have contacted the Sunday Express claim the missing nuclear weapons found their way to Iraq. The claims raise new questions about the extent of Dr Kelly’s knowledge of British security secrets, which some insiders believe may have contributed to his death. Some believe he may have been silenced to prevent him revealing more secrets to the media. The South African weapons allegedly went missing in Oman on their way to be decommissioned in the US and may have then been smuggled to Iraq. A source claimed: “Dr Kelly knew about the South African nukes because he worked for research facilities there.

Over the last year intelligence sources in both Britain and America have told journalists they believe that whatever Doomsday arsenal Saddam Hussein had accumulated before the second Gulf War was smuggled into Syria before the Spring 2003 invasion.

Last month the Sunday Express revealed that MI5 investigators looking for details of Dr Kelly’s involvement with the South African government, seized his laptop computers after he died. The coroner charged with investigating the Government scientist’s death has said he will not reopen the case.”

While British and American troops stormed across Iraq in 2003, searching for these missing nukes, defense experts now fear they had been in Israeli hands all along, a secret Dr. David Kelly was no longer willing to keep, one that led to his death.  The missing containers may easily have been transferred to the Netherlands, Nigeria or even the United States, perhaps even Indiana or Toledo as is now rumored.  British police have raided the homes of many involved in the missing weapons, seizing computers, personal papers and “frightening the hell out of people.”  Some of those terrorized are scheduled witnesses for the Iraq War inquiry.

ONLY AMERICAN DEAD CAN PRE-STAGE THE IRAN ATTACK

This summer, Turkey and Brazil negotiated a deal with Iran to remove any nuclear fuel that could be used for weapons development.  It was exactly what everyone had been asking for.  President Obama ignored it and pushed for sanctions demanded by Israel.  Russia cancelled the sale of an S300 air defense system to Iran and voted to back sanctions against its ally, Iran also.  The relationship between Tel Aviv and the Russian oligarchs, seen so clearly during the Jonathan Pollard spy scandal, had reappeared for public again though no news organization picked any of this up.

With secret Israeli bases, believed used for transit of narcotics from Afghanistan, ringing Iran, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan and other nations in the region, and US supplies and munitions in place or being delivered through Black Sea ports, only American public opinion is holding up an attack on Iran, despite the fact that Iran’s president Ahmadinejad has requested an immediate conference with President Obama to “settle outstanding issues.”

UPSTAGING 9/11

Even though Iran is isolated, even from its Islamic neighbors, it has a substantial defensive capability.  Iran can quickly destroy all gulf region oil production facilities and close off shipping to that region, an act likely to collapse all western economies in days.  Militarily, however, Iran is unable to defend itself against the vast technological superiority of the United States.  However, after a decade of wars with Iraq remaining, not only unstable but increasingly so, and the United States facing defeat in Afghanistan, the American people are unlikely to want to begin a new conflict, especially with an adversary much more powerful than either  Iraq and Afghanistan and Israel as the only ally, a country the United States has no mutual defense treaty with and no ability to sustain conflict beyond its own immediate borders for more than 48 hours.

Earlier this year, Israeli military historian Dr. Martin Van Creveld announced Israel’s “King Torah” policy toward the “gentile nations:”

“We have hundreds of nuclear warheads and missiles that can reach different targets in the heart of the European continent, including beyond the borders of Rome, the Italian capital…most European capitals would become preferred targets for the Israeli air force.”

The legal justification for a nuclear attack is in place, part of Israeli law.  The will to do so is there if such an attack can be pulled off and few doubt Israel’s ability who have seen the power of the Israeli lobby in Washington and have spoken of their control of the press, such as with the recent media castration of director Oliver Stone.

The tools are in place.  Israel is believed to possess two Hiroshima sized nuclear weapons, weapons that can be used freely because the media is ready to claim them to be “stolen” by Muslims if told to do so.  The third weapon was exploded by North Korea with the media blackout leaving Israel as the only possible source for this weapon.  No nation has the power to black out a leak like that one, not a leak that exposes Israel as a rogue arms dealer, first to apartheid South Africa, then Libya and both Iraq and Iran during their war and finally North Korea.

The ground is prepared, America is now stripped of “forensic” ability to track nuclear explosions, so the cover story tells us.  Israel still threatens the world with the missing nukes, weapons reason tells us they control.  Any container in any port, any truck, any warehouse could hide these weapons, anywhere in the United States.

When it happens, the vast majority of Americans will find the trail left, Pakistanis, Iranians, all as planned.  They will immediately call for the destruction of the Islamic world as is intended by Israel.  The internet will be shut down, congress sent home and anyone mentioning that only Israel profits and that only Israel could have done it will be imprisoned, as intended.

They learned from 9/11.  Too many questions were asked.  They won’t make the same mistake again.

YouTube - Veterans Today -

erna4 State's Unalienable Rights

We know the Truth about 911 but . . .

By WJ Anthony

It will soon be nine years since 911. The true cause of the destruction of the World Trade Center buildings in New York has been revealed by a multitude of information and videos, which prove the official government explanation is a lie. The truth is readily available on the Internet for any honest researcher to find.

Near the site of the WTC controlled demolition scheme, a monument of sorts has been erected, using two bright beams of light to pierce the sky line at night, as did the searchlights of World War 2, that sought to reveal the enemy bombers that came to kill in the dark of night.

President Bush lied about 911; Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell and others in government and the media repeated and expanded on the lie, so as to arouse American people to believe that 19 Arab hijackers had attacked US, and the US was then justified to declare unprecedented war on people in Afghanistan.

More Bush and Cheney lies followed, that claimed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, a claim that was contested and disproved by the UN investigations of every nook and cranny, finding no proof whatsoever that the accusation was true.

But that didn’t stop the perpetrators’ evil scheme to continue their plot to attack and destroy more than a million innocent men, women and children in Iraq and confiscate the oil, artifacts and resources of Iraq.

The truth of 911 is available for anyone to see, if the truth is desired.

To cover their deeds of 911, the perpetrators in the media and government have retracted the promise of Obama, that 911 would be thoroughly investigated by his administration and the truth revealed. The same perpetrators of 911 in the Bush administration remain in control and have proposed another lie that involves Iran and Pakistan. The US now seems to be fully prepared to serve the corporations and elite, who believe and expect that they should control the world from here, on into a forever future, whereby they subjugate billions of people, as their stock in trade, or cull them as though they are cattle.

The perpetrators of 911 have recently mobilized a scenario that would use the light beams monument near Ground Zero in New York City to twist the truth about who caused the deaths on 911.

The perpetrators are trying to falsely focus public anger on innocent people who plan to honor the memory of a million and more people in Afghanistan and Iraq, who perished because President Bush lied and because Congress approved the unwarranted invasions and wars that the USA instigated in Afghanistan and Iraq. This memorial would not, in any way, diminish or denigrate the significance of the innocent catastrophic deaths of 3000 or more innocent victims, who perished in the controlled demolitions at the WTC buildings and the Pentagon on 911.

It is appropriate that these two memorials be erected to remember the injustice and horrible tragedies that were caused by the perpetrators of 911.

Let the light beams monument at Ground Zero honor the memory of the 3000 innocent victims of the controlled demolition implosions in the World Trade Center buildings on 911.

Let the mosque monument honor the memory of the million and more innocent victims of the unlawful US invasions and wars in Afghanistan and Iraq that resulted from the lies of 911.

If We the People of America accept both monuments as appropriate to our griefs, may these monuments also suggest what we should keep in mind throughout our lives – truth requires our eternal vigilance.

erna4 State's Unalienable Rights

Police Abuse . . . is no little thing!

By WJ Anthony

The misuse of government police power is of great concern for people who hope and expect that the rules of law will be honestly applied in compliance with the intent of the law, and without prejudice by an officer of government.

I recently watched a fascinating Brasscheck video by Larken Rose, which brought to light this problem. Many words have been written about human rights and the role that government should play in securing the rights of an individual.

The Declaration of Independence clarifies the concern that many people may have about police brutality and the abuse of that power, when it is used against their human rights.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

The Declaration then continues: “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seen most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

If we think about those exact words, we see that the Declaration infers that police have certain power to help secure the unalienable right of the People to safely pursue Happiness.

Larken Rose would possibly insist that various levels of governments in America have become “destructive of these ends.” The “ends” in the Declaration are the Safety and Happiness of the People. That might mean for Larken, that governments have, in some ways, failed to secure the safety and happiness of the People by their use of unwarranted police brutality.

There may be several reasons why a government becomes destructive of the unalienable right of a person to be safe from violence, and free to live and pursue happiness. However, Larken’s point deserves an explanation, why today’s US society has been equipped with violent police powers.

Various levels of American government have obtained and now use the same military equipment and powers that had been used by police forces of totalitarian countries. With these powers, police can subjugate American people by illegal brutality and confined prison behavior and serious injuries.

When the People protested the illegal US war policies, that are based on lies by George Bush, and Congress ignored the People’s right to peacefully protest, the government used police brutality to reject the authority of the People to alter or abolish the war policies of American government.

The People had the authority, as stated in the Declaration’s second paragraph, to do this because the illegal US war policies destroyed the safety and happiness of innocent people in Iraq and Afghanistan and also endangered the rights to safety and happiness of American people.

The reaction of the Iraq and Afghan victims to the illegal plan of the US president and Congress to bomb, invade, conquer and kill innocent foreign People followed the pattern of past US aggressions that violently subjugated People of other countries to illegal US military domination. Ironically, the Iraq and Afghan leaders also knew the words of the Declaration of Independence and that US presidents and Congress have always ignored that Declaration of America’s birth.

They also knew that the Declaration had also warned Americans, that to pursue happiness, the People need to govern their own efforts, and to do that, Americans need to lay a foundation for America’s government on such principles and organize its “powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

That vision of independent governance is what many of the leaders and governments of the small countries were trying to accomplish, when the US presidents and Congresses ordered the attacks and invasions of small countries in recent times.

When the Declaration was published, it promised the world that a new government would arise in North America, that it would be based on those words and ideas, contained in the second paragraph of the Declaration. But, the ruler of the thirteen colonies did not “institute” a government based on the Declaration of Independence.

Thirteen years after the Declaration was published, the wealthy landowners and officials of the former colonies took it upon themselves, without the consent of the People who were female, native People, African slaves or indentured servants, to create a constitution.

The Constitution did not speak of rights endowed by the Creator, or the equality of all people. It said that the government would have the power to coin money and tax certain endeavors, so as to fund government operations. What would those operations be?

The history of the United States of America is filled with accounts of Wars of all kinds. What was the structure and purpose of those wars? Compulsory subjugation of the identities and behaviors of native and other peoples were achieved by the threat and violent power of US military destruction.

Larken Rose aroused a profound complaint to a common problem. If we wish to survive in America, the misuse of military and police power needs to be stopped. That thought should cause us to ask, What causes the misuse of police power, and when did it start?

The USA, today, is said to be the sole super power. We are said to have the greatest military power the world has ever seen. And we continue to demonstrate some of that power in wars against small nations, throughout the globe, hoping that the major powers, China and Russia, and other governments will recognize our military and financial ability to threaten destruction, and in fear of our power they will appropriately submit to our policies of world domination.

For more than two centuries the USA has been building war machines that first threatened and then destroyed other human beings, numbered in the millions.

The Declaration of Independence reminds us that the purpose of any form of government is to effectively secure the unalienable rights of the people.

Some positions in government have the authority to judge people and rehabilitate or punish people who violate the laws of government. These positions can be an aid to good government; they can also be a severe threat to the safety of a society and government if their powers are misused. Any government official could use or misuse the authority and powers of a position, whether the position is simple or elaborate.

Since US citizens are able to elect people to positions of public office, each of us holds the responsibility to support those positions and their powers of government; at the same time, we must do our part to change or stop policies or practices that violate the powers that governments derive from the consent of the people.

We the People have the power to elect people to public service and remove people from public service.

In Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg speech, he said that the Civil War was fought to ensure that government of the people by the people and for the people would not perish from the earth. In that war, as in all wars before and since, it was the people who did the killing and the dying. But did the people declare that war? Did the people declare all the wars since then… the Wows, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia and… Iran?

Have you noticed, that no president has ever ordered that a questionnaire be sent, one to each American, which asked us to respond to the question: “Should the USA declare war on …?”

Has the Congress ever rejected a president’s declaration of war?

Might police brutality in the US be a product of our investment in wars? Might it be that the fruits of our warmongering have come home to roost?

The victims of the growing abuse of police brutality on innocent civilians - who mobilize peaceful protests to oppose government violations - have met the brutal violence of police forces dressed for battle, (not to negotiate or dialogue), but equipped with gas masks and shields, bullet-proof vests, clubs, tear gas, dogs, chemical, electric zap pulse weapons, armored vehicles, including tanks with sound and electric assault weapons.

What this promises, is the escalation of civilian dissent, and social disorganization, resulting potentially, in violent revolution and the collapse of social order.

Is there a solution? Consider this …

The Veterans Preference laws, which give military veterans an advantage in tests, were an attempt to recognize the military service that veterans gave to their country. The result is that veterans obtain the opportunity to be employed in many public service positions, such as police, firemen, and postal workers.

The police positions are especially worthy of our concern, in that, as law enforcement officers, they are able to use physical force to enforce laws as they are commanded. They also may be in a situational position, where they can or must decide what level of force they should or could use to control a situation that requires their attention. In doing this, they are trained to be aware that when they are personally in a position of danger, they have the right to use self-defense measures, while carrying out their assigned responsibility.

This brings up the difficult consideration of employing military veterans for police duty. Their military training may have taught them the skills to use military force to resolve a specific hostile situation. Their military training may have included brutal close quarter life or death survival techniques, and may have used them, to personally survive on a viciously brutal wartime combat situation.

The memories of that training and battle experience may cause the veteran, as a policeman, to revert to his behavior in military combat and transgress the rights of a civilian in a civil protest situation, when a remark or action, of a civilian, sparks a memory of a situation in the veteran’s combat experience, causing the veteran to react now in a manner similar to the battlefield, but which is inappropriate now in the civilian situation.

The military skill of a veteran may seem to be an asset for more muscle power in a local sheriff department or city police department, but it could spark an instance during a lawful public protest, that creates a public safety disaster.

The web site and video of Larken Rose, at http://www.larkenrose.com eloquently brought this problem to light. The suggestion that emerged from reading his accounts suggests the need for an effective control of police behavior.

Since police are public employees and are sworn to public service, the behavior of police could and should be measured. This could be achieved by requiring each of the vote-eligible citizens, which the police are authorized to serve, to complete a public ballot that would review and invite any response that pertains to the job performance of each police person.

The ballot responses would identify appropriate or inappropriate instances of street enforcement behavior of each police person. The ballot could also allow input for recommendations or retraining or reassignment from street duty to alternative work.

Whereas most police behavior has been reviewed, as an in-house matter by internal police department investigations, the right of the People to influence changes in police policy has not been accepted by any governments. This ballot arrangement could help move police forces to modify the behavior of their personnel, who meet the public in traffic control, public, and domestic disturbances. The police departments need to have skilled persons who are trained with skills to successfully dialogue and negotiate alternative solutions to the imminent prospects of violent outcomes.

Thanks to Larken Rose for his stimulus.

erna4 State's Unalienable Rights

Pak-China Strategic Ties Irks The Indo-Israelis

Posted on 14. Jul, 2010 by Jeff in Uncategorized

Obama Must Not Be A Tool To Promote

The Indo-Israeli Agenda

The US Should Not Be Unnerved on Nuclear Deal

between  China and Pakistan

By Sajjad Shauk

Pak-China Talks In Progress

During Pakistan’s President Asif Ali Zardar’s recent visit to Beijing, Pakistan and China reaffirmed to strengthen strategic ties and took concrete measures to further bring their people closer.

Both the countries signed six documents of cooperation in the areas of agriculture, healthcare, justice, media, economy and technology. Chinese President Hu Jintao and President Asif Ali Zardari, while witnessing the signing ceremony that made strategic incentives and alliances even stronger than they were before, on trade cooperation, Jintao said that China would explore new ways to cooperate as well as cement cooperation between the two countries in areas such as energy, transportation, telecommunication, infrastructure and agriculture. Beijing also pledged to provide a grant of 7.3 million dollars to Pakistan for new development projects.

During the two-hour-long talks before the signing ceremony, Jintao and Zardari also vowed to fight the three forces of extremism, separatism and terrorism jointly.

“China is a friend and a strategic partner, committed to the promotion of stability and economic progress of Pakistan.” This is how Jintao summed up the strategic relations.

However, the two leaders discussed a host of issues relating to strategic partnership. The most prominent area of this bolstering of ties — especially for the world is the Sino-Pak civilian nuclear deal which is now beginning to see complete formalization and initiation. It is unfortunate that the US has expressed its concerns about this deal, where the main goal is to address the acute power crisis in Pakistan. While rejecting US objections, China has once again clarified that it will supply two nuclear reactors to Pakistan under the old nuclear deal.

As regards the legitimacy of Pak-China nuclear deal, Qin Gang, the spokesperson of the Chinese Foreign Ministry has already made it clear, saying: “the nuclear cooperation between the two countries is for peaceful purposes and is totally consistent with its international obligations and safeguards of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).”

It is also regrettable that, until now, we have been denied the same right to civil nuclear technology that India was granted by the US in 2008. It provides the precedent, and in fact, has opened the door for any similar sort of nuclear deal in the future. Indeed, after setting precedent by themselves, both India and the US have no legal and moral grounds to challenge the legality of the Pak-China nuclear deal. It is rather ironic that the ‘original sinner’ was granted a waiver for its transgressions, as India used its civil nuclear technology for the development of nuclear weapons, igniting the nuclear arms race in South Asia.

When Pak-China nuclear deal was initiated in 1986, China was not a part of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) nor had it signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) which it did so in 1992 and joined the NSG in 2004. As long as the International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards are not being violated, suspicions are unjustified. Nevertheless, despite international pressures, both Beijing and Islamabad are determined to go ahead in relation to nuclear cooperation and are working towards sustained development in Pakistan. Given the worsening energy crisis in our country and the problems in this area, the fact that China is set to export nuclear reactors is a hugely positive step towards addressing the energy shortage.

China and Pakistan plan on building a rail link, which would pass through Gilgit-Baltistan near the Karakoram Highway. This has sparked a debate in India. In this regard, Indian Minister of State for Defence M M Pallam Raju said, “It is definitely a matter of concern.”

Notably, despite showing more cooperation with our country, the main aim of the US including its allies like India and Israel remains to de-nuclearise Pakistan. Moreover, ideal geo-strategic location of our country with the Gawadar port, linking Central and South Asia entailing Islamabad’s close ties with China pinches the eyes of US, India and Israel which are in collusion to destabilise Pakistan for their common interests. America should not side in Indo-Israeli Nexus at the cost of Pakistan; the US has no better ally than Pakistan at least in this region. Any such support would prove suicidal for the American interests; America will find no better and tested ally than Pakistan.

It is owing to these reasons that Pakistan, its army and intelligence agency, ISI have become special targets of the external plot, even under the Obama Administration. Availing the opportunity of the western propaganda, CIA, RAW and Mossad have also increased their clandestine activities against Pakistan and Iran by supporting the insurgents of Balochistan.

It is mentionable that the US intends to control Balochistan as an independent state in counterbalancing China and containing Iran. Therefore, America and India are creating instability in Pakistan by backing Baloch separatists to complete their hidden agenda.

There is a CIA and Indian-supported separatist group, Jundullah (God’s soldiers) which is also working against the cordial relationship of Pakistan with China and Iran. In the past few years, its militants with the cooperation of foreign agents kidnapped and killed many Chinese and Iranian nationals in Pakistan. In that context, on April 18, 2008, Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi vocally pointed out, “Some external forces are trying to weaken China-Pakistan strategic ties” by “creating misunderstandings”.

Plot by foreign elements against Balochistan and China could also be judged from the “Indian Defence Review,” of Jan-Mar 2009. The Review, while suggesting the disintegration of Pakistan, wrote that for New Delhi, “this opens a window of opportunity to ensure that the Gawadar port does not fall into the hand of China. Afghanistan will gain stability…India’s access to Central Asian energy routes will open up.”

It is worth mentioning that the revelations of Israel’s ambassador to India, Mark Sofer during his interview to the Indian weekly Outlook as published on February 18, 2008, had surprised Pakistan, China and the Middle. On a question regarding India’s defense arrangements with Israel, Sofer, while indicating two identical situations, disclosed, “We do have a defense relationship with India, which is no secret. On the other hand, what is secret is the defense relationship”. And “with all due respect, the secret part will remain a secret.”

Nevertheless, external plot against Balochistan is part of the conspiracy against Pakistan and China—not tolerated by the US, India and Israel, which have been trying to virtually besiege particularly our country as noted through a perennial wave of suicide attacks and bomb blasts. In this respect, by covertly backing the Baloch nationalist leaders, foreign elements have been fulfilling a number of covert designs.

Nonetheless, it needs to be reminded that China is one of the few countries that has always remained Pakistan’s strong ally, one that has never failed in coming to our aid. In the new world order, where the US is evidently siding with India as a counterweight to China’s rapid economic expansion and growing power, Pakistan is China’s most dependable friend. President Zardari’s trip is a reinforcement of the deep and long lasting ties both countries have always enjoyed. In the face of international doubt and pressure, it has been these two allies, which have always stood by each other. There is no doubt that China is an ever-supportive ally. Both countries are making efforts to further strengthen their relationship and enhance strategic ties.

Sajjad Shaukat is a regular contributor to www.opinion-maker.org He writes on international affairs and is author of the book: US vs Islamic Militants, Invisible Balance of Power: Dangerous Shift in International Relations.

erna4 State's Unalienable Rights, Take a look

HOW LIEBERMAN STOLE OUR FREEDOMS

Real Zionist News (SM)

For The Best Alternative News CLICK: Rense.com Here
________________________________________

NO MAN IS MORE RESPONSIBLE for bringing America into a Police State than Senator Joseph Lieberman.

Only one month after 9/11, Lieberman, who describes himself as an “observant” Jew, seized upon an opportunity to oversee a Jewish police state whereby he could intrude upon the privacy of American citizens and share military and security secrets with Israel.

While holding the chair of the “Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs,” Lieberman introduced on October 11, 2001, Senate Bill 1534, to establish the US Department of Homeland Security.

Anticipating the bill’s certain passage, Lieberman gave himself automatic chairmanship after he changed the name of his committee to, “The Senate Committee of Homeland Security and Government Affairs.”

Since then, Lieberman has been the main force behind legislation such as: -1- The USA Patriot Act -2- Protect America Act -3- National Emergency Centers Establishment Act -4- The Enemy Belligerent Interrogation Act -5- The Terrorist Expatriation Act, and the proposed -6- Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act.

PERSECUTING THE LIGHT

A CLOSER LOOK at a few of Lieberman’s legislations reveals a Jewish tyranny at work:

The Enemy Belligerent Interrogation Act: Empowers the US president and the military to determine if an individual poses a terrorist threat so that he can be arrested, detained, and interrogated indefinitely.

Under this Bill, known as the “Patriot Act on Steroids,” suspects would lose their Miranda rights and Sixth Amendment Right to an Attorney and fair trial. View Entire Story Here & Here.

Terrorist Expatriation Act: Strips terrorism suspects of their US citizenship, thereby making them immediately eligible for military tribunals apart from the right of due process, legal arrest, and conviction.

The bill applies to all Americans who support any organization that is deemed a supporter of terrorism by an ally of the US. The bill gives the State Department, (run by Jews), the power to determine who is a terrorist and strip away his citizenship. View Entire Story Here & Here.

Protect America Act: Empowers the Attorney General to collect private international communications made by phone calls and emails.

The bill, described as the “Police America Act,” grants immunity to telephone companies and allows the Attorney General to issue warrants to record international calls without court review. View Entire Story Here.

National Emergency Centers Establishment Act: Empowers Congress to build FEMA camps for “dislocated citizens.” View Entire Story Here.

Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act: Empowers the President to lock down the Internet during a national emergency. View Entire Story Here.

PERHAPS YOU’VE BEEN WONDERING with a particular gnawing at your guts, what dark forces have been at work in this now gloomy and depressed America?

It’s the same dark forces that persecuted the divine light which came into the world 2,000 years ago. And crucifying all that is good, free, divine and human, is still Jewry’s game…

SEE: The Brother Nathanael Foundation Website HERE

___________________________________

For More See: The Real Enemy Mr. Lieberman? - Muslims Or Jews? Click Here

And: The Coming Jewish Lock-Down Of The Internet Click Here

And: The Rise Of The US Surveillance State & The Jews Behind It Click Here

And: A Jewish Police State Is Coming Click Here

And: A New Vision For A New America Click Here

CLICK: Brother Nathanael! Street Evangelist!

Support Brother Nathanael! HERE


Or Send Your Contribution To: Brother Nathanael Kapner; PO Box 1242;Frisco CO 80443
E-mail: bronathanael@yahoo.com

erna4 State's Unalienable Rights

DEBUNKING JOE FARAH’S JEWISH FABLES

By Rev. Ted Pike
12 July 10

The Bible warns Christians to ignore “Jewish fables.” (Titus 1:14) In 1948 Israel violently drove half of the Arab population from Palestine, stealing land on which they had lived and farmed for thousands of years. To distract the world from this outrage, Israel created an elaborate tapestry of fables deluding generations of evangelicals and much of the world.

The most audacious claim of such propaganda is that the Palestinians were not deprived of their land because the Palestinians as a land-owning people never existed! They never inhabited Palestine in significant numbers and only entered in the 20 th century as squatters, benefitting from the hospitality and prosperity of Israel. Zionist mythology also teaches that the number of Jews living in much of Palestine, especially in Jerusalem, always exceeded the Arabs, strengthening Israel’s right to remain the dominant occupant.

The Encyclopedia of the Palestine Problem explains Israel’s strategy:

“In order to create an alleged justification for the crime of genocide they have committed against the Palestinian Arabs, the Zionists have tried to convince the world that Palestine was practically uninhabited, ‘A Land Without People For a People Without a Land.’ They created and propagated the myths that the Palestinian Arabs were nomads or semi-nomads without a culture and a civilization, that the Palestinians had neither a national identity nor existence, that the Palestinians lacked an economic structure and roots in the land.” [1]

Those accepting these lies include Joseph Farah, owner and editor-in-chief of WorldNetDaily. In his recent article “The Phony Mideast Debate,” he says, “Today, billions of people all over the world actually believe that the ‘Palestinians’ are just in their quest for a homeland they never knew, a homeland that never existed, a homeland that is as fictitious as their rewritten historical narrative.”

Farah claims that Palestine, even after World War II, was “still largely unpopulated, untamed, undeveloped,” with most of the inhabitants of Jerusalem and adjacent regions being Jewish. Most Arabs, he says, became interested in coming to this near-wasteland only after Zionists brought economic and agricultural prosperity. They then flooded in as migrants from Jordan and other Mideast countries “coinciding with Jewish immigration and ingenuity.”

Zionist propaganda also claims that when war became imminent between the Israelis and Arabs in 1948, this large indigent population of about 800,000, possessing no loyalty to the land, fled to safer countries. After the war, Israel says they then preposterously claimed they were driven out of their “homeland,” a land they never owned! Israel, says Farah, has been falsely “recast in the public’s mind as Goliath,” persecuting the Palestinian outcasts and occupying their ancestral property.

“This is not occupation, as the world suggests.” Farah contends, “This is a people defending their one and only homeland against the most vicious and unjustified attacks imaginable.”

From Farah to Facts

In 1882, the Jewish population of Palestine was about 24,000. In 1914, the entire population of Palestine was estimated at 634,133 Muslim and Christian Arabs and 55,413 Jews. In 1920, after the British mandate, the official census showed the Arab population, both Muslim and Christian, at nearly 600,000, still greatly exceeding the Jews, who numbered 66,574. Until 1948 the Arab population continued to exceed the Jewish by roughly 2:1. [2] Farah says Jews for centuries had dominated the region, “the majority of the population of Jerusalem and surrounding areas being Jewish.” Yet the last official British census in 1931 found Arabs in Jerusalem outnumbered Jews 2:1 with surrounding areas averaging 98% Arab! The Ad Hoc Committee on the Palestinian Question in the United Nations found in 1948 that, except for Haifa, “the Arabs have a clear majority over the Jews.” [3]

So much for the Israeli/Farah claim that for centuries Jews in Jerusalem and surrounding areas have outnumbered a tiny Arab population!

During World War I, Arabs fought with the Allies against the Turks in hope of acquiring national independence. After the Balfour Declaration in 1917, the people of Palestine were considered by the League of Nations a “provisionally independent nation” very close to sovereignty. By 1947 Palestinian Arabs played a predominant role in government under the British. “The total number of government officials was 44,688 persons, of whom 4,314 were British, 30,178 Arabs, 9,276 Jews, and 920 others.” [4] Arabs also vastly outnumbered Jews in municipal councils and leadership in hundreds of primarily Arab towns and cities throughout Palestine.

The land of Palestine had been a breadbasket of agricultural plenty going back to the original inhabitants, the Canaanites and later Philistines (for whom Palestine is named). Enjoying a climate similar to California’s, the Old Testament description was a “land that flows with milk and honey.” Certainly, much of Palestine in recent centuries had been over-grazed, particularly the mountainous hill country of Judea surrounding Jerusalem. Such barrenness caused visitor Mark Twain to describe it as barren, with hardly an Arab to be seen. Yet, at nearly the same time, “Lawrence Oliphant, who visited Palestine in 1887, wrote that Palestine’s Valley of Esdraelon was ‘a huge green lake of waving wheat, with its village-crowned mounds rising from it like islands; and it presents one of the most striking pictures of luxurious fertility which it is possible to conceive.’” [5] Numerous pre-20th century accounts, recounted in the Encyclopedia of the Palestine Problem, describe it as a veritable cornucopia of every kind of agricultural produce, with excess exported by the Palestinians even to the nations of Europe.

The Encyclopedia confirms that before 1948

“these Arab towns and villages were not merely place names on a map. They were developed communities containing farms, factories, stores and schools, with an infrastructure of doctors, lawyers, teachers, engineers, merchants, mechanics, industrialists, workers, and farmers which would be the envy of any developing country today…Before 1948 they resided in 12 cities, 8 major towns, and 830 small towns and villages. Arab homes in the cities were either luxurious stone villas with beautiful gardens, or apartments with 2-5 bedrooms. These residences were well-furnished with modern furniture and household goods. No Arab home of the middle and upper classes contained less than eight valuable Persian carpets. All these homes and their furnishings were usurped by Israel.” [6]

General Moshe Dayan tells the truth:

“We came to this country which was already populated by Arabs, and we are establishing a Hebrew, that is, a Jewish state here. Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages. You do not even know the names of these Arab villages, and I do not blame you, because these geography books no longer exist. Not only do the books not exist, the Arab villages are not there either. Nahalal arose in the place of Mahalul; Gevat in the place of Jibta; Sarid in the place of Haneifa and Kefar Yehoshua in the place of Tellshaman. There is not one place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population.” [7]

After 1948, Israel took over 12 cities and large towns and 526 small towns and villages. They bulldozed the towns and villages, building new towns with Jewish names. [8]

The Encyclopedia extensively documents from British records that, far from Palestinians depending on Jewish prosperity, the Zionists were permeated with Marxist/collectivist values, resulting in eventual failure of the “kibbutz” experiment. Fairly new to Mideast agriculture, they were largely inefficient, dependent upon regular massive infusion of Western Jewish capital. [9] Despite a general Israeli policy of boycott of Palestinian goods and services, the Palestinians, with a rapidly growing population in 1948 of 1,444,274, were both politically, socially, and economically racing toward UN-sponsored nationhood in 1948.

Zionist Terror Ends Palestinian Dreams

Such prosperity came to an abrupt, horrific end after the Deir Yassin massacre by Zionist Irgun terrorists on April 9-10, 1948 and many subsequent Jewish outrages and atrocities, panicking 800,000 Palestinians into flight. “In 1948 the Zionists seized 90% of Arab-owned citrus groves, packaging and storage facilities, as well as that year’s crops, looting the prosperous Arab citrus growers, making them destitute refugees.” The same was true of all aspects of Palestinian industry, including olive oil, weaving, textile, tobacco, leather, dairy, wheat, fishing, and construction. In reality, confiscation of Palestinian resources largely constituted the “miracle” of Israel’s sudden abundant agriculture, of which the new state began boasting soon after expulsion of the Palestinians. This delighted evangelicals worldwide who saw it as stunning fulfillment of Biblical prophecy, making the “desert blossom as the rose.” In reality, Israel now possessed thousands of acres of citrus, olives, wheat, etc. seized from the foremost agriculturists of the Middle East, Palestinian orchardists and farmers. The Encyclopedia: “The economic achievements of Israel today are built totally on the capital base of lands, property, and possessions usurped from the Palestinian Arabs.” [10]

Is Israel’s massively documented theft of Palestinian land, as well as Palestinian demand for compensation, really a “phony argument,” as Farah contends? For the safety of his eternal soul, I sincerely hope he has spoken out of ignorance of what really happened in 1948 and has naively made himself the mouthpiece of Zionist lies. It is difficult, however, to believe that Farah, himself of Syrian/Lebanese descent, does not know at least something of the enormous magnitude of injustice towards the Palestinians. If he does yet, continues to parrot Israel’s propaganda (perhaps to please both evangelicals and Jews), there is little doubt where the real phoniness exists: in Farah himself.

Footnotes:

1. The Encyclopedia of the Palestine Problem, edited by Dr. Issa Nakhleh, Continental Books, P.O. Box 756, Grand Central Station, New York, NY 10163-0756, p. 33. This two-volume work, totaling about 1,800 pages, by this Christian Palestinian barrister and diplomat is available in most university libraries and online at www.palestine-encyclopedia.com.
2. Ibid., p. 25.
3. Ibid., p. 26.
4. Ibid., p. 28.
5. Ibid., p. 33.
6. Ibid., p. 34.
7. Ibid., p. 34.
8. Ibid, p. 347.
9. Ibid., p. 49.
10. Ibid., p. 34.

In his article, Farah also endorses the Zionist heresy that a nation of Christ-rejecting Jews can lawfully inhabit God’s Holy Land. While God did promise the land to Abraham because of his faith and continuing obedience, He also told the Hebrews that only by such obedience could they enjoy the same covenant. God told them “because [emphasis mine] you listen to these judgments and keep and do them… the Lord your God will keep with you His covenant and His loving-kindness which He swore to your forefathers.” (Deut. 7:12) In dozens of clear Scriptures, God is emphatic that only by obedience could the Hebrews as a people legitimately occupy Canaan. If they disobey, they will be expelled. Someday, a believing remnant of Jews will give Christ such obedience. But for the present, a wicked, Christian-persecuting Israel remains a counterfeit return. It is Babylon the Great, the Great Harlot of Rev. 17, promoting ascent of anti-Christ, not Jesus Christ. (See, ‘Babylon the Great’ is Israel)

Scriptures laying down God’s conditional terms for occupation include: Lev. 18:28, 26:27-46; Num. 14:23; Deut. 4:26-27; 6:18; 7:12; 28:21, 25, 37, 41, 56-64; 29:28; Deut. 30; Ezek. 13:9; Jer. 7:15; 29:13-14.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Rev. Ted Pike is director of the National Prayer Network, a Christian/conservative watchdog organization.

erna4 State's Unalienable Rights

The Anti-Empire Report

July 5th, 2010
by William Blum
www.killinghope.org

Some thoughts on “patriotism” written on July 4

Most important thought: I’m sick and tired of this thing called “patriotism”.

The Japanese pilots who bombed Pearl Harbor were being patriotic. The German people who supported Hitler and his conquests were being patriotic, fighting for the Fatherland. All the Latin American military dictators who overthrew democratically-elected governments and routinely tortured people were being patriotic — saving their beloved country from “communism”.

General Augusto Pinochet of Chile, mass murderer and torturer: “I would like to be remembered as a man who served his country.” ¹

P.W. Botha, former president of apartheid South Africa: “I am not going to repent. I am not going to ask for favours. What I did, I did for my country.” ²

Pol Pot, mass murderer of Cambodia: “I want you to know that everything I did, I did for my country.” ³

Tony Blair, former British prime minister, defending his role in the murder of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis: “I did what I thought was right for our country.” ⁴

At the end of World War II, the United States gave moral lectures to their German prisoners and to the German people on the inadmissibility of pleading that their participation in the holocaust was in obedience to their legitimate government. To prove to them how legally and morally inadmissable this defense was, the World War II allies hanged the leading examples of such patriotic loyalty.

I was once asked after a talk: “Do you love America?” I answered: “No”. After pausing for a few seconds to let that sink in amidst several nervous giggles in the audience, I continued with: “I don’t love any country. I’m a citizen of the world. I love certain principles, like human rights, civil liberties, democracy, an economy which puts people before profits.”

I don’t make much of a distinction between patriotism and nationalism. Some people equate patriotism with allegiance to one’s country and government or the noble principles they supposedly stand for, while defining nationalism as sentiments of ethno-national superiority. However defined, in practice the psychological and behavioral manifestations of nationalism and patriotism are not easily distinguishable, indeed feeding upon each other.

Howard Zinn called nationalism “a set of beliefs taught to each generation in which the Motherland or the Fatherland is an object of veneration and becomes a burning cause for which one becomes willing to kill the children of other Motherlands or Fatherlands. … Patriotism is used to create the illusion of a common interest that everybody in the country has.” ⁵

Strong feelings of patriotism lie near the surface in the great majority of Americans. They’re buried deeper in the more “liberal” and “sophisticated”, but are almost always reachable, and ignitable.

Alexis de Tocqueville, the mid-19th century French historian, commented about his long stay in the United States: “It is impossible to conceive a more troublesome or more garrulous patriotism; it wearies even those who are disposed to respect it.” ⁶

George Bush Sr., pardoning former Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger and five others in connection with the Iran-Contra arms-for-hostages scandal, said: “First, the common denominator of their motivation — whether their actions were right or wrong — was patriotism.” ⁷

What a primitive underbelly there is to this rational society. The US is the most patriotic, as well as the most religious, country of the so-called developed world. The entire American patriotism thing may be best understood as the biggest case of mass hysteria in history, whereby the crowd adores its own power as troopers of the world’s only superpower, a substitute for the lack of power in the rest of their lives. Patriotism, like religion, meets people’s need for something greater to which their individual lives can be anchored.

So this July 4, my dear fellow Americans, some of you will raise your fists and yell: “U! S! A! … U! S! A!”. And you’ll parade with your flags and your images of the Statue of Liberty. But do you know that the sculptor copied his mother’s face for the statue, a domineering and intolerant woman who had forbidden another child to marry a Jew?

“Patriotism,” Dr. Samuel Johnson famously said, “is the last refuge of a scoundrel.” American writer Ambrose Bierce begged to differ — It is, he said, the first.

“Patriotism is the conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it.” — George Bernard Shaw

“Actions are held to be good or bad, not on their own merits but according to who does them, and there is almost no kind of outrage — torture, the use of hostages, forced labour, mass deportations, imprisonment without trial, forgery, assassination, the bombing of civilians — which does not change its moral colour when it is committed by ‘our’ side. … The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.” — George Orwell ⁸

“Pledges of allegiance are marks of totalitarian states, not democracies,” says David Kertzer, a Brown University anthropologist who specializes in political rituals. “I can’t think of a single democracy except the United States that has a pledge of allegiance.” ⁹ Or, he might have added, that insists that its politicians display their patriotism by wearing a flag pin. Hitler criticized German Jews and Communists for their internationalism and lack of national patriotism, demanding that “true patriots” publicly vow and display their allegiance to the fatherland. In reaction to this, postwar Germany has made a conscious and strong effort to minimize public displays of patriotism.

Oddly enough, the American Pledge of Allegiance was written by Francis Bellamy, a founding member, in 1889, of the Society of Christian Socialists, a group of Protestant ministers who asserted that “the teachings of Jesus Christ lead directly to some form or forms of socialism.” Tell that to the next Teaparty ignoramus who angrily accuses President Obama of being a “socialist”.

Following the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, we could read that there’s “now a high degree of patriotism in the Soviet Union because Moscow acted with impunity in Afghanistan and thus underscored who the real power in that part of the world is.” ¹⁰

“Throughout the nineteenth century, and particularly throughout its latter half, there had been a great working up of this nationalism in the world. … Nationalism was taught in schools, emphasized by newspapers, preached and mocked and sung into men. It became a monstrous cant which darkened all human affairs. Men were brought to feel that they were as improper without a nationality as without their clothes in a crowded assembly. Oriental peoples, who had never heard of nationality before, took to it as they took to the cigarettes and bowler hats of the West.” — H.G. Wells, British writer ¹¹

“The very existence of the state demands that there be some privileged class vitally interested in maintaining that existence. And it is precisely the group interests of that class that are called patriotism.” — Mikhail Bakunin, Russian anarchist ¹²

“To me, it seems a dreadful indignity to have a soul controlled by geography.” — George Santayana, American educator and philosopher

Another thing Americans have to be thankful for on July 4

The US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has a new feature on their website called “Find Insurance Options”. You just provide certain information about your family size, your age, your employment situation, your financial situation, whether you have certain disabilities or diseases, whether you now have Medicare or some other health insurance, or how long you have not had health insurance, whether you have been denied insurance, whether you are someone’s dependent, a veteran? an American Indian? an Alaskan Native? etc., etc., etc. … and the site gives you suggestions as to where and how you might find health insurance that might suit your particular needs. The head of HHS, Kathleen Sebelius, tells us “This is an incredibly impressive consumer tool,” adding that the site is capable of providing tailored responses to about 3 billion [sic] individual scenarios. “This information can give folks choices that they just didn’t have any idea they had available to them.” ¹³

Isn’t that remarkable? Where else but in America could one have such choice? Certainly not in Communist Cuba. There it’s only one scenario, one size fits all — you’re sick, you go to a doctor or to a hospital, and you get taken care of to the best of their abilities; no charge; doesn’t matter what your medical problem is, doesn’t matter what your financial situation is, doesn’t matter what your employment situation is, there’s no charge. No one has health insurance. No one needs health insurance. Isn’t that boring? Communist regimentation!

Separation of oil and state?

On May 19, in a congressional hearing, Rep. Jason Altmire (D-Pa.) asked BP America President Lamar McKay: “Is there any technology that exists that you know of that could have prevented this from happening?”

“I don’t know of a piece of technology that could have prevented it,” replied McKay. ¹⁴

Given the extremely grave consequences of a deepwater oil-drilling accident that’s a pretty good argument that such operations are too risky and dangerous to be permitted, is it not?

Moreover, if it could have been prevented if BP had not been so negligent and reckless to save money, can we count on all oil companies in the future to never put profits before safety? I think not. And if an accident happens can we count on the company being able to rectify the damage quickly and efficiently? Apparently not.

So, will those who serve corporate America learn a lesson from the BP Gulf of Mexico disaster? Well, consider the following: Oil companies – even as you read this — are busy making plans for further Gulf drilling; in June the Mineral Management Service of the US Interior Department was continuing to issue waivers to these companies which exempt them from submitting a detailed analysis of the environmental impact of their plans, not at the moment for drilling new wells but to modify their existing projects in the Gulf; one waiver was to a British company called BP. ¹⁵… Here’s the District Manager for Louisiana of the Mineral Management Service: “Obviously, we’re all oil industry. Almost all of our inspectors have worked for oil companies and on these same [oil drilling] platforms.” ¹⁶… A financial analyst at the preeminent bank J.P. Morgan Chase announced some good news for us — the US Gross Domestic Product could gain slightly from all the expenditures for cleaning up the mess, adding that “the magnitude of these setbacks looks dwarfed by the scale of the US macroeconomy”. ¹⁷… And three leading congressional Republicans recently referred to the spill as a “natural” disaster. ¹⁸

If I were the president I would in fact prohibit all underwater drilling for oil, permanently. President Obama announced a six-month prohibition and has run into a brick wall of oil companies, politicians, and the courts. He’ll cave in, as usual, but I wouldn’t. How would I make up for the loss of this oil? Not by importing more oil, but sharply reducing our usage. Here are two suggestions to begin with:

The US Department of Defense is not only the leading consumer of oil in the United States, it is the leading oil consumer in the entire world. A 2007 report by a defense contractor posits that the Pentagon in its foreign wars and worldwide military support operations (such as maintaining thousands of bases at home and abroad) might consume as much as 340,000 barrels (14 million gallons) every day, a quantity greater than the total national consumption of Sweden or Switzerland. ¹⁹ This is taken from an article with the title: “How Wars of the Future May Be Fought Just to Run the Machines That Fight Them”. If the American defense industry is added in, the military-industrial complex would be 12th in the world in oil consumption, more than India.

Accordingly, as president, I would take the admittedly controversial step of abolishing the United States military. The total savings, including the mammoth reduction in oil consumption, would be more than a trillion dollars a year.

Class assignment:

1. Try and think of the things that would improve the quality of life in American society, things that money could bring about, that would not be covered by a trillion dollars.
2. If you believe that having no military would open the United States to foreign invasion, state:
   1. who would invade;
   2. why they would do so;
   3. how many soldiers they would need to occupy a nation of more than 300 million people.
3. List the dozen wars the United States has been involved in since the 1980s and specify which of them you are glad and proud of.
4. On October 28, 2002, five men were murdered by a mob in India because they had killed a (sacred) cow. ²⁰ On the very same day the United States was actively engaged in preparing to invade Iraq and kill thousands of people for control of their oil. Discuss which society was more insane.

Second suggestion to reduce oil usage: Public transportation would be nationalized so as to reduce prices to levels very easily affordable for virtually the entire population, resulting in a huge reduction of private automobile and gasoline usage. This public transportation system would not be required to show a profit. Like the military now.

The Cold War is over. Long live the Cold War.

I recently attended a showing of Oliver Stone’s new documentary film, “South of the Border”, which concerns seven present-day government leaders of Latin America -– in Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Argentina, Paraguay, Cuba and Brazil — who are not in love with US foreign policy. After the film there was a discussion panel in the theatre, consisting of Stone, the two writers of the film (Tariq Ali and Mark Weisbrot) and Cynthia Arnson, Director of the Latin American Program of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, in Washington; the discussion was moderated by Neal Conan of National Public Radio.

It perhaps was not meant to be a “debate”, but it quickly became that, with Arnson leading the “anti-communist” faction, supported somewhat by Conan’s questions and more vociferously by a segment of the audience which took sides loudly via applause and cries of approval or displeasure. Twenty years post-Cold War, anti-communism still runs deep in the American soul and psyche. Candid criticism of US foreign policy and/or capitalism is sufficient to consign a foreign government or leader to the “communist” camp whether or not that term is specifically used.

In the late 1980s, as Mikhail Gorbachev was steering the Soviet Union away from its rivalry with the West in a bid for a “new thinking” foreign policy, Georgiy Arbatov, director of the Soviet’s Institute for U.S. and Canadian Studies, declared to the United States: “We will do the most horrible thing to you; we will leave you without an enemy.” ²¹

The American military-industrial-intelligence complex understands the need for enemies only too well, even painfully. Here is U.S. Col. Dennis Long, speaking in 1992, shortly after the end of the Cold War, when he was director of “total armor force readiness” at Fort Knox, Kentucky:

For 50 years, we equipped our football team, practiced five days a week and never played a game. We had a clear enemy with demonstrable qualities, and we had scouted them out. [Now] we will have to practice day in and day out without knowing anything about the other team. We won’t have his playbook, we won’t know where the stadium is, or how many guys he will have on the field. That is very distressing to the military establishment, especially when you are trying to justify the existence of your organization and your systems. ²²

Arbatov was right about the United States fearing a world without an enemy, but wrong about the United States actually being left without one. In addition to all the enemies produced in the Middle East by military interventions and the War on Terror, the US has had a continuous supply of “communists” challenging Washington’s militant hegemony – from Yugoslavia, Cuba and Haiti to the present large crop in Latin America. We should realize that the Cold War was essentially not a struggle between the United States and the Soviet Union. It was more a struggle between the United States and the Third World. The US sought to dominate the Third World and intervened in many countries even when the Soviets were not playing any significant role at all in the political tumult in those places, albeit Washington propaganda routinely yelled “communist”. There existed a strong push in the United States to stand tall against communism, particularly communism of the invisible variety, since that was the most dangerous kind.

In actuality, Bolshevism and Western liberalism were united in their opposition to popular revolution. Russia was a country with a revolutionary past, not a revolutionary present; and the same could be said about the United States.

In the post-film discussion, Stone replied to a charge of the film being biased by stating that the US media is generally so slanted against the governments in question that his film is an attempt to strike a needed balance. Indeed, it must be asked: How many of the 1400 American daily newspapers or the numerous television stations even occasionally report on Washington’s continually ongoing attempts to subvert the governments in question or present the programs and policies of their leaders in a positive light? Particularly Hugo Chávez of Venezuela and Evo Morales of Bolivia, the two main focuses of the film; not forgetting of course that American journalists accuse Cuba of violating human rights first thing upon their awakening each morning.

While we no longer hear about the “international communist conspiracy”, American foreign policy remains profoundly unchanged. It turns out that whatever Washington officials and diplomats at the time thought they were doing, the Cold War revisionists have been vindicated; it was not about containing something called “communism”; it was about American supremacy, expansion and economic interests.

Choosing a warlord

The media have been rather preoccupied by the replacement of General Stanley McChrystal by General David Petraeus in Afghanistan; it’s been like gossip-column material, or a sporting event, or the Oscars; “Petraeus for president” some clamor, lots of letters to the editor, all over the Internet. Some journalists have discussed which general would be better for the war effort. To me, this is tantamount to asking “Which Doctor Strangelove do you prefer to be in charge of our international psychotic mass murdering?” Hmm … let’s see … hmm … ah, here’s the answer: Who gives a fuck?

Note to subscribers

If you use a spam filter that rejects emails sent to more than a specified number of people, please make sure that my email address is made an exception. The several mailings of this report each month are each sent to more than 700 people at the same time.

Notes

1. Sunday Telegraph (London), July 18, 1999 ^?
2. The Independent (London), November 22, 1995 ^?
3. Far Eastern Economic Review (Hong Kong), October 30, 1997, article by Nate Thayer, pages 15 and 20 ^?
4. Washington Post, May 11, 2007, p.14 ^?
5. “Passionate Declarations” (2003), p.40; … Z Magazine, May 2006, interview by David Barsamian ^?
6. “Democracy in America” (1840), chapter 16 ^?
7. New York Times, December 25, 1992 ^?
8. “Notes on Nationalism”, p.83, 84, in “Such, Such Were the Joys” (1945) ^?
9. Alan Colmes, “Red, White and Liberal” (2003), p.30 ^?
10. San Francisco Examiner, January 20, 1980, quoting a “top Soviet diplomat” ^?
11. “The Outline of History” (1920), vol. II, chapter XXXVII, p.782 ^?
12. “Letters on Patriotism”, 1869 ^?
13. Washington Post, July 1, 2010 ^?
14. Washington Post, June 17, 2010 ^?
15. McClatchy-Tribune News Service, June 20, 2010 ^?
16. Washington Post, May 27, 2010 ^?
17. Wall Street Journal, June 15, 2010 ^?
18. Washington Post, June 18, 2010 ^?
19. Michael Klare, “The Pentagon v. Peak Oil“, Tom Dispatch, June 14, 2007 ^?
20. Washington Post, October 29, 2002, p.18 ^?
21. “Russia Now”, a supplement to the Washington Post, Oct. 28, 2009, p.H4 ^?
22. New York Times, February 3, 1992, p.8 ^?

–

William Blum is the author of:

• Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War 2
• Rogue State: A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower
• West-Bloc Dissident: A Cold War Memoir
• Freeing the World to Death: Essays on the American Empire

Portions of the books can be read, and signed copies purchased, at www.killinghope.org

Previous Anti-Empire Reports can be read at this website.

To add yourself to this mailing list simply send an email to bblum6 [at] aol.com with “add” in the subject line. I’d like your name and city in the message, but that’s optional. I ask for your city only in case I’ll be speaking in your area.

(Or put “remove” in the subject line to do the opposite.)

Any part of this report may be disseminated without permission. I’d appreciate it if the website were mentioned.

Home

erna4 State's Unalienable Rights

By WJ Anthony

The Declaration’s second paragraph states:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness….”

The Second Paragraph describes the two proofs that legitimize all governments that have a right to exist.

1. A government is legitimate if it derives its just powers to act from the consent of the people who will be governed by such government.
2. The sole purpose of government powers is to secure the unalienable rights of the people.

The Conservative Republicans’ vehement opposition to the Federal health care law claims that the government has no right to impose taxes on employers and Americans workers to fund the healthcare coverage for all Americans.

The purpose of a legitimate government of the people, by the people and for the people is to secure the rights of the people to live and be free to pursue happiness. Good nutrition, decent housing, and good education support the health of our bodies and inspire our minds to pursue happiness.

Happiness in American society depends on adequate money to pay the costs of living. Lucky are we, who can presently afford to pay the costs of food, shelter, healthcare, etc. But what about those who don’t have the income to purchase those costs of living, such as those who are unemployed or do not earn a living wage? Are the poor included in what the writers of the Declaration intended?

When America’s founders consented to give their new government the powers to secure their Life, Liberty and pursuit of Happiness, they knew that their government would require taxes to purchase the goods and services that enable government to secure each American’s life, their liberty and their right to pursue happiness.

What do we, today, expect our taxes to accomplish? Do we understand that our taxes should be our investments that enable government to secure our unalienable rights to pursue happiness? If we consent to empower our government with taxes, which taxes are spent to secure our happiness? How many of our taxes really do that? The vast majority of our federal taxes are spent on military ventures that do not protect us but do enrich the manufacturers of warfare weaponry.

Recently, a member of our family faced a medical do or die emergency, which required three critical surgical operations during a month-long hospitalization involving a tenuous recovery prospect that required superb medical and nursing care. The healthcare services were awesome. The attitude and expertise of the staff at all levels demonstrated the value of their motivation. The emergency was solved; our patient is successfully recovering.

I was able to compare this service to what I saw was provided in another state to my African-American spouse in an emergency situation. The emergency staff denied/delayed treatment because of apparent lack of adequate health coverage or probably mistakenly suspecting that she was reacting to a drug overdose; they chose to allow her to suffer four hours of abdominal pain without the appropriate medical examination or treatment, that would have certainly saved her life.

By contrast, the success in the treatment at the recent hospital seemed to be primarily due to the motivation of the staff of two hospitals. The North Suburban Hospital in Thornton, Colorado admitted the family member immediately to Emergency Intensive Care and devotedly saved her life. Within days, the Kaiser Permanente Healthcare Program transferred her to the Exempla Good Samaritan Medical Center in Lafayette, Colorado.

The motivational difference in the staffs at both Colorado hospitals is embedded in the name - Good Samaritan - which is based on that biblical story in Luke 10:25-37 about the man from Jericho who was robbed, wounded and left half dead, then was ignored and avoided by a priest and a Levite who passed him by, but was helped by a Samaritan who compassionately treated him as a neighbor.

Such a motive was evident at both Colorado hospitals. Exempla Good Samaritan Medical Center lists their goal “To be the best in the nation”. Its service and facility is truly tuned to that goal and motive.

During the past three weeks, I recalled the tone and frequent anger in the many articles by Republican Christians who vehemently denounced the government healthcare legislation. I wondered if they were aware of the immense federal tax expenditures that fund the US war efforts in Afghanistan, Iraq and the hundreds of US military bases in countries around the world. Those expenditures do not win friends of people in foreign countries.

If, however, those taxes were used to build and train Good Samaritan type medical centers in those countries, we would achieve their friendships far better than providing them with the fear of violent death by guns and bombs. Instead of wasting the taxes of Republican Christians on wars, many of our cities in America could use those same taxes to build and train medical facilities like those at Good Samaritan Medical Center.

erna4 State's Unalienable Rights

SCO: Its Revival and Future Prospects

Posted on 24. Jun, 2010 by Raja Mujtaba in SCOBy Dr. Raja Muhammad Khan

SCO

Zbigniew Kazimierz Brzezinski, the 10^th US national security advisor, who attained the international fame as a political scientist, geo-strategist and a statesman had advanced the theory that; “Control of the Eurasian landmass is the key to global domination and control of Central Asia is the key to control of the Eurasian landmass. Through the formation of Shanghai Cooperation Organization, Russia and China, perhaps tried to implement the Brzezinski’s theory. Whilst the interests of both countries converge on the US and NATO expulsion from the region, it diverges on securing their respective interests in the Central Asian region.

Originally created as, “Shanghai-Five” in 1996, the organization was renamed as Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) in 2001. Today it represents half of the global populace and over 60% of the world landmass. It was in the same context, that President Nursultan Nazarbayev, said on the eve of its 5^th Summit held in Astana, Kazakhstan in 2005, that, “The leaders of the states sitting at this negotiation table are representatives of half of humanity.”

Established by signing the Treaty on Deepening Military Trust in Border Regions, the Shanghai-Five, later signed the Treaty on Reduction of Military Forces in Border Regions in 1997. Upon transformation to SCO in June 2001, Russia and China signed the “Treaty of Good-Neighbourliness and Friendly Cooperation” in July 2001. In the subsequent year (June 2002), the charter of the organization was signed; laying down its principles, purposes, and organizational structures. SCO, indeed, came into being at a time, once there was a significant rise in the Chinese power and Russia was struggling to break the inertia of economic strangulation. Within months of its formation, the world was presented by the Zionists with a new challenge to fight the global war on terror, following the incident of 9/11.

From its inception, the organization had no plans to become a military bloc. However, in its initial years, and owing to the incident of 9/11, the organization perceived as the counter weight to NATO; or else a replacement of Warsaw. With the same perception, NATO and U.S were asked to give a timetable for the vacation of the air bases occupied by them in Central Asian region, from the platform of SCO. It still raises voices from its platform against the presence of extra-regional forces in the region. Upon its emphasis and protest of Uzbekistan, US was compelled to vacate the Karshi-Khanabad air bases in that country; also known as K-2 air bases in 2007.

The Organization is centered around the security related issues of its six members and especially the Central Asian region. In the post Soviet Central Asia, terrorism, separatism, and extremism are the common threats. To combat these issues, SCO established the Regional Anti-terrorism Structure (RATS) in its 2004 Summit. SCO has signed an agreement with the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) in 2007. The organization has the collective vow to fight the terrorism, cross border drug trafficking and other security issues.

Although SCO negates any future military role from its platform, yet, in the past few years, it has increased its military cooperation and intelligence sharing in the region. There have been number collective military exercises of high level. These joint exercises include troops from China and Russia besides Central Asian States. Russia even used its strategic bombers during these exercises. In the wake of US and NATO troops in the neighbourhood (Afghanistan), these exercises portray a show of force and a collective vow against the presence of extra-regional forces. Indeed, in 2007, in the presence of Chinese President, Mr. Hu, former Russian President Putin said on the eve of these military exercises that, “Russian strategic bombers, would resume regular long-range patrols for the first time since the Cold War.” Starting today, such tours of duty will be conducted regularly and on the strategic scale. Our pilots have been grounded for too long. They are happy to start a new life.”

Besides cooperation in the field of security, the SCO member states are cooperating in the field of economy. All SCO members are also members of Eurasian Economic Community; a framework agreement to enhance economic cooperation signed in 2003. Apart from establishment of free trade area, all member states are cooperating in the field of energy. During the 9^th Summit of SCO, China announced to provide $10 billion as a loan to SCO members to shore up their economic crises. SCO countries are also having a cultural cooperation. The organization has now attained the observer status in United Nations General Assembly, EU, ASEAN, OIC, and the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS).

On the eve of 10th Summit of Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), held in Tashkent, Uzbekistan, on June 11, 2010, its member states agreed to open the organization’s membership for other regional countries. Through amendment in its basic charter, rules and regulations transmuted to allow new membership in the organization. In-spite of the global and regional crisis, and financial recession,       the Tashkent Declaration, “ pledged to strengthen mutual support on issues relating to each other’s core interests, boost cooperation in the combat against terrorism, separatism and extremism and other destabilizing factors, enhance cooperation in overcoming the aftermath of the global financial crisis and develop infrastructure in the region.”

With the status of an observer state, Pakistan is striving hard to get its membership. Currently, India, Pakistan, Iran, and Magnolia have the observer status in this organization. Russia is fully backing the Indian membership of SCO, even ahead of Pakistan. Even prior to the Summit, the Russian Ambassador to India, Mr. Alexander Kadakin, said in a statement that, “Our position has all along been that we want India as a full-fledged member of the SCO. The criterion for new membership has not been worked out. But we believe India meets all the requirements to be a member.” While President Zardari, has presented a sound case for the membership of Pakistan in SCO, during its 10th Summit, the Foreign Secretary has expressed the hope that, Pakistan would definitely get the membership of SCO in 2011. Mr. Bashir said that, “SCO heads of states in their speeches focussed on close cooperation among SCO states to secure peace in Afghanistan and combating terrorism and drug trafficking in the region.”

Indeed, by virtue of its geo-political location, Pakistan has the potential to play a pivotal role in development of its relationship with the SCO countries. It is located at the crossroads of South, Central, West, and East Asia, thus becoming the bridge between various regions and civilizations of Asia. SCO otherwise unites civilizations and communities of Euro-Atlantic and Asia-Pacific together. Through the attainment of the SCO’s membership, Pakistan can fully accrue the benefits from this inter-regional and inter-continental harmony. Since SCO members constitute half of the humanity, therefore there are colossal opportunities and challenges for the Pakistan in the days to come. Besides, two major powers (Russia and China), the other members, and observers of the organization include the hydrocarbon rich Central Asian States and Iran and rapidly rising India. By virtue of its geo-strategic location, Pakistan can become beneficial for the organization through the provision of a linkage between all.

Leaving aside the cold war indifferences between Pakistan and Russia, there is need that Pakistan should bolster its strategic ties with Russia, indeed a country with enormous potentials. Compared with the former Communist Soviet Union, Pakistan does not have ideological differences with the modern Russian Federation, a resurgent global power. Through the visit of former President, General Pervaiz Musharraf to Moscow in 2003, the basic groundwork has already been done. Otherwise, Russia does not put traditional opposition to Pakistan at international level. There is a need of gradual built-up of political, economic, and military relationship with Russia. This great power is indeed the next-door neighbour of Pakistan, with whom; we have even ground linkage through Afghanistan and Central Asia. Otherwise, the diversification in the strategic ties is the need of hour.

SCO indeed, is the brainchild of the China, thus this rising global power would remain pivotal to this organization. Sino-Pak relationship has come-up to the test of time. China has been pushing the members of this organization for the permanent membership of Pakistan. Apart from the bi-lateral relationship, the SCO forum can best be utilized for further enhancing the Pak-China relationship. Pakistani geo-politics can greatly enhance the Chinese future needs of energy, to boost its industrial and economic growth.  There is a need that the current level of political, economic, and military cooperation should be further augmented. The recently signed Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline could also be extended up to Xingjian autonomous region of China. Pakistan needs to enhance the volume of its trade with this strategic ally.

Until recently, Pakistan has been dealing with the Central Asian Republics as one entity. This aspect, kept Pakistan much short of attaining its real objectives from the regional geo-politics. While there is no dearth in the immense natural resources of the region, Pakistan needs to correctly identify and exploit these through the development of the bi-lateral relationship with these states, rather as one unit. Through a stabilization process in Afghanistan, there is a need to provide the port access to these land locked countries. The gas pipelines held-up from the region to Pakistan and further east and north, since early 2000 need immediate implementation. There has been a considerable improvement in the Pak-Iran relationship. The forum would further boost and cement this relationship, besides, the current mutuality. Since the only South Asian organization; SAARC could not resolve the traditional bi-lateral issues between these two rival neighbours, therefore, it is expected that the SCO forum may provide such an occasion. Acting as an energy and trade corridor, Pakistan can play a very dominant role in the industrial and economic development of India and China alike. This would be possible only, once the Indo-Pak bi-lateral issues are resolved.

By now, the organization has setup “over twenty large-scale projects related to transportation, energy, and telecommunications and held regular meetings of security, military, defense, foreign affairs, economic, cultural, banking, and other officials from its member states. No multinational organization with such far-ranging and comprehensive mutual interests and activities has ever existed on this scale before.” Apart from strengthen unity and cooperation, maintain stability, and pursue common development in the region, the 10^th SCO Summit, has finalized the strategies, for fighting the “three evil forces,” namely terrorism, separatism and extremism; safeguarding security and stability; and advancing pragmatic cooperation among the members of SCO. As a front line state in the global war on terror, Pakistan would be better placed to divulge the harsh realities; it has faced in this field in last eight years. With the permanent membership, there would be much reduction in the current trust deficit between Pakistan and other SCO members.

The writer is an analyst of International Relations.

erna4 State's Unalienable Rights