Wednesday, November 30, 2005


Research is one of those things that will lead one to pull back in their mind and take a look at their changing values in life. I remember voting for Jimmy Carter for President because he had the moral character that I admired. I looked at the person when I voted because I did not have an ideology about party, at the ripe old age of 24 I was most proud to vote. My values have not changed at all, and I hope that some of you will take the time to read this because I have what I believe to be an important message for anyone that believes in the Lord Jesus Christ, and believes that one must be baptized and born again to be saved. You will hopefully open your eyse to the progression of the United States from 1776 to today.

Now, I want to direct interested readers to my link about the Federal Reserve Act on the right with other links in my blog. There is a real interesting lecture that you can listen to if you wish that tells all about the secret meeting in St. Simons Island, Georgia where the rich and powerful bankers came together in 1913 to create the corporation called the Federal Reserve. Ever since the inception of this exclusive corporation that none of us can buy stock in was formed, every Federal Reserve Chairman has been a Jew. With the formation of the Federal Reserve, we came off the gold standard for our currency, and this is how the United States was able to become the empire building Country that we have become. With a checkbook that never runs out of money, we have had elected Congressman borrowing money to pay for wars and weapons development and one social program after another, and if one has ever been to New York City, you no doubt saw the national debt clock that adds to enormous debt minute by minute. The interest just keeps piling on, and at present each United States Citizen owes about $467,000! Well as my English professor used to say me, "well where are you going with this story?"

Well here I am in 2005, one of the most dyed in the wool Republicans in Macon, Georgia, and a gung ho neocon leading up to the 2004 elections and did not even know I was a neocon. I am looking around on various blogs and see where former President Carter has a book out, and I read the comments and then remember why I voted for him. I voted for him because he had a good old Southern Baptist philosophy, and as a Baptist I related to him.

Well, now what happened to Jimmy Carter: I think back about the very high interest rates in 1981 and how gas prices went sky high. And that is the connection to the Federal Reserve Board that I thought of. You see Jimmy Carter had an isolationist belief system about the United States. As a person, he believes that all people are to be treated equally and he lives his life as Jesus would with being charitable. We all know that President Carter received the Nobel Peace Prize, and we know of his work with Habitat for Humanity. Now think about this, do you really think that these bankers at the Federal Reserve System can make money if we are not at war or not expanding our military bases. Now do not get me wrong here because I definitely believe that we need a strong military. But if we just promoted peace, then perhaps we would be the shining light to the world without dropping one bomb. Now, if the rich and the powerful see a President as an impediment to their financial gain, and do not forget the Federal Reserve is independent of our government, it would not be a hard stretch to realize that those with the power can make or destroy any President or any other political office holder for that matter. The interest rates being high just do not make since when looking back. All of us late baby boomers were first time home buyers, and why were interest rates in 1981 for a mortgage over 15%? You see the theory of supply and demand did not matter in our capitalistic market, when the money suppliers lowered interest rates after 911 to get people to buy cars and SUVs and not just one home, but second homes too! The lowest interest rates in about 40 years, money is here for all like candy to a kid came about at a crucial time when the middle income class needed to feel good about the Republican administration. Now if there is a big demand for money, then does it seem strange that the interest rates went so low? But oh, since I am Ms. Detail, I will clue you in with the piece to this puzzle. Remember we had just had the stock market bubble that burst and then 911, and all of those seniors with certificates of deposit were not going to risk their money in the stock market. Hence, there is money supply to galore, which kept interest rates artificially low. And, the senior citizens that worked and scraped to build a retirement nest egg lost fortunes in the stock market and then could not earn enough interest to keep up with the rising cost of living (inflation is real even if the brainwashers tell us that inflation is low). I see the connection and perhaps some of you do, too. President Carter was not part of the clique of spreading democracy to the rest of the world with force. After Vietnam, those of my generation did not want to lose our loved ones to war and we wanted those values of keeping the peace from a President, and Carter was crucified by the press for his economic failures.

But the media controls how we think, doesn't it? President Carter was made fun of and ridiculed for not having extravagant galas at the White House, and the high interest rates and high gasoline prices were blamed on him. You know the perfect scripture for our Country is "the love of money is the root of all evil." I do not have the chapter and verse, but trust me it is in the Bible.

I do not agree with everything that Jimmy Carter believes in, but I do believe he was a good moral leader for our country. I feel guilty for being manipulated by Fox when Hannity and Company said that a former President should never criticize a former President. You know here I am a defender of the first amendment, and I was agreeing 100% with this message. I thought wow our former President is a traitor to our Country, and I believe I have even heard Ann Coulter criticize President Carter.

I have the perfect quote for this point in my writing: "Even in a society of laws, one of the most indispensable freedoms is that to express in the most impassioned terms the most passionate disagreement with the laws themselves, the institutions of and created by, law, and the individual officials with whom the laws and the institutions are entrusted. Without the freedom to criticize that which constrains, there is no freedom at all."
–Judge J. Michael Luttig, Potential Supreme Court NomineeRice v. Palladin (4th Circuit, 1997)

So here we have a man that has reached the highest office of the land President of the United States and a former Governor of Georgia and a man that served our country in the Navy, and he does not have the freedom of speech. Folks, I am here to tell you our country is not a democracy at all. Our country is being ran by tyrants, by neocons that suppress all dissenting voices. You see, I just got a wake up call myself today. I was posting on Ann Coulter's blog, and I said that I believe that this war is for Israel. I also talked about the Federal Reserve and the New World Order that was destroying our United States by eliminating living wage jobs for our own Citizens. Well Katie bar the door because I had the moderator on the blog put a photo of Hitler by every one of my posts, and I was called anti-semiitc and a bigot and you name it! I was shocked because here I was on Ms. Free Speech First Amendment talk about everybody because the Constitution grants that right to me because I am Ann Couter's blog, and I was actually locked out today! I was banned from the blog by an administrator. There was another poster on the blog that defended my postings and said that he believed me to be a very sincere person. This guy was banned and locked out before me, so I posted a comment in which I called the moderator a fascist and put the definition of a fascist, too. I also told the guy that had defended me that I was sorry that he was banned. But he was not able to read my post at all because being locked out means that when you go to Ann Coulter's blog, you get a message that reads that you are banned and locked out. A locked out person cannot even read the comments that are written about him or her!

So here I sit thinking wow is this the United States of America that my ancestors died for? Is this what our friend, Sgt Kelly Courtney of the USMC, died for in Iraq last October? Hey, I know I am outspoken and opinionated but I am no Hitler by a long shot. I could not believe that I could not post my feelings on the First Amendment Queen's Blog, but then I found this book of President Carter's (sorry I do not remember the title right now), and I thought well who am I compared to a former President!

If you will read my earlier posts, you will see my definition of a neoconservative. After President Carter was defeated is when the neocons left the Democrat Party and lo and behold became Republicans! You also will see in that the neoconservatives are mainly far right Jews and the next majority group of the neoconservatives are Catholics. For those of you that pay attention to details, you will see the connection with Fox News-Bingo all of the journalist are either Jews or Catholics! For those of us in the evangelican Christian faith that were moved to vote for President Bush because of the gay marriage fiasco and the abortion debate (and by the way the abortion debate has been going on since Susan B. Anthony's days), we did not get the fact that we were taken along for a ride to victory. Our rights do not matter, our rights to our property do not matter, our rights to free speech no longer matter and the nomination of Harriet Miers by President Bush was slammed right off the bat!

Guess who was bringing Ms. Miers down? Well for starters we had the Godfather of the Jewish Neocons, Mr. Abrams, then we had Mr. Frum (also a Jewish Neocon and former speech writer for President Bush), Barry Lynde (I believe of the ACLU), and the biggest mouth against the Evangelical Christian, Harriet Miers, was none other than the Catholic, Ann Coulter! Yep, Ms. Coulter that said we should make all Muslims convert to Christianity was so very critical of a very good Supreme Court pick by President Bush! And then we had some political pundits that took leaks from the White House that Ms. Miers was not suitable to interpret the Constitution! Now, any serious person should have said what the hell is going on here anyway? Ms. Miers advised President Bush in Texas and at the White House, would she not to be a very smart person to work for the President? Many of you may not know this, but Supreme Court Judge Scalia thought Ms. Miers would make a good Judge! Now, here is the icing on the cake folks, Judge Alito is a Catholic.

Now do I hate Catholics? No Now do I hate Jews? No But you know what, it sure seems the Catholics and the Jews have no use at all for an Evangelical Christian to become a Judge on the Supreme Court. So a baptized, born again Baptist cannot sit on the Supreme Court because she or he cannot interpret the Constitution. You know I am so disappointed, and I truly believe that President Bush has been let down. It is unbelievable because we never really left our ties with England, and we are indeed still a colony even after the Revolution that secured our Indepedence in 1776 and all of the brave Christian soldiers that died on the battlefield have led us right back to the tyranny of England that the war was all about. You see, we really did not need a war then either in my modest beliefs. We were fighting to get away from high taxation on tea (I would rather pay high taxes on tea than all of the taxes I pay today-how about you?), and to be independent of the tyranny of the Catholic church of England. If you remember history, the elitist controlled all of the wealth and the lower class people were serfs, slaves and or share croppers. So here we are 229 years later, no freedom of speech, controlled media owned by a few major corporations (by the way I almost need to whisper it-majority Jewish controlled), Catholics and right wing Jews in charge of our United States. Now our property can be seized if the state has another interested party that will make better use of our land to generate more tax revenue! Again, "the love of money is the root of all evil." Now do you believe those history professors that said history repeats itself? I most certainly get the big picture, and Lord I pray more people wake up before it is too late. But how can we get our message to the masses when the media suppresses dissenters, and when even our own supporters of the US Constitution (ie Ms. Coulter) suppresses our rights to free speech.

We have lost our individual liberties in the United States, and what is so sad is that most people do not even realize it. Welcome to the New World Order, it is not coming anymore because it is here. My apologies to former President Jimmy Carter, I am so sorry that I went along with the ridicule of you as an important person in our United States. God bless you and God bless President Bush because he is a good and moral man, too. President Bush has more on his plate than any President in my memory with Hurricane Katrina, the War on Terror, and White House leaks. Do you see the correlation here, the Lord is not happy with our United States? Do you really think that Jesus is happy that three born again Christians are ridiculed on a non-stop basis: President Carter, President Bush and Harriet Miers?

This past election 2004 was not what it appears to be with all of the Christians that voted for President Bush. Oh we support the President, but we do not really support the tyranny of his other supporters or those of us that see the big picture most certainly do not. We are not reading and living by the scriptures, as we cannot follow a political party for a Christian awakening because that is following an Anti-Christ. The only person that will lead us to a spiritual awakening and redemption is Jesus Christ when he returns in the second coming. I truly believe the time is growing nearer with each passing day. But our days in this United States are going to get worse and worse with each passing day. Rome fell, and sadly unless we get on a righteous path, so shall we. God Bless America!


MSNBC - The Abrams Report - Debating the Religious Faith of Supreme Court Nominee Harriet Miers

MSNBC - The Abrams Report
October 12, 2005The Nomination of Harriet Miers
Our world today is competitive, getting ahead is not easy. The solid foundation for life is character and faith that no one can take away and time and events do not erode.
DAN ABRAMS: We‘ve just gotten in that tape of Harriet Miers, giving the commencement speech at Pepperdine University earlier this year. She refers to her faith again and again. Today, President Bush suggested that one of the reasons he chose Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court was because of her religious beliefs.
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: People are interested to know why I picked Harriet Miers. They want to know Harriet Miers‘ background. They want to know as much as they possibly can before they form opinions and part of Harriet Miers‘ life is her religion, part of it has to do with the fact that she was a pioneer woman in a trailblazer in the law in Texas.
ABRAMS: Jay Sekulow joins us now from the American Center for Law and Justice. Barry Lynn is with Americans United for the Separation of Church and State. And Tony Mauro is a Supreme Court correspondent for “Legal Times” and “The American Lawyer”.
All right. Barry, you sent out a press release today saying you were extremely troubled by the statements of the president.
Absolutely. You know we are not choosing someone to be a teacher in a Sunday school here. We‘re trying to choose another associate justice for the United States Supreme Court.
The president had a wonderful opportunity today to say when he was asked about religion, to say Harriet Miers is religious, but I cannot talk about this. I have a duty under the Constitution not to violate Article VI, which is a prohibition against any religious test for public office. And he also had an opportunity...
ABRAMS: But wait, Barry, he wasn‘t saying that he had imposed a religious test, was he? I mean all he was saying is...
ABRAMS: ... look, I got to know her. Part of what I know about her is that she‘s religious.
LYNN: Yes, but religion has got to be off the table and he can‘t have Karl Rove, for example, calling James Dobson, the head of “Focus on the Family”, the most important conservative religious leader in the country and saying, oh, by the way, trust the president because Harriet Miers goes to a conservative evangelical church where just about everybody‘s pro-life.
That‘s inappropriate. The president should have condemned Karl Rove for bringing religion into this debate. It has no place whatsoever and I‘d be shocked if even Jay Sekulow thinks we should intrude religion into this kind of debate...
ABRAMS: I will let Jay Sekulow respond. Here‘s what Dobson said today about that.
JAMES DOBSON, “FOCUS ON THE FAMILY”: What did Karl Rove say to me that I knew on Monday that I couldn‘t reveal? Well, it‘s what we all know now. That Harriet Miers is an evangelical Christian, that she is from a very conservative church, which is almost universally pro-life, that she had taken on the American Bar Association on the issue of abortion and fought for a policy that would not be supportive of abortion, that she had been a member of the Texas Right to Life. In other words, there is a characterization of her that was given to me before the president had actually made this decision.
ABRAMS: Jay, isn‘t there something that makes you feel uncomfortable about the idea that the president today is sort of winking and nodding and saying, yes, look, part of the reason I like her is religious. Karl Rove is calling up Dobson and he‘s saying hey, you know don‘t worry she comes from a really conservative church. It all does sound like Rove and to a small degree, the president, are saying hey, she‘s religious. Don‘t worry.
JAY SEKULOW, AMERICAN CTR FOR LAW & JUSTICE: You have to put all of this in context. First of all, Jim Dobson‘s statement about knowing that Harriet is an evangelical Christian that was no secret. That wasn‘t known simply two or three days before the president made any announcement.
That‘s been—for those that knew Harriet, they knew she was a Christian. This wasn‘t any great surprise. And I think what you initially said, Dan, is actually correct. And that is the president didn‘t impose a religious litmus test.
He didn‘t say look, I‘m going to nominate someone only if they believe in this. But he did say this and I think it‘s legitimate. He nominated Harriet Miers because of who she is. Part of who she is is her faith commitment. You know there‘s a lot of talk when there‘s been nominations to the Supreme Court of the United States of justices that are Jewish, Justice Ginsburg, Justice Breyer, and there was a lot of talk about the Jewish seat at the Supreme Court of the United States as if there was a litmus test.
Now none of us were upset or concerned that President Clinton and other presidents have nominated various members of various different religious groups. That doesn‘t bother anyone...
ABRAMS: There seems to be a difference between saying someone is Jewish versus someone is an evangelical Christian...
ABRAMS: ... wait, wait—and therefore, you can be comfortable that this person will be the kind of justice you will like.
SEKULOW: Now, wait a minute. I think we‘ve got to put this into the context of what was said. Karl Rove‘s statements—and I wasn‘t part of those conversations regarding the fact that Harriet Miers is an evangelical Christian—was not—again, that‘s not big news to anybody...
ABRAMS: It‘s just the fact...
ABRAMS: It‘s just the fact that he‘s saying it.
SEKULOW: But hold it. You‘re putting the statement—you‘re saying if someone has a particular faith perspective that should be...
ABRAMS: Jay, it‘s different...
ABRAMS: It‘s not the same to say—we‘re not saying it‘s because she has a faith that‘s the problem...
SEKULOW: But that is part of who she is and it should not be deemed either a qualifier or a disqualifier.
ABRAMS: But the president seemed to be saying that‘s part of the reason that he liked her.
SEKULOW: No, he was answering a question...
SEKULOW: ... that was asked...
SEKULOW: ... her faith is part of who she is...
ABRAMS: All right, let me bring Tony Mauro into this.
ABRAMS: Tony, look, as the objective observer here, this is unusual, is it not, in terms of the history of a candidate before the process begins having—it‘s not unusual to discuss religion, but this sort of subtle back and forth is a bit unusual, is it not?
TONY MAURO, “LEGAL TIMES‘” SUPREME COURT REPORTER: It certainly is and for President Bush to say that this was a reason, one of the factors why he picked Harriet Miers, it‘s like the rules for cross-examination, which you know, Dan, well, you know once he raises the issue, the other side is now entitled to delve into that more deeply. So I think we‘re about to launch into a debate over what does it mean to have an evangelical Christian Supreme Court justice. Does it mean that that person can‘t be open-minded? It‘s kind of...
ABRAMS: What about Jay‘s point, Tony, that when Ruth Bader Ginsburg, even Breyer, you know you talked about the fact that they were Jewish. People talked about it. They said hey, they‘re Jewish. Is this different to you?
MAURO: I think it is because certainly it was mentioned but I don‘t think President Clinton said that he appointed them in part because they were Jewish...
SEKULOW: Let me remind everybody of the discussions that have taken place in Supreme Court history about the role of religion in the Supreme Court justices‘ nomination process. Well you recall that when Justice Goldberg resigned, there was a lot of discussion about should the replacement be Jewish. Now, I don‘t -- I‘m not one that advocates for a litmus test, but I think you‘re taking...
SEKULOW: ... what the president said completely out of context...
ABRAMS: Barry, final word...
ABRAMS: ... final word. I‘ve got to wrap it up.
LYNN: Jay has completely—Jay you‘ve completely distorted this. The point is Karl Rove works for the White House, works for President Bush, was told to call conservative Christians like James Dobson in order to make the point that this is why she should be considered a safe candidate.
That‘s an improper use of religion. Karl Rove, I know he‘s going to the grand jury later in the week for something else...
LYNN: He should have stopped...
LYNN: No, he should have stopped at the wood shed...
ABRAMS: I‘ve got to wrap it up.
ABRAMS: I apologize to all of you.
ABRAMS: You all deserve more time. Jay Sekulow, Barry Lynn, and Tony Mauro...
ABRAMS: Appreciate it.


Putin and the neo-comintern
by Patrick J. BuchananNovember 30, 2005

The Comintern, or Communist International, also known as the Third International, was the 1919 creation of Vladimir Lenin.
Its declared purpose: Fight "by all available means, including armed force, for the overthrow of the international bourgeoisie and for the creation of an international Soviet republic ..."
Fomenting the communist revolution worldwide was, in brief, the Comintern's mission.
At its Seventh World Congress in 1935, however, on Stalin's orders, the Comintern repudiated the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism as its mission and called for formation of Popular Fronts in Western nations to combat fascism – a Moscow First policy.
For this act of heresy, Trotsky, the champion of permanent revolution, excommunicated Stalin as a "reformist" – and was himself rewarded in 1940 with an ice ax in the head, courtesy of Stalinist assassin Ramon Mercader.
But Trotskyism did not die with Leon Trotsky. It mutated and is today the taproot of that neoconservatism that calls for permanent revolution to advance not global communism, but global democracy. Today, this ideology is embedded in the Party of Reagan and the Bush administration, and neoconservatives are using tax dollars to create and operate their own Neo-Comintern.
The National Endowment for Democracy, which pumps out tens of millions of dollars to "promote democracy" abroad, is its pivotal agency. For 20 years, it has been headed by Carl Gershman, who broke from the Socialist Party to organize Social Democrats USA, which rallied to the candidacy of liberal Democratic Sen. Henry "Scoop" Jackson, whose staff was a nesting ground of neocons from Richard Perle to Frank Gaffney to Elliott Abrams.
One organization captured by the Neo-Comintern is Freedom House. Founded by Eleanor Roosevelt and Wendell Willkie in 1941 as a voice for global democracy and human rights, Freedom House, on the eve of the Iraq war, chose as its new chairman ex-CIA Director James Woolsey. By his first anniversary in office, Woolsey had declared Vladimir Putin's Russia "un-free" and was beating the drums for "World War IV" against "Islamofascism."
Flush with tax dollars and tax-deductible contributions(can you believe this is TAX DEDUCTIBLE BY BEEBEE!!!!), NED, Freedom House and their collaborator foundations and think tanks now routinely interfere in the internal affairs of foreign nations. Under the rubric of promoting democracy, creating free markets, etc., they seek to dethrone recalcitrant rulers and advance to power those who share their ideology and will advance their interests and agenda.
Democracy is our goal, the neocons claim. But viewing their target lists in the Middle East, Near East, Central Asia and Latin America, it is perhaps more exact to say the Neo-Comintern seeks destabilization of any and all regimes that fail to meet its criteria for membership in their world democratic revolution.
Though a radical leftist populist, Venezuela's Hugo Chavez was democratically elected. He charges that NED had a hand in the 2002 coup that briefly overthrew his government and in the recall election forced upon him in 2004. Foreign journalists contend that the color-coded popular "revolutions" that ousted Milosevic in Serbia, Shevardnadze in Georgia and the Kuchma crowd in Ukraine were also made in the USA and hand-tooled at Langley.
Observing Kiev's "orange revolution" unfold, the Guardian's Ian Traynor called it "an American creation, a sophisticated and brilliantly conceived exercise in Western branding and mass marketing that, in four countries in four years, has been used to try to salvage rigged elections and topple unsavory regimes."
Russian President Putin, however, is a former KGB colonel who knows a little about subversion and wants to guarantee that what happened to his friends in Belgrade and Kiev does not happen to him or his chosen successor when he transfers power in 2008. And he is moving to restrict, and perhaps expedite the expulsion of, all American and Western meddlers in Russian politics.
"Organizations functioning in our country and involved in political activity are basically being used as instruments of foreign policy of other states," says Putin. And the man has a point.
Which raises questions for our own government. By what right does the United States, through tax-funded and tax-exempt organizations, interfere in the politics of nations that have not attacked or threatened us? Were the Chinese to intrude in the politics of Mexico and Central America as we have in Eastern Europe and Central Asia, would we not be enraged? Would we not react?
Given that resentment of the United States is pandemic in Latin America, the Middle East and Europe, what benefits do we derive from incessantly intruding in the internal affairs of these nations to justify the rising cost in elite and popular ill will?
Did we defeat the world communist revolution only to launch our own world democratic revolution? Did we bury the Comintern of Stalin only to create our own? What happened to the America that minded her own business? Why is Bush outsourcing foreign policy to neocons who are the source of most of his headaches today?
Click here for a permanent link to this colum.


IRAQ:War Launched to Protect Israel - Bush Adviser Emad Mekay WASHINGTON, Mar 29 (IPS) - IPS uncovered the remarks by Philip Zelikow, who is now the executive director of the body set up to investigate the terrorist attacks on the United States in September 2001 -- the 9/11 commission -- in which he suggests a prime motive for the invasion just over one year ago was to eliminate a threat to Israel, a staunch U.S. ally in the Middle East. Zelikow's casting of the attack on Iraq as one launched to protect Israel appears at odds with the public position of President George W. Bush and his administration, which has never overtly drawn the link between its war on the regime of former president Hussein and its concern for Israel's security. The administration has instead insisted it launched the war to liberate the Iraqi people, destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and to protect the United States. Zelikow made his statements about ”the unstated threat” during his tenure on a highly knowledgeable and well-connected body known as the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (PFIAB), which reports directly to the president. He served on the board between 2001 and 2003. ”Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us? I'll tell you what I think the real threat (is) and actually has been since 1990 -- it's the threat against Israel,” Zelikow told a crowd at the University of Virginia on Sep. 10, 2002, speaking on a panel of foreign policy experts assessing the impact of 9/11 and the future of the war on the al-Qaeda terrorist organisation. ”And this is the threat that dare not speak its name, because the Europeans don't care deeply about that threat, I will tell you frankly. And the American government doesn't want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell,” said Zelikow. The statements are the first to surface from a source closely linked to the Bush administration acknowledging that the war, which has so far cost the lives of nearly 600 U.S. troops and thousands of Iraqis, was motivated by Washington's desire to defend the Jewish state. The administration, which is surrounded by staunch pro-Israel, neo-conservative hawks, is currently fighting an extensive campaign to ward off accusations that it derailed the ”war on terrorism” it launched after 9/11 by taking a detour to Iraq, which appears to have posed no direct threat to the United States. Israel is Washington's biggest ally in the Middle East, receiving annual direct aid of three to four billion dollars. Even though members of the 16-person PFIAB come from outside government, they enjoy the confidence of the president and have access to all information related to foreign intelligence that they need to play their vital advisory role. Known in intelligence circles as ”Piffy-ab”, the board is supposed to evaluate the nation's intelligence agencies and probe any mistakes they make. The unpaid appointees on the board require a security clearance known as ”code word” that is higher than top secret. The national security adviser to former President George H.W. Bush (1989-93) Brent Scowcroft, currently chairs the board in its work overseeing a number of intelligence bodies, including the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the various military intelligence groups and the Pentagon's National Reconnaissance Office. Neither Scowcroft nor Zelikow returned numerous phone calls and email messages from IPS for this story. Zelikow has long-established ties to the Bush administration. Before his appointment to PFIAB in October 2001, he was part of the current president's transition team in January 2001. In that capacity, Zelikow drafted a memo for National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice on reorganising and restructuring the National Security Council (NSC) and prioritising its work. Richard A. Clarke, who was counter-terrorism coordinator for Bush's predecessor President Bill Clinton (1993-2001) also worked for Bush senior, and has recently accused the current administration of not heeding his terrorism warnings, said Zelikow was among those he briefed about the urgent threat from al-Qaeda in December 2000. Rice herself had served in the NSC during the first Bush administration, and subsequently teamed up with Zelikow on a 1995 book about the unification of Germany. Zelikow had ties with another senior Bush administration official -- Robert Zoellick, the current trade representative. The two wrote three books together, including one in 1998 on the United States and the ”Muslim Middle East”. Aside from his position at the 9/11 commission, Zelikow is now also director of the Miller Centre of Public Affairs and White Burkett Miller Professor of History at the University of Virginia. His close ties to the administration prompted accusations of a conflict of interest in 2002 from families of victims of the 9/11 attacks, who protested his appointment to the investigative body. In his university speech, Zelikow, who strongly backed attacking the Iraqi dictator, also explained the threat to Israel by arguing that Baghdad was preparing in 1990-91 to spend huge amounts of ”scarce hard currency” to harness ”communications against electromagnetic pulse”, a side-effect of a nuclear explosion that could sever radio, electronic and electrical communications. That was ”a perfectly absurd expenditure unless you were going to ride out a nuclear exchange -- they (Iraqi officials) were not preparing to ride out a nuclear exchange with us. Those were preparations to ride out a nuclear exchange with the Israelis”, according to Zelikow. He also suggested that the danger of biological weapons falling into the hands of the anti-Israeli Islamic Resistance Movement, known by its Arabic acronym Hamas, would threaten Israel rather than the United States, and that those weapons could have been developed to the point where they could deter Washington from attacking Hamas. ”Play out those scenarios,” he told his audience, ”and I will tell you, people have thought about that, but they are just not talking very much about it”. ”Don't look at the links between Iraq and al-Qaeda, but then ask yourself the question, 'gee, is Iraq tied to Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the people who are carrying out suicide bombings in Israel'? Easy question to answer; the evidence is abundant.” To date, the possibility of the United States attacking Iraq to protect Israel has been only timidly raised by some intellectuals and writers, with few public acknowledgements from sources close to the administration. Analysts who reviewed Zelikow's statements said they are concrete evidence of one factor in the rationale for going to war, which has been hushed up. ”Those of us speaking about it sort of routinely referred to the protection of Israel as a component,” said Phyllis Bennis of the Washington-based Institute of Policy Studies. ”But this is a very good piece of evidence of that.” Others say the administration should be blamed for not making known to the public its true intentions and real motives for invading Iraq. ”They (the administration) made a decision to invade Iraq, and then started to search for a policy to justify it. It was a decision in search of a policy and because of the odd way they went about it, people are trying to read something into it,” said Nathan Brown, professor of political science at George Washington University and an expert on the Middle East. But he downplayed the Israel link. ”In terms of securing Israel, it doesn't make sense to me because the Israelis are probably more concerned about Iran than they were about Iraq in terms of the long-term strategic threat,” he said. Still, Brown says Zelikow's words carried weight. ”Certainly his position would allow him to speak with a little bit more expertise about the thinking of the Bush administration, but it doesn't strike me that he is any more authoritative than Wolfowitz, or Rice or Powell or anybody else. All of them were sort of fishing about for justification for a decision that has already been made,” Brown said. (END/2004) Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States


Many paleoconservatives also identify themselves as "classical conservatives" and trace their philosophy to the Old Right Republicans of the interwar period who successfully kept America out of the League of Nations, cut down non-European immigration in 1924 and stood opposed to Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal proposals.
Paleoconservatives are most easily distinguishable from other conservatives in their emphatic opposition to illegal immigration, their strong opposition to affirmative action, and their general disapproval of U.S. intervention overseas (These issues do not exhaust the paleoconservative philosophy but merely represent distinctive stands that Paleocons take on hotly contested issues.) Many neoconservatives, by contrast, are more consensus-oriented on the issues of illegal immigration and affirmative action and support a more activist internationalist foreign policy.
Paleos are often concerned with the culture-eroding effects of popular culture and some reject free trade ideology especially when it leads to an acceptance of the deterioration of America's industrial base and the promotion of mass immigration. Some Paleos are sympathetic to the Producerist orientation, though others support laissez-faire free-market policies articulated by classical liberals such as Frederic Bastiat in the nineteenth-century.

Tuesday, November 29, 2005



The Times
November 25, 2005Liberal Jews pioneer gay marriage services

By Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent
RABBIS from Britain’s Jewish community have become the first mainstream religious grouping to authorise a gay marriage service.
Liberal Judaism, which counts Michael Howard and Michael Grade among its adherents, has produced a new liturgy, Covenant of Love, to coincide with the Civil Partnership Act, which takes effect on December 5.
In accompanying literature, Liberal Judaism says the ceremony may be described as a “wedding” by rabbis and follows the format of a traditional Jewish wedding service under the chuppah or canopy and with the ceremonial breaking of glass symbolising the brokenness of the world. It also includes a same-sex version of the seven blessings said at heterosexual Jewish weddings.
The service, in a booklet read from right to left and printed in Hebrew and English, invokes God as the “divine presence” who embraces both male and female. It warns the happy couple as they begin their new lives as consecrated partners: “We remember that we live in a world as yet unredeemed, where joys and sorrows, love and hatred, acceptance and prejudice are commingled.”
There are 33 Liberal congregations in the UK, and the community numbers about 12,000. Of the 31 rabbis who belong to the movement’s Rabbinic Conference, four are lesbian and two are gay. The flagship Liberal Jewish Synagogue in St John’s Wood, North London, is one of the best-known synagogues in the world.
Rabbi Alexandra Wright, senior rabbi at the Liberal Jewish Synagogue, said she would be offering the new liturgy to anyone who asked for a gay wedding. “It is consistent with the religious and ethical principles to which Liberal Judaism adheres, namely that each individual is created in the divine image and that, regardless of sexuality or gender, all are equal. It would be unethical for us to discriminate against members on grounds of sexuality.”
Rabbi Roderick Young, a member of both the Reform and Liberal movements, this year went to Canada, where gay weddings are legal, to marry his partner David Mooney. He said: “I applaud the Liberal movement for doing this. It is fantastic.”
Rabbi Danny Rich, chief executive of Liberal Judaism, said: “We are not worried it will be controversial although we expect it may be. It is a matter of justice for us.”
The Reform movement, which trains its rabbis alongside Liberal rabbis at Leo Baeck College in North London, is still considering its response to the Civil Partnership Act.
The Orthodox movement, headed by the Chief Rabbi Sir Jonathan Sacks, refuses to entertain the concept.
Rabbi Dr Julian Shindler, of the Office of the Chief Rabbi, said: “There is no prospect of the mainstream Orthodox community permitting same-sex commitment or marriage ceremonies. Orthodox Jews are bound by biblical and rabbinic law, which only condones sexual relationships between a man and a woman who are married.”
Bishops in the Church of England have ruled out a blessing service for couples joined in civil partnership, although many clergy are expected to perform them illicitly to meet pastoral need. The Vatican has ruled that gay men cannot go to seminary if they are sexually active or, if their homosexuality is “transitory”, unless they have been celibate for three years.

Sunday, November 27, 2005


The Washington TimesSunday, Jan. 4, 1998
By Bob Djurdjevic

If three strikes are sufficient to send someone from the plate into the dugout, then four, five... and counting was the number of blows delivered to the Christians around the world this Christmas of 1997.
Yet, the non-Christian batters are still at the plate, swinging and hitting... swinging and hitting... emboldened by the relative silence of the frightened or stupefied Christians. Which is why it may be time for Jesus again to come to his peoples' rescue, as He did nearly 2,000 years ago.
Evidently, hate is back in vogue in America. But this time, hate is displaying its ugly face as a dictatorship of minorities. Incredibly perhaps, in a country which has been inhabited by a Christian majority for centuries, anti-Christian venom is being spread across America. And not just across America. It is a global anti-Christian virus being disseminated deliberately by the New World Order elite.
["In a joyous Christmas message to the world, Pope John Paul II hailed the Jews as the people who gave Jesus Christ to mankind," CNN reported on Dec. 25. The Pope said that, "the birth of the Messiah (is) the central event in the history of humanity. The whole human race was awaiting it with a vague presentiment; the chosen people awaited with explicit awareness." The day before a Hanukkah candle was lighted at the Vatican for the first time in history, as the Pope also called the Jewish people Christianity's "elder brothers."]
Georgie Anne Geyer's Dec. 27 piece attacking the Russian Orthodox church is one example. A truly disgusting cartoon was published alongside the Geyer piece, which depicts the "Other Christian Faiths" nailed to the "Russian Orthodox Church" cross. Meanwhile, the godless globalists are now also promoting a "Black Christmas" - Kwanzaa - a non-religious African-American holiday invented during the civil rights protests in the 1960s.
On Dec. 26, ("Kwanzaa Day"), CNN Headline News led all its top stories from around the world with a report which gave Kwanzaa more coverage than it did to some Christmas celebrations. Is this part of another effort to pry away the blacks from Christianity?
Coincidentally, "Kwanza" is actually a Swahili word for currency, i.e., money, according to the Webster dictionary. In other words, the Kwanza followers and the non-Christian NWO seem to worship the same Golden Calf - the Almighty Dollar.
Meanwhile, the American Civil Liberties Union has reportedly forced on unconstitutional grounds the City of St. Ann, Missouri, to remove a nativity scene from in front of its City Hall in future years, according to a Dec. 24 news report.
At the same time, there has been no word of any similar actions by the ACLU to make the citizens of Ladue, a predominantly Jewish suburb of St. Louis, take down any Jewish religious symbols. Nor should there be. After all, America is a country which has always prided itself about its freedom of religion and speech - hasn't it?
But wait. How many U.S. Constitutions are there? As far as this writer is aware - only one. So how is it possible to declare the actions of one religious group unconstitutional, while condoning the same by others?
It isn't possible, of course. Not in a world ruled by logic, reason and fairness. Which is why the preceding Missouri story smacks of anti-Christian persecution. Will the ACLU, or some other anti-Christian group, demand next Christmas that the town of St. Ann change its name? And after that, how many years will it take before St. Ann's citizens are asked to renounce Christ?
And then there is Stephen Spielberg's film, "Amistad," another anti-Christian movie released just before Christmas. Amistad is "Spielberg's attempt to do for slavery what he did for the Holocaust in ‘Schindler's List'," according to the Dec. 11 London Telegraph.
The latest Spielberg film is based on a true story of a mutiny on La Amistad, a ship in which slaves rise up and slaughter their captors. In other words, Mr. Spielberg is once again trying to open some old wounds, and incite old inter-racial hatred and violence. Why? Is that why this NWO protege got to attend the Clintons' White House gala dinner on Oct. 29 for the Chinese communist president, Jiang Zemin, another Christian oppressor?
Nor is this an exception. Have you noticed, for example, how Bill Clinton and Al Gore went to bat (justifiably) for blacks when some of the black churches had been burned in America but were nowhere to be found when the same types of hate crimes were perpetrated against Orthodox Christian churches in America? (such as against St. Sava Orthodox Christian church in Phoenix, for example, in Aug of 1996).
Even baseball's most incompetent referees would have relegated the anti - Christian "batters" to the dugout by now.
But they did not. Why not? Why are the anti-Christian batters at the plate still swinging and hitting... swinging and hitting...?
Because there is evidently a concerted and carefully coordinated effort by the NWO crowd to drive a wedge between Catholic and Orthodox Christians on the one hand, and between the black and white Christians, on the other hand.
It's an old trick - divide and conquer. This time, it is being used against Christians while pushing the world toward a globalist/communist one-world religion.
God forbid! Yet, here we were, democratic, freedom-loving American Christians, naively celebrating "our" victory over communism only a few short years ago. As it turns out, it was a victory of the West Side (Wall Street) anti-Christian gang over their East Side (Kremlin) anti-Christian rivals. For, both materialistic gangs have had only one goal for the last century or so - destroying Christianity!
The five strikes against Christ during the Christmas of 1997 illustrate that nothing has changed since the end of the Cold War. Nothing except that we now have a new crop of Christian traitors among us.
"Fool me once - shame on you; fool me twice; shame on me," goes an old proverb. Will Christians the world-over allow themselves to be fooled three, four, five... times before realizing that they are the NWO's designated sacrificial lambs? Has the time come for the lambs, brought up on turning the other cheek, to rebel against the NWO hyenas, brought up on killing the meek and mild? Just as the slaves of La Amistad did to their captors?


After a week with my son and his wife in North Carolina for Thanksgiving, I returned to read some of the editorials in the Macon Telegraph and the Letters to View Points. It was great to get away from all of the same ole same ole, if even for such a short period of time. I see that the master of bloviation of the Macon Telegraph wrote an editorial of self-praise for his speech at the day of atonement at the Jewish Temple in Macon where the leaders of town and some select church leaders got together to sing praises to one another. Yada, yada, yada and my question is what are the chosen ones doing to make Macon a better place to live and did you find the missing millions from Macon's budget while I was gone?


Barrack Obama, D-US Senator, Illinois vs. Hillary Clinton, D-US Senator, New York! What a showdown that will be!

The smaller picture of Hillary is not intentional, I just used what was available.

I was watching the Chris Matthew show this Sunday morning and laughed to my husband about how the Democrats need every black vote that they can get, but yet they never promote the charismatic Obama as a credible contender for the 2008 Democratic Presidential Primary! They are indeed the most obvious hypocrits in the United States! I had this comment in my archives and brought it up again. Obama could win the Democrat Primary hands down.

If you watch the swearing in ceremony, it is obviously not done properly. I voted for Ron Paul in the Primary election, and well who did I vote for in the General Election. I can tell you that it was no one that was listed on the ballot. I voted for a write-in candidate. Since, so many people seemed to be interested in my whereabouts, I wrote in my own name! Why not, as I can think of no better choice than someone as smart as I am.


Remembering The Zebra KillingsBy James August 30, 2001MOST SERIAL KILLINGS in America take on a life of their own through movies, books and documentaries. The crimes of Charles Manson, Jeffrey Dahmer and The Son of Sam are still well remembered years after they were committed. Yet there is one set of serial killings that has been almost completely forgotten and is rarely mentioned in popular culture.
The Zebra Killings occurred in the San Francisco bay area between 1972 and 1974 and left 71 people dead. They were dubbed the Zebra Killings because of the radio channel used by the police investigating the case (channel Z). The name would take on a more sinister meaning as it became apparent that a group of blacks was systematically stalking and killing whites simply because of the color of their skin.
Zebra (1979) was written by crime writer Clark Howard and remains the definitive book on the murders. Using court records, police reports, witnesses and interviews with the killers themselves, Howard was able to piece together the horrid details of the murders and the unrelenting hatred that inspired the killers.
The majority of the attacks were carried out by five members of a group within Louis Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam called the "Death Angels." Jesse Lee Cooks, J.C. Simon, Larry Green, Manuel Moore and Anthony Harris were part of this group which believed that whites were created 3,000 years ago by a black mad scientist named Yacub who wanted a race of inferiors to rule over. Death Angels believed they could earn "points" towards going to heaven when they died if they killed whites. For them, whites were not human beings but "grafted snakes," "blue-eyed devils" and "white motherf-----s."
Howard describes the vicious and cowardly nature of the attacks, which were made at gunpoint and mostly carried out against women and weak or old men who could not fight back. The first victims in San Francisco were a couple named Richard and Quita Hague. The Hagues were out for an after dinner walk when they were abducted at gunpoint and forced into a van. They were bound and Richard was beaten over the head with a lug wrench and knocked unconscious. Quita was sexually molested and hacked with a machete. While begging for her life she was decapitated. Before leaving, the attackers hacked at the face of the still unconscious man. Miraculously, he survived and was able to give valuable information to the police.
Brutality and a lack of remorse on the part of the criminals mark the attacks. Vincent Wollin was shot in the back and killed on his 69th birthday. Mildred Hosler, an obese, older woman was shot while frantically trying to get away from her younger, faster attacker. Ilario Bertucci, a 135-pound, 81-year-old man, was killed while walking home from work. Marietta DiGirolamo, a 5’1" white woman was shot and killed on her way to a neighborhood bar. In none of these cases did the victims do anything to provoke the murderers. They simply had white skin and were in the wrong place at the wrong time.
There were even some high profile victims. Art Agnos, who would later go on to become mayor of San Francisco, was shot and almost killed by the Death Angels. A member of the California Commission on Aging, Agnos was attending a community meeting in a black neighborhood to discuss building a government funded health clinic in the area. In the same neighborhood the killers were hunting for whites. As the meeting let out, Agnos stopped to talk with two women. One of the killers came up behind him and shot him twice in the back. The bullets ripped apart his lungs, spleen and kidneys. Bystanders called an ambulance and Agnos barely survived.
Lou Calabro was a street patrol sergeant with the San Francisco Police Department at the time and notes that as the murders added up, the SFPD came under increasing pressure to stop the killings:
"In what was known as Operation Zebra, more police were put on the street and security checks were beefed up. Despite the increased police presence, the attacks did not stop. They would often happen when we were on full alert. Some officers suspected a black cop who was a member of ‘Officers for Justice,’ a black police officers association formed to get more promotions for themselves, was tipping off the killers, though this was never proven. We were very frustrated at not being able to stop the killings."
The increased police presence had the effect of angering the black community. Twenty years before the Los Angeles riots and O.J. Simpson trial, blacks were already making statements to the press that showed a stunning lack of remorse for what was happening to their white neighbors. Howard quotes from interviews conducted by the San Francisco Examiner in 1974. Among the responses by blacks were, "I don’t feel comfortable with all the police around. But then, I never have felt safe around them." A young housewife stated, "I’m really glad the police are concerned for a change. I just wonder if they would be as much concerned if it were black people getting killed." A black lawyer added, "I commend the police for their beefing up of the force, but I hope it’s not just directed at blacks. I hope blacks aren’t being harassed."
Still other blacks blamed "unemployment" and "oppression" for the attacks. One man said, "the madness that drives black men to kill innocent people . . . involves a sickness that is as American as apple pie." Black Panther leader Bobby Seale declared, "every black man in the Bay area is in danger of losing his life." The Reverend Cecil Williams claimed that the entire black community was "under a police state that could erupt into a racial war." Howard observes, "although they were responding only to a question about Operation Zebra, it was curious that none of the blacks interviewed took the occasion to condemn the unknown street killers or express sympathy for the victims."
Detectives Gus Coreris and John Fotinos were 13-year veterans of the Homicide Unit and led the investigation which eventually cracked the case. Though they both suspected the Black Muslims, it was hard to get any information on the possible suspects because of a ban on surveillance of religious institutions. Moreover, the closed atmosphere of the NOI made it hard to get spies into the organization.
Coreris and Fotinos were able to link the murders because the killers were using the same weapon for each attack. They were also able to put together information and descriptions from those who survived such as Agnos and Hague. The case was solved when one of the members of the Death Angels came forward with information on the other killers. A total of eight black men with previous records were arrested. All were members of the Death Angels. Though this group committed most of the killings, they do not account for all of the criminals. Some are still free to this day.
The Nation of Islam paid for the legal representation of every one of the killers except Cooks, who immediately admitted to his murders. The Death Angels are still in prison but are up for parole in 2002. The European American Issues Forum (EAIF), headed by Calabro, has pledged to attend the parole hearings and work to insure that the killers spend the rest of their lives in jail. In addition, on October 19 of this year, the EAIF will hold its fifth annual Zebra Victims Memorial Service on the steps of San Francisco City Hall. As with the previous five ceremonies, government and community leaders such as Mayor Willie Brown and the leader of the local NAACP will be invited to attend. They have declined to attend any of the ceremonies so far and are not likely to show up this year. Indeed, the lack of publicity and recognition of these racially motivated hate crimes is consistent with the efforts of government agencies, civil rights groups and the media to portray European-Americans as the only perpetrators of hate crimes.
This same type of black-on-white serial murder occurred in the Miami area in the early 1990’s. The racist cult of Yahweh-ben-Yahweh began systematically killing whites in the same manor as the Death Angels. Whites were again described as subhuman "devils" by the cult leaders who urged their black followers to murder random whites. In what was strictly local news, seven whites were ritually slaughtered before the cult was stopped. The leaders of Yahweh-ben-Yahweh are also up for parole in 2002.
It has been almost 30 years since the Zebra Killings and, with the exception of Clark Howard’s book, little has been written about the murders. That is why they have disappeared from the public consciousness. At least one filmmaker who tried to get funding for a documentary on the killings has said that producers will not touch it, as it involves the taboo of black-on-white racism. Needless to say, there is no such taboo on discussing white-on-black racism. But a society that memorializes Emmett Till, Medgar Evers and James Byrd should also make room for the victims of the Zebra Killings. Justice demands it.
Paleoconservative James P. Lubinskas has written for Chronicles, The AIM Report, American Renaissance, The Social Contract, VDARE, The Nationalist Times, American Patrol and other journals.
Please see for more information on the Zebra Killings Memorial Service.
*Zebra, by Clark Howard, is currently out of print. Used copies can still be purchased on Click here for details.

Sunday, November 20, 2005


POLITICS:What Is a Neo-Conservative Anyway?Commentary - By Jim Lobe WASHINGTON, Aug 12 (IPS) - With all the attention paid to neo-conservatives in the global media today, one would think that a standard definition of the term would exist. Yet, despite their now being credited with a virtual takeover of U.S. foreign policy under President George W. Bush, a common understanding of 'neo-cons' remains elusive. A brief description of their basic tenets and origin can help distinguish them from other parts of the ideological coalition behind the administration's neo-imperialist trajectory; namely, the traditional Republican Machtpolitikers (Might Makes Right), such as Vice President Dick Cheney and Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld, and the Christian Rightists, such as Attorney General John Ashcroft, Gary Bauer, and Pat Robertson. As neo-con godfather Irving Kristol once remarked, a neo-conservative is a ''liberal who was mugged by reality''. True to that description, neo-cons generally originated on the left side of the political spectrum and some times from the far left. Many, such as Kristol himself, have Trotskyite roots (SEE BELOW FOR WHAT A TROTSKYITE IS) that are still reflected in their polemical and organisational skills and ideological zeal. Although a number of prominent Catholics are neo-conservatives, the movement remains predominantly Jewish, and the monthly journal that really defined neo-conservatism over the past 35 years, 'Commentary', is published by the American Jewish Committee. But at the same time, neo-conservative attitudes have reflected a minority position within the U.S. Jewish community, as most Jews remain distinctly liberal in their political and foreign-policy views. Neo-conservative foreign-policy positions, which have their origin in opposition to the New Left of the 1960s, fears over a return to U.S. isolationism during the Vietnam War and the progressive international isolation of Israel in the wake of wars with its Arab neighbours in 1967 and 1973, have been tactically very flexible over the past 35 years, but its key principles have remained the same. They begin with the basic foreign-policy realism found in the pessimistic views of human nature and international diplomacy of the English political philosopher, Thomas Hobbes, which neo-cons share with most U.S. practitioners: ''the condition of man (in a state of nature) ... is a condition of war of everyone against everyone”. Or as Machiavelli, another favourite thinker of the neo-cons, wrote: ''Men are more ready for evil than for good.'' But neo-cons take ''man's'' capacity for evil particularly seriously, and for understandable reasons. For them, the Nazi Holocaust that killed some six million Jews during World War II is the seminal experience of the 20th century. Not only was it a genocide unparalleled in its thoroughness, the Holocaust also wiped out family members of hundreds of thousands of Jewish citizens in the United States, including, for example, close relatives of the parents of Deputy Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz. For neo-conservatives, as for most Jews, the Holocaust represents absolute evil, and the factors that contributed to the rise of Adolf Hitler in Germany and the subsequent extermination of European must be fought at all costs.. The ”defining moment in our history was certainly the Holocaust'', Richard Perle, a key neo-con and leading advocate of war with Iraq, recently told BBC's 'Panorama'. ''It was the destruction, the genocide of a whole people, and it was the failure to respond in a timely fashion to a threat that was clearly gathering.” ''We don't want that to happen again ... when we have the ability to stop totalitarian regimes we should do so, because when we fail to do so, the results are catastrophic,'' he said. For neo-conservatives, the 1938 Munich agreement, under which Hitler was permitted by Britain and France to take over Czechoslovakia, is the epitome of appeasement that led directly to the Holocaust. As a result, Munich and appeasement are constantly invoked in their rhetoric as a way to summon up the will to resist and defeat the enemy of the day. Almost every conflict in which the United States has been engaged since the late 1960s -- from Vietnam to Central America to Yugoslavia to the ''war on terror'' in Iraq and against al-Qaeda -- has been portrayed as a new Munich, in which the enemy represents a threat virtually on a par with Hitler. The resulting worldview tends to Manichaeism -- the notion that the world consists of a permanent struggle between the forces of good and evil, light and dark (an idea that also accords very well both with the thinking of the Christian Right, not to mention, of Bush himself). As Michael Ledeen, a close collaborator of Perle's at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) told the same BBC programme, ''I know the struggle against evil is going to go on forever''. Three major factors are seen as having contributed to the Holocaust: the failure of the liberal Weimar Republic in Germany to prevent the Nazis' rise; ”appeasement”; and U.S. isolationism that kept Washington from intervening in World War Two earlier. Although neo-cons profess devotion to liberal democracy, they have never hesitated to assail ”liberalism”, or what they sometimes call with their Christian Right allies ''secular humanism'', whose relativism, in their view, can lead to ”a culture of appeasement”, nihilism or worse. So, even while supposedly defending ”liberal” and democratic ideals, their attitude is at best ambivalent. Appeasement is prevented by a powerful military capable of defeating any foe, the constant anticipation of new threats, and the willingness to pre-empt them. Thus, neo-cons have consistently favoured big defence budgets, a stance shared by the right-wing Machtpolitikers with whom they formed an alliance in the 1970s to end d├ętente with Moscow. In their view, peace is to be distrusted, and peace processes are inherently suspect. ”Peace doesn't come from a 'process',” wrote 'Wall Street Journal' editorial writer Robert Pollock last year in a column that denounced the 1990s as a ”decade of appeasement”. In this view, war is a natural state, and peace is a utopian dream that induces softness, decadence and pacifism, embodied by Bill Clinton whose ”corruption of the national mission, combined with the myth that peace is normal, produces a solvent strong enough to dissolve the strength of our armed forces and the integrity of our political and military leaders”, Ledeen wrote in 2000. Similarly, enemies cannot be negotiated with. ”Before the U.S. can worry about rebuilding Iraq, it has to win militarily, and decisively so,” the Journal wrote just before the war. ”Arab cultures despise weakness in an adversary above all” is a refrain echoing past neo-con descriptions of the Soviet Union, China, and other geo-political foes. Finally, U.S. engagement in world affairs is absolutely indispensable in preventing catastrophe, according to neo-con ideology, which, in the words of another Perle intimate, Ken Adelman, sees ”isolationism (as) the default option” in U.S. foreign policy. Indeed, many neo-cons, fearing that the Cold War's end would revive isolationism, spent most of the 1990s hawking policies designed to maintain Washington's international engagement, even if that meant supporting Clinton when he deployed troops abroad. Why? If evil is embodied by Hitler and similar threats, the United States comes as close to moral goodness as can be found in the world today, say neo-cons. ''Since America's emergence as a world power roughly a century ago'', Elliott Abrams, another prominent neo-con who currently serves as the top Middle East policy-maker on Bush's National Security Council, wrote in a 'Commentary' colloquium in 2000, ''we have made many errors, but we have been the greatest force for good among the nations of the Earth. A diminution of American power or influence bodes ill for our country, our friends, and our principles.'' U.S. intervention abroad, as in Iraq, is seen in the best possible light. Michael Kelly, a 'Washington Post' columnist who died in an accident during the Iraq campaign, assured his readers last October that, ''what President Bush aspires to now, is not exactly imperialism. It is something more like armed evangelism''. The moral goodness of the United States is beyond question and justifies -- indeed requires -- a unilateralist policy lest, by subjecting its will to the wishes or agreements of other countries or global institutions, the United States would actually prevent itself from fulfilling its moral mission. Although this notion dates back to the early days of the Republic, the neo-conservatives have tried hard to reinforce it. In an attack on the U.N. Security Council this year, Perle argued: ''This is a dangerously wrong idea that leads inexorably to handing great moral and even existential politico-military decisions, to the likes of Syria, Cameroon, Angola, Russia, China, and France''. It echoes a refrain delivered by Post columnist Charles Krauthammer 15 years ago about the United Nations: ''Let it sink'', he wrote. ''It is corrupting''. This sense of U.S. moral superiority applies especially to what is now called ''Old Europe'', much as it did in U.S. foreign policy until Washington's entry into World War Two. Kelly writes this about U.S. imperial altruism: ''Unlike the European powers, the United States has never sought to own the world. In its peculiarly American fashion, it has sought to make the world behave better, indeed BE better.'' But Washington's moral superiority, combined with the possibly ''catastrophic'' results of failing to confront Munich-type threats, also justifies a range of extraordinary responses, which under other circumstances might be morally questionable, according to the neo-con view. In particular, temporary alliances with other countries or movements whose own ideologies or practices may be morally reprehensible can be defended if they are used to fight a greater evil. ''In World War Two, we were allied for three years and eight months with history's greatest murderer -- Joseph Stalin -- because we had a more immediate problem -- Adolf Hitler,'' said former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) director James Woolsey, at an AEI briefing, defending tactical flexibility.. The readiness to make tactical alliances has extended even to anti-Semitic governments and movements, such as the neo-Nazi military junta in Argentina.. The regime was strongly defended by the elder Kristol, while neo-cons in the Reagan administration, such as Abrams and then-U.N. Ambassador Jeanne Kirkpatrick, worked to reverse the regime's diplomatic isolation and restore U.S. and multilateral aid that had been cut off by President Jimmy Carter. But if anti-Semitism can be tolerated under some circumstances, the security of Israel remains a fundamental tenet of neo-conservatives, who traditionally supported whatever Israeli government was in power but, since 1993 and the Oslo peace accords, became much more closely identified with the views of the right-wing Likud Party, which opposed the agreement. The neo-conservative identification with Israel can be explained in part by its predominantly Jewish membership, but Christian neo-conservatives very much share the sense that a strategic alliance with Israel constitutes a moral imperative in the post-Holocaust era. As Catholic neo-con William Bennett wrote in a recent book, ”America's fate and Israel's fate are one and the same”. This commitment to Israel also explains the willingness of Jewish neo-cons to overlook the anti-Semitism of their Christian Right allies, whose own identification with Israel is based on a ”Christian Zionist” reading of Biblical scripture that recognises a God-given right of the Jews to what both religions consider the ”Holy Land”, at least until the Apocalypse and the Second Coming of Christ. Kristol and other leading neo-cons have long argued that other Jews should not be offended by this alliance. ”Why would it be a problem for us?” he wrote some years ago. ”It is their theology; but it is our Israel.”

WHAT IS A TROTSKYITE: Trotskyism is the theory of Marxism as advocated by Leon Trotsky. ( son of a bourgeois Jew from the Ukraine) Trotsky considered himself a Leninist, arguing for the establishment of a vanguard party. He considered himself an advocate of orthodox Marxism. His politics differed in many respects from those of Stalin or Mao, most importantly in declaring the need for an international "permanent revolution". Numerous groups around the world continue to describe themselves as Trotskyist and see themselves as standing in this tradition, although they have diverse interpretations of the conclusions to be drawn from this.
Trotskyism is sometimes also used critically by those from a Stalinist or social democratic background to denote any of various political currents claiming a tradition of Marxist opposition to both Stalinism and capitalism.
"Trotskyism is not a new movement, a new doctrine, but the restoration, the revival of genuine Marxism as it was expounded and practiced in the Russian revolution and in the early days of the Communist International." - James P. Cannon in History of American Trotskyism.


Top 25 Most Dangerous Cities 2005
Data compiled by Morgan QuitnoCan you go to sleep with the front door unlocked? Better check this chart first.How the Rankings Were Determined
Camden, NJ
Detroit, MI
St. Louis, MO
Flint, MI
Richmond, VA
Baltimore, MD
Atlanta, GA
New Orleans, LA
Gary, IN
Birmingham, AL
Richmond, CA
Cleveland, OH
Washington, DC
West Palm Beach, FL
Compton, CA
Memphis, TN
Dayton, OH
San Bernardino, CA
Springfield, MA
Cincinnati, OH
Oakland, CA
Dallas, TX
Newark, NJ
Hartford, CT
Little Rock, AR
-->See Also:Most Safe CitiesMost Dangerous StatesHealthiest StatesMost Livable States

Saturday, November 19, 2005


Not guilty. The Israeli captain who put 17 bullets into a Palestinian schoolgirl · Officer ignored warnings that teenager was terrified· Defence says 'confirming the kill' standard practice Chris McGreal in JerusalemWednesday November 16, 2005The Guardian
An Israeli army officer who fired the entire magazine of his automatic rifle into a 13-year-old Palestinian girl and then said he would have done the same even if she had been three years old was acquitted on all charges by a military court yesterday.
The soldier, who has only been identified as "Captain R", was charged with relatively minor offences for the killing of Iman al-Hams who was shot 17 times as she ventured near an Israeli army post near Rafah refugee camp in Gaza a year ago.
The manner of Iman's killing, and the revelation of a tape recording in which the captain is warned that she was just a child who was "scared to death", made the shooting one of the most controversial since the Palestinian intifada erupted five years ago even though hundreds of other children have also died.
After the verdict, Iman's father, Samir al-Hams, said the army never intended to hold the soldier accountable.
"They did not charge him with Iman's murder, only with small offences, and now they say he is innocent of those even though he shot my daughter so many times," he said. "This was the cold-blooded murder of a girl. The soldier murdered her once and the court has murdered her again. What is the message? They are telling their soldiers to kill Palestinian children."
The military court cleared the soldier of illegal use of his weapon, conduct unbecoming an officer and perverting the course of justice by asking soldiers under his command to alter their accounts of the incident.
Capt R's lawyers argued that the "confirmation of the kill" after a suspect is shot was a standard Israeli military practice to eliminate terrorist threats.
Following the verdict, Capt R burst into tears, turned to the public benches and said: "I told you I was innocent."
The army's official account said that Iman was shot for crossing into a security zone carrying her schoolbag which soldiers feared might contain a bomb. It is still not known why the girl ventured into the area but witnesses described her as at least 100 yards from the military post which was in any case well protected.
A recording of radio exchanges between Capt R and his troops obtained by Israeli television revealed that from the beginning soldiers identified Iman as a child.
In the recording, a soldier in a watchtower radioed a colleague in the army post's operations room and describes Iman as "a little girl" who was "scared to death". After soldiers first opened fire, she dropped her schoolbag which was then hit by several bullets establishing that it did not contain explosive. At that point she was no longer carrying the bag and, the tape revealed, was heading away from the army post when she was shot.
Although the military speculated that Iman might have been trying to "lure" the soldiers out of their base so they could be attacked by accomplices, Capt R made the decision to lead some of his troops into the open. Shortly afterwards he can be heard on the recording saying that he has shot the girl and, believing her dead, then "confirmed the kill".
"I and another soldier ... are going in a little nearer, forward, to confirm the kill ... Receive a situation report. We fired and killed her ... I also confirmed the kill. Over," he said.
Palestinian witnesses said they saw the captain shoot Iman twice in the head, walk away, turn back and fire a stream of bullets into her body.
On the tape, Capt R then "clarifies" to the soldiers under his command why he killed Iman: "This is commander. Anything that's mobile, that moves in the [security] zone, even if it's a three-year-old, needs to be killed."
At no point did the Israeli troops come under attack.
The prosecution case was damaged when a soldier who initially said he had seen Capt R point his weapon at the girl's body and open fire later told the court he had fabricated the story.
Capt R claimed that he had not fired the shots at the girl but near her. However, Dr Mohammed al-Hams, who inspected the child's body at Rafah hospital, counted numerous wounds. "She has at least 17 bullets in several parts of the body, all along the chest, hands, arms, legs," he told the Guardian shortly afterwards. "The bullets were large and shot from a close distance. The most serious injuries were to her head. She had three bullets in the head. One bullet was shot from the right side of the face beside the ear. It had a big impact on the whole face."
The army's initial investigation concluded that the captain had "not acted unethically". But after some of the soldiers under his command went to the Israeli press to give a different version, the military police launched a separate investigation after which he was charged.
Capt R claimed that the soldiers under his command were out to get him because they are Jewish and he is Druze.
The transcript
The following is a recording of a three-way conversation that took place between a soldier in a watchtower, an army operations room and Capt R, who shot the girl
From the watchtower "It's a little girl. She's running defensively eastward." "Are we talking about a girl under the age of 10?" "A girl about 10, she's behind the embankment, scared to death." "I think that one of the positions took her out." "I and another soldier ... are going in a little nearer, forward, to confirm the kill ... Receive a situation report. We fired and killed her ... I also confirmed the kill. Over."
From the operations room "Are we talking about a girl under the age of 10?"
Watchtower "A girl about 10, she's behind the embankment, scared to death."
A few minutes later, Iman is shot from one of the army posts
Watchtower "I think that one of the positions took her out."
Captain R "I and another soldier ... are going in a little nearer, forward, to confirm the kill ... Receive a situation report. We fired and killed her ... I also confirmed the kill. Over."
Capt R then "clarifies" why he killed Iman
"This is commander. Anything that's mobile, that moves in the zone, even if it's a three-year-old, needs to be killed. Over."

Friday, November 18, 2005


How interesting is it that in this time of Conflict which our country is in some many people oppose what we do, and stand for, which is what I thought our country stood for! FREEDOM.... It's amazing how people see us (SOLDIERS) on the street and quickly judge us, by the words and actions of those in the MEDIA. Always remember, If you can't trust anyone else, trust the SOLDIER to your left and right they truly understand what we fight for! and if you need to ask your self what, or why we do it. JUST REMEMBER SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 and it will all become clear. I leave you with this saying LEAD, FOLLOW, OR GET OUT OF THE WAY!


Target boycott urged for Thanksgiving weekend
Retail giant punished for banning Salvation Army, 'Merry Christmas'
Posted: November 18, 20051:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2005
A traditional-values organization is urging consumers to stay away from Target stores on Thanksgiving weekend, a heavy shopping period, as it continues to lead a boycott of the retailer.
The American Family Association is asking supporters not to shop at Target due to its continuing ban on Salvation Army bell ringers outside its stores and its shunning of the phrase "Merry Christmas" in-store promotions and advertising.


UK: Whites Need Not Apply Report;
Posted on: 2005-11-18 13:16:01
Book competition not for whites News article filed by BNP news team Don't bother picking up a Penguin this Christmas. Further evidence that indigenous Britons are second class citizens in these island homelands of ours comes from the blatant anti-white racism displayed by one of Britain’s leading book publishers. Penguin Books, part of the international media group Pearson PLC, owners of the Financial Times, is holding a literary competition inviting submissions on a fictional theme aimed at an adult readership; but whites are excluded! The "decibel Penguin prize" is an opportunity for talented writers from culturally diverse backgrounds to showcase their work. It is also a chance for Penguin to discover promising new writers. The successful entries will be included in an anthology which will be published by Penguin in November 2006, with a percentage of the proceeds of book sales being awarded to the successful authors.However, as the competition entry form states: “All entrants must be residents of the UK from an African, Asian or Caribbean background. ‘Asian’ in this context refers to the continent of Asia from Turkey in the West to Japan in the East.” Although it is not clear whether indigenous Britons who were born in say, Hong Kong during the time that the city was a British colony are eligible, just which box on the entry form would a white entrant tick? There are boxes for Asian Pakistani, Asian Bangladeshi, Black Caribbean, Black African and Chinese but not a box for white Europeans. Taxpayers’ cash Public money is also being used in the "decibel Penguin Prize," because this year for the first time Penguin Books and the Arts Council England are joining forces to give new writers from culturally diverse backgrounds the opportunity to showcase their work, with the aim of discovering fresh talent. Arts Council England is jointly funded from the public purse and the National Lottery Commission. The Minister for Culture David Lammy -- himself of Afro-Caribbean origin -- is the patron for the prize and the judging panel includes Hari Kunzru and Margaret Busby with further judges to be confirmed shortly. Championing diversity Championing cultural diversity is one of the Arts Council’s core ambitions. It is encouraging an environment where the arts reflect the full range and diversity of contemporary society. The Council wants everyone to have access to excellent arts activity. To make this happen, it is focussing on race and ethnicity, disability and social inclusion. It has exceeded its aim that by 2007/08 more than 10 per cent of regularly funded organisations are Black and minority ethnic. With Christmas shopping now upon us Britons angered by this blatant anti-white racism might like to think twice before purchasing any of the Penguin books, which includes Dorling Kindersley, the children’s range of Puffin Books, Hamish Hamilton, Michael Joseph and the Ladybird children’s titles.
Source: British National Party • Printed from National Vanguard( ) National Vanguard • Box 5145 • Charlottesville • VA 22905 •


Jewish Entrepreneur Gives Free Shoes to Illegals Report;
Posted on: 2005-11-17 19:52:22
Special sneakers speed crossers' run for the border
By Elliot Spagat AP The high-top sneakers cost $215 at a San Diego boutique, but the designer is giving them away to migrants before they cross to this side of the U.S.-Mexican border. These are no ordinary shoes. A compass and flashlight dangle from one shoelace. The pocket in the tongue is for money or pain relievers. A rough map of the border region is printed on a removable insole. They are red, white and green, the colors of the Mexican flag. On the back ankle, a drawing of Mexico's patron saint of migrants. On this side of the border, the shoes sit in art collections or the closets of well-heeled sneaker cognoscenti. On the other side, in Tijuana, it's a utilitarian affair: Immigrants-to-be are happy to have the sturdy, lightweight shoes for the hike - or dash - into the United States. Their designer is Judi Werthein, an Argentine artist who moved to New York in 1997 - legally, she notes. On a recent evening in Tijuana, after giving away 50 pairs at a migrant shelter, Werthein waved the insole and pointed to Interstate 8, the main road between San Diego and Arizona. "This blue line is where you want to go," Werthein, 38, said in Spanish. "Good luck! You're all very courageous," she told the cheering crowd of about 50 men huddled in a recreation room after dinner. "God bless you!" several cried back.

Thursday, November 17, 2005


Charles Lindbergh Des Moines Speech, 1941 History; Posted on: 2005-11-15 01:55:55 American hero Charles Lindbergh speaks of war agitators and propaganda It is now two years since this latest European war began. From that day in September, 1939, until the present moment, there has been an over-increasing effort to force the United States into the conflict. That effort has been carried on by foreign interests, and by a small minority of our own people; but it has been so successful that, today, our country stands on the verge of war. At this time, as the war is about to enter its third winter, it seems appropriate to review the circumstances that have led us to our present position. Why are we on the verge of war? Was it necessary for us to become so deeply involved? Who is responsible for changing our national policy from one of neutrality and independence to one of entanglement in European affairs? Personally, I believe there is no better argument against our intervention than a study of the causes and developments of the present war. I have often said that if the true facts and issues were placed before the American people, there would be no danger of our involvement.Here, I would like to point out to you a fundamental difference between the groups who advocate foreign war, and those who believe in an independent destiny for America. If you will look back over the record, you will find that those of us who oppose intervention have constantly tried to clarify facts and issues; while the interventionists have tried to hide facts and confuse issues. We ask you to read what we said last month, last year, and even before the war began. Our record is open and clear, and we are proud of it. We have not led you on by subterfuge and propaganda. We have not resorted to steps short of anything, in order to take the American people where they did not want to go. What we said before the elections, we say [illegible] and again, and again today. And we will not tell you tomorrow that it was just campaign oratory. Have you ever heard an interventionist, or a British agent, or a member of the administration in Washington ask you to go back and study a record of what they have said since the war started? Are their self-styled defenders of democracy willing to put the issue of war to a vote of our people? Do you find these crusaders for foreign freedom of speech, or the removal of censorship here in our own country? The subterfuge and propaganda that exists in our country is obvious on every side. Tonight, I shall try to pierce through a portion of it, to the naked facts which lie beneath. When this war started in Europe, it was clear that the American people were solidly opposed to entering it. Why shouldn't we be? We had the best defensive position in the world; we had a tradition of independence from Europe; and the one time we did take part in a European war left European problems unsolved, and debts to America unpaid. National polls showed that when England and France declared war on Germany, in 1939, less than 10 percent of our population favored a similar course for America. But there were various groups of people, here and abroad, whose interests and beliefs necessitated the involvement of the United States in the war. I shall point out some of these groups tonight, and outline their methods of procedure. In doing this, I must speak with the utmost frankness, for in order to counteract their efforts, we must know exactly who they are. The three most important groups who have been pressing this country toward war are the British, the Jewish and the Roosevelt administration. Behind these groups, but of lesser importance, are a number of capitalists, Anglophiles, and intellectuals who believe that the future of mankind depends upon the domination of the British empire. Add to these the Communistic groups who were opposed to intervention until a few weeks ago, and I believe I have named the major war agitators in this country. I am speaking here only of war agitators, not of those sincere but misguided men and women who, confused by misinformation and frightened by propaganda, follow the lead of the war agitators. As I have said, these war agitators comprise only a small minority of our people; but they control a tremendous influence. Against the determination of the American people to stay out of war, they have marshaled the power of their propaganda, their money, their patronage. Let us consider these groups, one at a time. First, the British: It is obvious and perfectly understandable that Great Britain wants the United States in the war on her side. England is now in a desperate position. Her population is not large enough and her armies are not strong enough to invade the continent of Europe and win the war she declared against Germany. Her geographical position is such that she cannot win the war by the use of aviation alone, regardless of how many planes we send her. Even if America entered the war, it is improbable that the Allied armies could invade Europe and overwhelm the Axis powers. But one thing is certain. If England can draw this country into the war, she can shift to our shoulders a large portion of the responsibility for waging it and for paying its cost. As you all know, we were left with the debts of the last European war; and unless we are more cautious in the future than we have been in the past, we will be left with the debts of the present case. If it were not for her hope that she can make us responsible for the war financially, as well as militarily, I believe England would have negotiated a peace in Europe many months ago, and be better off for doing so. England has devoted, and will continue to devote every effort to get us into the war. We know that she spent huge sums of money in this country during the last war in order to involve us. Englishmen have written books about the cleverness of its use. We know that England is spending great sums of money for propaganda in America during the present war. If we were Englishmen, we would do the same. But our interest is first in America; and as Americans, it is essential for us to realize the effort that British interests are making to draw us into their war. The second major group I mentioned is the Jewish. It is not difficult to understand why Jewish people desire the overthrow of Nazi Germany. The persecution they suffered in Germany would be sufficient to make bitter enemies of any race. No person with a sense of the dignity of mankind can condone the persecution of the Jewish race in Germany. But no person of honesty and vision can look on their pro-war policy here today without seeing the dangers involved in such a policy both for us and for them. Instead of agitating for war, the Jewish groups in this country should be opposing it in every possible way for they will be among the first to feel its consequences. Tolerance is a virtue that depends upon peace and strength. History shows that it cannot survive war and devastations. A few far-sighted Jewish people realize this and stand opposed to intervention. But the majority still do not. Their greatest danger to this country lies in their large ownership and influence in our motion pictures, our press, our radio and our government. I am not attacking either the Jewish or the British people. Both races, I admire. But I am saying that the leaders of both the British and the Jewish races, for reasons which are as understandable from their viewpoint as they are inadvisable from ours, for reasons which are not American, wish to involve us in the war. We cannot blame them for looking out for what they believe to be their own interests, but we also must look out for ours. We cannot allow the natural passions and prejudices of other peoples to lead our country to destruction. The Roosevelt administration is the third powerful group which has been carrying this country toward war. Its members have used the war emergency to obtain a third presidential term for the first time in American history. They have used the war to add unlimited billions to a debt which was already the highest we have ever known. And they have just used the war to justify the restriction of congressional power, and the assumption of dictatorial procedures on the part of the president and his appointees. The power of the Roosevelt administration depends upon the maintenance of a wartime emergency. The prestige of the Roosevelt administration depends upon the success of Great Britain to whom the president attached his political future at a time when most people thought that England and France would easily win the war. The danger of the Roosevelt administration lies in its subterfuge. While its members have promised us peace, they have led us to war heedless of the platform upon which they were elected. In selecting these three groups as the major agitators for war, I have included only those whose support is essential to the war party. If any one of these groups--the British, the Jewish, or the administration--stops agitating for war, I believe there will be little danger of our involvement. I do not believe that any two of them are powerful enough to carry this country to war without the support of the third. And to these three, as I have said, all other war groups are of secondary importance. When hostilities commenced in Europe, in 1939, it was realized by these groups that the American people had no intention of entering the war. They knew it would be worse than useless to ask us for a declaration of war at that time. But they believed that this country could be entered into the war in very much the same way we were entered into the last one. They planned: first, to prepare the United States for foreign war under the guise of American defense; second, to involve us in the war, step by step, without our realization; third, to create a series of incidents which would force us into the actual conflict. These plans were of course, to be covered and assisted by the full power of their propaganda. Our theaters soon became filled with plays portraying the glory of war. Newsreels lost all semblance of objectivity. Newspapers and magazines began to lose advertising if they carried anti-war articles. A smear campaign was instituted against individuals who opposed intervention. The terms "fifth columnist," "traitor," "Nazi," "anti-Semitic" were thrown ceaselessly at any one who dared to suggest that it was not to the best interests of the United States to enter the war. Men lost their jobs if they were frankly anti-war. Many others dared no longer speak. Before long, lecture halls that were open to the advocates of war were closed to speakers who opposed it. A fear campaign was inaugurated. We were told that aviation, which has held the British fleet off the continent of Europe, made America more vulnerable than ever before to invasion. Propaganda was in full swing. There was no difficulty in obtaining billions of dollars for arms under the guise of defending America. Our people stood united on a program of defense. Congress passed appropriation after appropriation for guns and planes and battleships, with the approval of the overwhelming majority of our citizens. That a large portion of these appropriations was to be used to build arms for Europe, we did not learn until later. That was another step. To use a specific example; in 1939, we were told that we should increase our air corps to a total of 5,000 planes. Congress passed the necessary legislation. A few months later, the administration told us that the United States should have at least 50,000 planes for our national safety. But almost as fast as fighting planes were turned out from our factories, they were sent abroad, although our own air corps was in the utmost need of new equipment; so that today, two years after the start of war, the American army has a few hundred thoroughly modern bombers and fighters--less in fact, than Germany is able to produce in a single month. Ever since its inception, our arms program has been laid out for the purpose of carrying on the war in Europe, far more than for the purpose of building an adequate defense for America. Now at the same time we were being prepared for a foreign war, it was necessary, as I have said, to involve us in the war. This was accomplished under that now famous phrase "steps short of war." England and France would win if the United States would only repeal its arms embargo and sell munitions for cash, we were told. And then [illegible] began, a refrain that marked every step we took toward war for many months--"the best way to defend America and keep out of war." we were told, was "by aiding the Allies." First, we agreed to sell arms to Europe; next, we agreed to loan arms to Europe; then we agreed to patrol the ocean for Europe; then we occupied a European island in the war zone. Now, we have reached the verge of war. The war groups have succeeded in the first two of their three major steps into war. The greatest armament program in our history is under way. We have become involved in the war from practically every standpoint except actual shooting. Only the creation of sufficient "incidents" yet remains; and you see the first of these already taking place, according to plan [ill.]-- a plan that was never laid before the American people for their approval. Men and women of Iowa; only one thing holds this country from war today. That is the rising opposition of the American people. Our system of democracy and representative government is on test today as it has never been before. We are on the verge of a war in which the only victor would be chaos and prostration. We are on the verge of a war for which we are still unprepared, and for which no one has offered a feasible plan for victory--a war which cannot be won without sending our soldiers across the ocean to force a landing on a hostile coast against armies stronger than our own. We are on the verge of war, but it is not yet too late to stay out. It is not too late to show that no amount of money, or propaganda, or patronage can force a free and independent people into war against its will. It is not yet too late to retrieve and to maintain the independent American destiny that our forefathers established in this new world. The entire future rests upon our shoulders. It depends upon our action, our courage, and our intelligence. If you oppose our intervention in the war, now is the time to make your voice heard. Help us to organize these meetings; and write to your representatives in Washington. I tell you that the last stronghold of democracy and representative government in this country is in our house of representatives and our senate. There, we can still make our will known. And if we, the American people, do that, independence and freedom will continue to live among us, and there will be no foreign war.
Source: Tim Donahue • Printed from National Vanguard( ) National Vanguard • Box 5145 • Charlottesville • VA 22905 •