Jack Kevorkian, once known as Dr. Death for his assisted suicide advocacy, is now an independent candidate for Congress in Michigan. Kevorkian is running a low-budget campaign and not taking donations. It appears he is trying to make up for the financial limitations with some interesting campaign observations.
At a recent forum, Kevorkian said voters were “kind of sheep-like. You’ve all been conditioned to think and act like sheep.”
“You are enslaved, but you don’t know it. You don’t want to admit it because you’re walking around free, eating good dinners. As long as you’re comfortable, you’re controllable,” said Kevorkian.
In his campaign, Kevorkian quotes often from the likes of Alexis de Tocqueville, Thomas Jefferson and Friedrich Nietzsche. He is definitely not your typical politician.
Kevorkian, who promises to serve only two years if elected, says his main goal is to draw attention to the Ninth Amendment which guarantees the rights not listed elsewhere in the Constitution. Kevorkian believes that this means people can do anything as long as it does not directly harm another.
A new book by the author Ron Suskind claims that the White House ordered the CIA to forge a back-dated, handwritten letter from the head of Iraqi intelligence to Saddam Hussein.
Suskind writes in “The Way of the World,” to be published Tuesday, that the alleged forgery – adamantly denied by the White House – was designed to portray a false link between Hussein’s regime and al Qaeda as a justification for the Iraq war.
The author also claims that the Bush administration had information from a top Iraqi intelligence official “that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq – intelligence they received in plenty of time to stop an invasion.”
The letter’s existence has been reported before, and it had been written about as if it were genuine. It was passed in Baghdad to a reporter for The (London) Sunday Telegraph who wrote about it on the front page of Dec. 14, 2003, under the headline, “Terrorist behind September 11 strike ‘was trained by Saddam.’”
The Telegraph story by Con Coughlin (which, coincidentally, ran the day Hussein was captured in his “spider hole”) was touted in the U.S. media by supporters of the war, and he was interviewed on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”
“Over the next few days, the Habbush letter continued to be featured prominently in the United States and across the globe,” Suskind writes. “Fox’s Bill O’Reilly trumpeted the story Sunday night on ‘The O’Reilly Factor,’ talking breathlessly about details of the story and exhorting, ‘Now, if this is true, that blows the lid off al Qaeda—Saddam.'”
According to Suskind, the administration had been in contact with the director of the Iraqi intelligence service in the last years of Hussein’s regime, Tahir Jalil Habbush al-Tikriti.
“The White House had concocted a fake letter from Habbush to Saddam, backdated to July 1, 2001,” Suskind writes. “It said that 9/11 ringleader Mohammad Atta had actually trained for his mission in Iraq – thus showing, finally, that there was an operational link between Saddam and al Qaeda, something the Vice President’s Office had been pressing CIA to prove since 9/11 as a justification to invade Iraq. There is no link.”
The White House flatly denied Suskind’s account. Tony Fratto, deputy White House press secretary, told Politico: “The allegation that the White House directed anyone to forge a document from Habbush to Saddam is just absurd.”
The White House plans to push back hard. Fratto added: “Ron Suskind makes a living from gutter journalism. He is about selling books and making wild allegations that no one can verify, including the numerous bipartisan commissions that have reported on pre-war intelligence.”
Before “The Way of the World: A Story of Truth and Hope in an Age of Extremism,” Suskind wrote two New York Times bestsellers critical of the Bush administration – “The Price of Loyalty” (2004), which featured extensive comments by former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill, and “The One Percent Doctrine” (2006).
Suskind writes in his new book that the order to create the letter was written on “creamy White House stationery.” The book suggests that the letter was subsequently created by the CIA and delivered to Iraq, but does not say how.
The author claims that such an operation, part of “false pretenses” for war, would apparently constitute illegal White House use of the CIA to influence a domestic audience, an arguably impeachable offense.
Suskind writes that the White House had “ignored the Iraq intelligence chief’s accurate disclosure that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq – intelligence they received in plenty of time to stop an invasion.
“They secretly resettled him in Jordan, paid him $5 million – which one could argue was hush money – and then used his captive status to help deceive the world about one of the era’s most crushing truths: that America had gone to war under false pretenses,” the book says.
Suskind writes that the forgery “operation created by the White House and passed to the CIA seems inconsistent with” a statute saying the CIA may not conduct covert operations “intended to influence United States political processes, public opinion, policies or media.”
“It is not the sort of offense, such as assault or burglary, that carries specific penalties, for example, a fine or jail time,” Suskind writes. “It is much broader than that. It pertains to the White House’s knowingly misusing an arm of government, the sort of thing generally taken up in impeachment proceedings.”
Habbush is still listed as wanted on a State Department website designed to help combat international terrorism, with the notation: “Up to $1 Million Reward.”
Suskind is scheduled to discuss the book’s findings – and his assertion that the country has “diminished moral authority” — in a pair of interviews by NBC’s Meredith Vieira on the “Today” show at 7:10 p.m. Eastern on Tuesday and Wednesday.
“[B]y placing so much on its secret ledger,” Suskind writes in his final chapter, “the administration profoundly altered basic democratic ideals of accountability and informed consent.”
The book (HarperCollins, $27.95) was not supposed to be publicly available until Tuesday, but Politico purchased a copy Monday night at a Washington bookstore.
Suskind, an engaging and confident Washingtonian, writes that the book was “one tough project.” He won the Pulitzer Prize for feature writing as a reporter for The Wall Street Journal, where he worked from 1993 to 2000.
The White House said Suskind received no formal cooperation. He writes in the acknowledgments section at the end of the book: “It should be noted that the intelligence sources who are quoted in this book in no way disclosed any classified information. None crossed the line.”
Among the 415-page book’s other highlights:
–John Maguire, one of two men who oversaw the CIA’s Iraq Operations Group, was frustrated by what Suskind describes as the “tendency of the White House to ignore advice it didn’t want to hear – advice that contradicted its willed certainty, political judgments, or rigid message strategies.”
And Suskind writes that the administration “did not want to hear the word insurgency.”
–In the first days of his presidency, Bush rejected advice from the CIA to wiretap Russian President Vladimir Putin in February 2001 in Vienna, where he was staying in a hotel where the CIA had a listening device planted in the wall of the presidential suite, in need only of a battery change. The CIA said that if the surveillance were discovered, Putin’s respect for Bush would be heightened.
But Condoleezza Rice, Bush’s national security adviser, advised that it was “too risky, it might be discovered,” Suskind writes. Bush decided against if as “a gut decision” based on what he thought was a friendship based on several conversations, including during the presidential campaign. The CIA had warned him that Putin “was a trained KGB agent … [who] wants you to think he’s your friend.”
–Suskind reports that Bush initially told Cheney he had to “‘step back’ in large meetings when they were together, like those at the NSC [National Security Council], because people were addressing and deferring to Cheney. Cheney said he understood, that he’d mostly just take notes at the big tables and then he and Bush would meet privately, frequently, to discuss options and action.”
–Suskind contends Cheney established “deniability” for Bush as part of the vice president’s “complex strategies, developed over decades, for how to protect a president.”
“After the searing experience of being in the Nixon White House, Cheney developed a view that the failure of Watergate was not the break-in, or even the cover-up, but the way the president had, in essence, been over-briefed. There were certain things a president shouldn’t know – things that could be illegal, disruptive to key foreign relationships, or humiliating to the executive.
“They key was a signaling system, where the president made his wishes broadly known to a sufficiently powerful deputy who could take it from there. If an investigation ensued, or a foreign leader cried foul, the president could shrug. This was never something he’d authorized. The whole point of Cheney’s model is to make a president less accountable for his action. Cheney’s view is that accountability – a bedrock feature of representative democracy – is not, in every case, a virtue.”
–Suskind is acidly derisive of Bush, saying that he initially lost his “nerve” on 9/11, regaining it when he grabbed the Ground Zero bullhorn. Suskind says Bush’s 9 p.m. Oval Office address on the fifth anniversary was “well along in petulance, seasoned by a touch of self-defensiveness.”
“Moving on its own natural arc, the country is in the process of leaving Bush – his bullying impulse fused, permanently, with satisfying vengeance – in the scattering ashes of 9/11,” Suskind writes. “The high purpose his angry words carried after the attacks, and in two elections since, is dissolving with each passing minute.”
–Suskind writes in the acknowledgments that his research assistant, Greg Jackson, “was sent to New York on a project for the book” in September 2007 and was “detained by federal agents in Manhattan. He was interrogated and his notes were confiscated, violations of his First and Fourth Amendment rights.” The author provides no further detail.
by Hugo Chavez
20 September 2006
Address to the United Nations
Representatives of the governments of the world, good morning to all of you. First of all, I would like to invite you, very respectfully, to those who have not read this book, to read it.
Noam Chomsky, one of the most prestigious American and world intellectuals, Noam Chomsky, and this is one of his most recent books, ‘ Hegemony or Survival: The Imperialist Strategy of the United States.'” [Holds up book, waves it in front of General Assembly.] “It’s an excellent book to help us understand what has been happening in the world throughout the 20th century, and what’s happening now, and the greatest threat looming over our planet.
The hegemonic pretensions of the American empire are placing at risk the very survival of the human species. We continue to warn you about this danger and we appeal to the people of the United States and the world to halt this threat, which is like a sword hanging over our heads. I had considered reading from this book, but, for the sake of time,” [flips through the pages, which are numerous] “I will just leave it as a recommendation.
It reads easily, it is a very good book, I’m sure Madame [President] you are familiar with it. It appears in English, in Russian, in Arabic, in German. I think that the first people who should read this book are our brothers and sisters in the United States, because their threat is right in their own house.
The devil is right at home. The devil, the devil himself, is right in the house.
“And the devil came here yesterday. Yesterday the devil came here. Right here.” [crosses himself] “And it smells of sulfur still today.
Yesterday, ladies and gentlemen, from this rostrum, the president of the United States, the gentleman to whom I refer as the devil, came here, talking as if he owned the world. Truly. As the owner of the world.
I think we could call a psychiatrist to analyze yesterday’s statement made by the president of the United States. As the spokesman of imperialism, he came to share his nostrums, to try to preserve the current pattern of domination, exploitation and pillage of the peoples of the world.
An Alfred Hitchcock movie could use it as a scenario. I would even propose a title: “The Devil’s Recipe.”
As Chomsky says here, clearly and in depth, the American empire is doing all it can to consolidate its system of domination. And we cannot allow them to do that. We cannot allow world dictatorship to be consolidated.
The world parent’s statement – cynical, hypocritical, full of this imperial hypocrisy from the need they have to control everything.
They say they want to impose a democratic model. But that’s their democratic model. It’s the false democracy of elites, and, I would say, a very original democracy that’s imposed by weapons and bombs and firing weapons.
What a strange democracy. Aristotle might not recognize it or others who are at the root of democracy.
What type of democracy do you impose with marines and bombs?
The president of the United States, yesterday, said to us, right here, in this room, and I’m quoting, “Anywhere you look, you hear extremists telling you can escape from poverty and recover your dignity through violence, terror and martyrdom.”
Wherever he looks, he sees extremists. And you, my brother – he looks at your color, and he says, oh, there’s an extremist. Evo Morales, the worthy president of Bolivia, looks like an extremist to him.
The imperialists see extremists everywhere. It’s not that we are extremists. It’s that the world is waking up. It’s waking up all over. And people are standing up.
I have the feeling, dear world dictator, that you are going to live the rest of your days as a nightmare because the rest of us are standing up, all those who are rising up against American imperialism, who are shouting for equality, for respect, for the sovereignty of nations.
Yes, you can call us extremists, but we are rising up against the empire, against the model of domination.
The president then – and this he said himself, he said: “I have come to speak directly to the populations in the Middle East, to tell them that my country wants peace.”
That’s true. If we walk in the streets of the Bronx, if we walk around New York, Washington, San Diego, in any city, San Antonio, San Francisco, and we ask individuals, the citizens of the United States, what does this country want? Does it want peace? They’ll say yes.
But the government doesn’t want peace. The government of the United States doesn’t want peace. It wants to exploit its system of exploitation, of pillage, of hegemony through war.
It wants peace. But what’s happening in Iraq? What happened in Lebanon? In Palestine? What’s happening? What’s happened over the last 100 years in Latin America and in the world? And now threatening Venezuela – new threats against Venezuela, against Iran?
He spoke to the people of Lebanon. Many of you, he said, have seen how your homes and communities were caught in the crossfire. How cynical can you get? What a capacity to lie shamefacedly. The bombs in Beirut with millimetric precision?
This is crossfire? He’s thinking of a western, when people would shoot from the hip and somebody would be caught in the crossfire.
This is imperialist, fascist, assassin, genocidal, the empire and Israel firing on the people of Palestine and Lebanon. That is what happened. And now we hear, “We’re suffering because we see homes destroyed.’
The president of the United States came to talk to the peoples – to the peoples of the world. He came to say – I brought some documents with me, because this morning I was reading some statements, and I see that he talked to the people of Afghanistan, the people of Lebanon, the people of Iran. And he addressed all these peoples directly.
And you can wonder, just as the president of the United States addresses those peoples of the world, what would those peoples of the world tell him if they were given the floor? What would they have to say?
And I think I have some inkling of what the peoples of the south, the oppressed people think. They would say, “Yankee imperialist, go home.” I think that is what those people would say if they were given the microphone and if they could speak with one voice to the American imperialists.
And that is why, Madam President, my colleagues, my friends, last year we came here to this same hall as we have been doing for the past eight years, and we said something that has now been confirmed – fully, fully confirmed.
I don’t think anybody in this room could defend the system. Let’s accept – let’s be honest. The U.N. system, born after the Second World War, collapsed. It’s worthless.
Oh, yes, it’s good to bring us together once a year, see each other, make statements and prepare all kinds of long documents, and listen to good speeches, like Abel’s yesterday, or President Mullah’s . Yes, it’s good for that.
And there are a lot of speeches, and we’ve heard lots from the president of Sri Lanka, for instance, and the president of Chile.
But we, the assembly, have been turned into a merely deliberative organ. We have no power, no power to make any impact on the terrible situation in the world. And that is why Venezuela once again proposes, here, today, 20 September, that we re-establish the United Nations.
Last year, Madam, we made four modest proposals that we felt to be crucially important. We have to assume the responsibility our heads of state, our ambassadors, our representatives, and we have to discuss it.
The first is expansion, and Mullah talked about this yesterday right here. The Security Council, both as it has permanent and non-permanent categories, (inaudible) developing countries and LDCs must be given access as new permanent members. That’s step one.
Second, effective methods to address and resolve world conflicts, transparent decisions.
Point three, the immediate suppression – and that is something everyone’s calling for – of the anti-democratic mechanism known as the veto, the veto on decisions of the Security Council.
Let me give you a recent example. The immoral veto of the United States allowed the Israelis, with impunity, to destroy Lebanon. Right in front of all of us as we stood there watching, a resolution in the council was prevented.
Fourthly, we have to strengthen, as we’ve always said, the role and the powers of the secretary general of the United Nations.
Yesterday, the secretary general practically gave us his speech of farewell. And he recognized that over the last 10 years, things have just gotten more complicated; hunger, poverty, violence, human rights violations have just worsened. That is the tremendous consequence of the collapse of the United Nations system and American hegemonistic pretensions.
Madam, Venezuela a few years ago decided to wage this battle within the United Nations by recognizing the United Nations, as members of it that we are, and lending it our voice, our thinking.
Our voice is an independent voice to represent the dignity and the search for peace and the reformulation of the international system; to denounce persecution and aggression of hegemonistic forces on the planet.
This is how Venezuela has presented itself. Bolivar’s home has sought a nonpermanent seat on the Security Council.
Let’s see. Well, there’s been an open attack by the U.S. government, an immoral attack, to try and prevent Venezuela from being freely elected to a post in the Security Council.
The imperium is afraid of truth, is afraid of independent voices. It calls us extremists, but they are the extremists.
And I would like to thank all the countries that have kindly announced their support for Venezuela, even though the ballot is a secret one and there’s no need to announce things.
But since the imperium has attacked, openly, they strengthened the convictions of many countries. And their support strengthens us.
Mercosur, as a bloc, has expressed its support, our brothers in Mercosur. Venezuela, with Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay, is a full member of Mercosur.
And many other Latin American countries, CARICOM, Bolivia have expressed their support for Venezuela. The Arab League, the full Arab League has voiced its support. And I am immensely grateful to the Arab world, to our Arab brothers, our Caribbean brothers, the African Union. Almost all of Africa has expressed its support for Venezuela and countries such as Russia or China and many others.
I thank you all warmly on behalf of Venezuela, on behalf of our people, and on behalf of the truth, because Venezuela, with a seat on the Security Council, will be expressing not only Venezuela’s thoughts, but it will also be the voice of all the peoples of the world, and we will defend dignity and truth.
Over and above all of this, Madam President, I think there are reasons to be optimistic. A poet would have said “helplessly optimistic,” because over and above the wars and the bombs and the aggressive and the preventive war and the destruction of entire peoples, one can see that a new era is dawning.
As Silvio Rodriguez says, the era is giving birth to a heart. There are alternative ways of thinking. There are young people who think differently. And this has already been seen within the space of a mere decade. It was shown that the end of history was a totally false assumption, and the same was shown about Pax Americana and the establishment of the capitalist neo-liberal world. It has been shown, this system, to generate mere poverty. Who believes in it now?
What we now have to do is define the future of the world. Dawn is breaking out all over. You can see it in Africa and Europe and Latin America and Oceanea. I want to emphasize that optimistic vision.
We have to strengthen ourselves, our will to do battle, our awareness. We have to build a new and better world.
Venezuela joins that struggle, and that’s why we are threatened. The U.S. has already planned, financed and set in motion a coup in Venezuela, and it continues to support coup attempts in Venezuela and elsewhere.
President Michelle Bachelet reminded us just a moment ago of the horrendous assassination of the former foreign minister, Orlando Letelier.
And I would just add one thing: Those who perpetrated this crime are free. And that other event where an American citizen also died were American themselves. They were CIA killers, terrorists.
And we must recall in this room that in just a few days there will be another anniversary. Thirty years will have passed from this other horrendous terrorist attack on the Cuban plane, where 73 innocents died, a Cubana de Aviacion airliner.
And where is the biggest terrorist of this continent who took the responsibility for blowing up the plane? He spent a few years in jail in Venezuela. Thanks to CIA and then government officials, he was allowed to escape, and he lives here in this country, protected by the government.
And he was convicted. He has confessed to his crime. But the U.S. government has double standards. It protects terrorism when it wants to.
And this is to say that Venezuela is fully committed to combating terrorism and violence. And we are one of the people who are fighting for peace.
Luis Posada Carriles is the name of that terrorist who is protected here. And other tremendously corrupt people who escaped from Venezuela are also living here under protection: a group that bombed various embassies, that assassinated people during the coup. They kidnapped me and they were going to kill me, but I think God reached down and our people came out into the streets and the army was too, and so I’m here today.
But these people who led that coup are here today in this country protected by the American government. And I accuse the American government of protecting terrorists and of having a completely cynical discourse.
We mentioned Cuba. Yes, we were just there a few days ago. We just came from there happily.
And there you see another era born. The Summit of the 15, the Summit of the Nonaligned, adopted a historic resolution. This is the outcome document. Don’t worry, I’m not going to read it.
But you have a whole set of resolutions here that were adopted after open debate in a transparent matter – more than 50 heads of state. Havana was the capital of the south for a few weeks, and we have now launched, once again, the group of the nonaligned with new momentum.
And if there is anything I could ask all of you here, my companions, my brothers and sisters, it is to please lend your good will to lend momentum to the Nonaligned Movement for the birth of the new era, to prevent hegemony and prevent further advances of imperialism.
And as you know, Fidel Castro is the president of the nonaligned for the next three years, and we can trust him to lead the charge very efficiently.
Unfortunately they thought, “Oh, Fidel was going to die.” But they’re going to be disappointed because he didn’t. And he’s not only alive, he’s back in his green fatigues, and he’s now presiding the nonaligned.
So, my dear colleagues, Madam President, a new, strong movement has been born, a movement of the south. We are men and women of the south.
With this document, with these ideas, with these criticisms, I’m now closing my file. I’m taking the book with me. And, don’t forget, I’m recommending it very warmly and very humbly to all of you.
We want ideas to save our planet, to save the planet from the imperialist threat. And hopefully in this very century, in not too long a time, we will see this, we will see this new era, and for our children and our grandchildren a world of peace based on the fundamental principles of the United Nations, but a renewed United Nations.
And maybe we have to change location. Maybe we have to put the United Nations somewhere else; maybe a city of the south. We’ve proposed Venezuela.
You know that my personal doctor had to stay in the plane. The chief of security had to be left in a locked plane. Neither of these gentlemen was allowed to arrive and attend the U.N. meeting. This is another abuse and another abuse of power on the part of the Devil. It smells of sulfur here, but God is with us and I embrace you all.
May God bless us all. Good day to you.
by Avraham Burg
15 September 2003
The Zionist revolution has always rested on two pillars: a just path and an ethical leadership. Neither of these is operative any longer. The Israeli nation today rests on a scaffolding of corruption, and on foundations of oppression and injustice. As such, the end of the Zionist enterprise is already on our doorstep. There is a real chance that ours will be the last Zionist generation. There may yet be a Jewish state here, but it will be a different sort, strange and ugly.
There is time to change course, but not much. What is needed is a new vision of a just society and the political will to implement it. Diaspora Jews for whom Israel is a central pillar of their identity must pay heed and speak out.
The opposition does not exist, and the coalition, with Ariel Sharon at its head, claims the right to remain silent. In a nation of chatterboxes, everyone has suddenly fallen dumb, because there’s nothing left to say. We live in a thunderously failed reality. Yes, we have revived the Hebrew language, created a marvellous theatre and a strong national currency. Our Jewish minds are as sharp as ever. We are traded on the Nasdaq. But is this why we created a state? The Jewish people did not survive for two millennia in order to pioneer new weaponry, computer security programs or anti-missile missiles. We were supposed to be a light unto the nations. In this we have failed.
It turns out that the 2,000-year struggle for Jewish survival comes down to a state of settlements, run by an amoral clique of corrupt lawbreakers who are deaf both to their citizens and to their enemies. A state lacking justice cannot survive. More and more Israelis are coming to understand this as they ask their children where they expect to live in 25 years. Children who are honest admit, to their parents’ shock, that they do not know. The countdown to the end of Israeli society has begun.
It is very comfortable to be a Zionist in West Bank settlements such as Beit El and Ofra. The biblical landscape is charming. You can gaze through the geraniums and bougainvilleas and not see the occupation. Travelling on the fast highway that skirts barely a half-mile west of the Palestinian roadblocks, it’s hard to comprehend the humiliating experience of the despised Arab who must creep for hours along the pocked, blockaded roads assigned to him. One road for the occupier, one road for the occupied.
This cannot work. Even if the Arabs lower their heads and swallow their shame and anger for ever, it won’t work. A structure built on human callousness will inevitably collapse in on itself. Note this moment well: Zionism’s superstructure is already collapsing like a cheap Jerusalem wedding hall. Only madmen continue dancing on the top floor while the pillars below are collapsing.
We have grown accustomed to ignoring the suffering of the women at the roadblocks. No wonder we don’t hear the cries of the abused woman living next door or the single mother struggling to support her children in dignity. We don’t even bother to count the women murdered by their husbands.
Israel, having ceased to care about the children of the Palestinians, should not be surprised when they come washed in hatred and blow themselves up in the centres of Israeli escapism. They consign themselves to Allah in our places of recreation, because their own lives are torture. They spill their own blood in our restaurants in order to ruin our appetites, because they have children and parents at home who are hungry and humiliated. We could kill a thousand ringleaders a day and nothing will be solved, because the leaders come up from below – from the wells of hatred and anger, from the “infrastructures” of injustice and moral corruption.
If all this were inevitable, divinely ordained and immutable, I would be silent. But things could be different, and so crying out is a moral imperative.
Here is what the prime minister should say to the people: the time for illusions is over. The time for decisions has arrived. We love the entire land of our forefathers and in some other time we would have wanted to live here alone. But that will not happen. The Arabs, too, have dreams and needs.
Between the Jordan and the Mediterranean there is no longer a clear Jewish majority. And so, fellow citizens, it is not possible to keep the whole thing without paying a price. We cannot keep a Palestinian majority under an Israeli boot and at the same time think ourselves the only democracy in the Middle East. There cannot be democracy without equal rights for all who live here, Arab as well as Jew. We cannot keep the territories and preserve a Jewish majority in the world’s only Jewish state – not by means that are humane and moral and Jewish.
Do you want the greater land of Israel? No problem. Abandon democracy. Let’s institute an efficient system of racial separation here, with prison camps and detention villages.
Do you want a Jewish majority? No problem. Either put the Arabs on railway cars, buses, camels and donkeys and expel them en masse – or separate ourselves from them absolutely, without tricks and gimmicks. There is no middle path. We must remove all the settlements – all of them – and draw an internationally recognised border between the Jewish national home and the Palestinian national home. The Jewish law of return will apply only within our national home, and their right of return will apply only within the borders of the Palestinian state.
Do you want democracy? No problem. Either abandon the greater land of Israel, to the last settlement and outpost, or give full citizenship and voting rights to everyone, including Arabs. The result, of course, will be that those who did not want a Palestinian state alongside us will have one in our midst, via the ballot box.
The prime minister should present the choices forthrightly: Jewish racism or democracy. Settlements, or hope for both peoples. False visions of barbed wire and suicide bombers, or a recognised international border between two states and a shared capital in Jerusalem.
Why, then, is the opposition so quiet? Perhaps because some would like to join the government at any price, even the price of participating in the sickness. But while they dither, the forces of good lose hope. Anyone who declines to present a clear-cut position – black or white – is collaborating in the decline. It is not a matter of Labour versus Likud or right versus left, but of right versus wrong, acceptable versus unacceptable. The law-abiding versus the lawbreakers. What’s needed is not a political replacement for the Sharon government but a vision of hope, an alternative to the destruction of Zionism and its values by the deaf, dumb and callous.
Israel’s friends abroad – Jewish and non-Jewish alike, presidents and prime ministers, rabbis and lay people – should choose as well. They must reach out and help Israel to navigate the road map toward our national destiny as a light unto the nations and a society of peace, justice and equality.
© Avraham Burg
· Avraham Burg was speaker of Israel’s Knesset in 1999-2003 and is a former chairman of the Jewish Agency for Israel. Reprinted with permission of The Forward, which translated and adapted this essay from an article that originally appeared in Yediot Aharonot.
More than 100 political activists took to downtown streets Saturday to protest any war that would involve the United States and Iran, as the political discourse surrounding that country’s nuclear program intensifies.
Representing 18 community and political groups citywide, they marched from the Thompson Center to the Israeli Consulate and the campaign headquarters of Barack Obama, chanting: “We want justice, we want peace. U.S. out of the Middle East!”
Marchers criticized Obama for failing to rule out a possible attack on Iran if negotiations break down on nuclear talks with that country.
They condemned Israel’s simulated bombings against Iran’s nuclear facilities, reportedly carried out in June.
“You are hypocrites. You’re breakers of the nuclear proliferation treaty,” Bill Chambers, of the Palestinian Solidarity Group, yelled outside the consulate.
Obama also drew criticism from marchers for recently acknowledging the possibility of an Israeli strike against Iran without offering a peaceful alternative to a potential war in that region.
Protesters said Obama has proclaimed himself the “peace candidate,” while displaying indecisiveness regarding the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.
“He says he doesn’t want a third-term Bush, yet he says he’s in favor of 20,000 more troops going to Afghanistan, and invading Iran and Pakistan,” said Andy Thayer of the Chicago Coalition Against War and Racism.
Obama’s campaign later responded that the senator would continue to encourage Iran to cease its nuclear program.
“A nuclear-armed Iran would be a threat to the United States and to Israel, and would threaten a nuclear arms race in the Middle East,” a campaign spokeswoman said in a statement Saturday.
Ex-official: US has rogue elements in ISI
Tue, 05 Aug 2008 09:17:45
Former ISI official, Khalid Khawaja
A former official with Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence has warned against presence of US-backed rogue elements in the spy agency.
“Some rogue elements in the ISI are working against the interest of the country. They are being funded by a terror sponsor state, the US,” Khalid Khawaja, who is also Chief Coordinator at the Defense of Human Rights, an NGO, in Islamabad, said in an interview with Press TV.
He added that there was a confusion over the country’s powerful spy agency since nobody really knew who controlled the ISI.
“Anytime the Supreme Court called the Interior Ministry or the Defense Ministry, they could not get the ISI into the court,” he said, adding the Americans do not want the court to reach the people who have been abducted by the ISI.
He made the statement in reference to Amnesty International which accused the US and Britain of helping Pakistani intelligence agency in the “enforced disappearances” of more than 560 people.
The group earlier called on Pakistani intelligence agencies to either free them or move them to official jails.
Khawaja also asserted that the Americans had planted the bomb in the Indian Embassy in Kabul to widen the rift between Indians and Pakistanis.
The debate comes after a New York Times report according to which the US State Department, based on intercepted communications between Pakistani intelligence officers and militants, concluded that Pakistani intelligence officers are actively undermining coalition efforts to combat militants in the region.
Analysts say the developments could be also a sign that the relationship between the CIA and the ISI may be deteriorating.
By Frank Rich,
We know what a criminal White House looks like from “The Final Days,” Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein’s classic account of Richard Nixon’s unraveling. The cauldron of lies, paranoia and illegal surveillance boiled over, until it was finally every man for himself as desperate courtiers scrambled to save their reputations and, in a few patriotic instances, their country.
“The Final Days” was published in 1976, two years after Nixon abdicated in disgrace. With the Bush presidency, no journalist (or turncoat White House memoirist) is waiting for the corpse to be carted away. The latest and perhaps most chilling example arrives this week from Jane Mayer of The New Yorker, long a relentless journalist on the war-on-terror torture beat. Her book “The Dark Side” connects the dots of her own past reporting and that of her top-tier colleagues (including James Risen and Scott Shane of The New York Times) to portray a White House that, like its prototype, savaged its enemies within almost as ferociously as it did the Constitution.
Some of “The Dark Side” seems right out of “The Final Days,” minus Nixon’s operatic boozing and weeping. We learn, for instance, that in 2004 two conservative Republican Justice Department officials had become “so paranoid” that “they actually thought they might be in physical danger.” The fear of being wiretapped by their own peers drove them to speak in code.
The men were John Ashcroft’s deputy attorney general, James Comey, and an assistant attorney general, Jack Goldsmith. Their sin was to challenge the White House’s don, Dick Cheney, and his consigliere, his chief of staff David Addington, when they circumvented the Geneva Conventions to make torture the covert law of the land. Mr. Comey and Mr. Goldsmith failed to stop the “torture memos” and are long gone from the White House. But Vice President Cheney and Mr. Addington remain enabled by a president, attorney general (Michael Mukasey) and C.I.A. director (Michael Hayden) who won’t shut the door firmly on torture even now.
Nixon parallels take us only so far, however. “The Dark Side” is scarier than “The Final Days” because these final days aren’t over yet and because the stakes are much higher. Watergate was all about a paranoid president’s narcissistic determination to cling to power at any cost. In Ms. Mayer’s portrayal of the Bush White House, the president is a secondary, even passive, figure, and the motives invoked by Mr. Cheney to restore Nixon-style executive powers are theoretically selfless. Possessed by the ticking-bomb scenarios of television’s “24,” all they want to do is protect America from further terrorist strikes.
So what if they cut corners, the administration’s last defenders argue. While prissy lawyers insist on habeas corpus and court-issued wiretap warrants, the rest of us are being kept safe by the Cheney posse.
But are we safe? As Al Qaeda and the Taliban surge this summer, that single question is even more urgent than the moral and legal issues attending torture.
On those larger issues, the evidence is in, merely awaiting adjudication. Mr. Bush’s 2005 proclamation that “we do not torture” was long ago revealed as a lie. Antonio Taguba, the retired major general who investigated detainee abuse for the Army, concluded that “there is no longer any doubt” that “war crimes were committed.” Ms. Mayer uncovered another damning verdict: Red Cross investigators flatly told the C.I.A. last year that America was practicing torture and vulnerable to war-crimes charges.
Top Bush hands are starting to get sweaty about where they left their fingerprints. Scapegoating the rotten apples at the bottom of the military’s barrel may not be a slam-dunk escape route from accountability anymore.
No wonder the former Rumsfeld capo, Douglas Feith, is trying to discredit a damaging interview he gave to the British lawyer Philippe Sands for another recent and essential book on what happened, “Torture Team.” After Mr. Sands previewed his findings in the May issue of Vanity Fair, Mr. Feith protested he had been misquoted — apparently forgetting that Mr. Sands had taped the interview. Mr. Feith and Mr. Sands are scheduled to square off in a House hearing this Tuesday.
So hot is the speculation that war-crimes trials will eventually follow in foreign or international courts that Lawrence Wilkerson, Colin Powell’s former chief of staff, has publicly advised Mr. Feith, Mr. Addington and Alberto Gonzales, among others, to “never travel outside the U.S., except perhaps to Saudi Arabia and Israel.” But while we wait for the wheels of justice to grind slowly, there are immediate fears to tend. Ms. Mayer’s book helps cement the case that America’s use of torture has betrayed not just American values but our national security, right to the present day.
In her telling, a major incentive for Mr. Cheney’s descent into the dark side was to cover up for the Bush White House’s failure to heed the Qaeda threat in 2001. Jack Cloonan, a special agent for the F.B.I.’s Osama bin Laden unit until 2002, told Ms. Mayer that Sept. 11 was “all preventable.” By March 2000, according to the C.I.A.’s inspector general, “50 or 60 individuals” in the agency knew that two Al Qaeda suspects — soon to be hijackers — were in America. But there was no urgency at the top. Thomas Pickard, the acting F.B.I. director that summer, told Ms. Mayer that when he expressed his fears about the Qaeda threat to Mr. Ashcroft, the attorney general snapped, “I don’t want to hear about that anymore!”
After 9/11, our government emphasized “interrogation over due process,” Ms. Mayer writes, “to pre-empt future attacks before they materialized.” But in reality torture may well be enabling future attacks. This is not just because Abu Ghraib snapshots have been used as recruitment tools by jihadists. No less destructive are the false confessions inevitably elicited from tortured detainees. The avalanche of misinformation since 9/11 has compromised prosecutions, allowed other culprits to escape and sent the American military on wild-goose chases. The coerced “confession” to the murder of the Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, to take one horrific example, may have been invented to protect the real murderer.
The biggest torture-fueled wild-goose chase, of course, is the war in Iraq. Exhibit A, revisited in “The Dark Side,” is Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, an accused Qaeda commander whose torture was outsourced by the C.I.A. to Egypt. His fabricated tales of Saddam’s biological and chemical W.M.D. — and of nonexistent links between Iraq and Al Qaeda — were cited by President Bush in his fateful Oct. 7, 2002, Cincinnati speech ginning up the war and by Mr. Powell in his subsequent United Nations presentation on Iraqi weaponry. Two F.B.I. officials told Ms. Mayer that Mr. al-Libi later explained his lies by saying: “They were killing me. I had to tell them something.”
That “something” was crucial in sending us into the quagmire that, five years later, has empowered Iran and compromised our ability to counter the very terrorists that torture was supposed to thwart. As The Times reported two weeks ago, Iraq has monopolized our military and intelligence resources to the point where we don’t have enough predator drones or expert C.I.A. field agents to survey the tribal areas where terrorists are amassing in Pakistan. Meanwhile, the threat to America from Al Qaeda is “comparable to what it faced on Sept. 11, 2001,” said Seth Jones, a RAND Corporation terrorism expert and Pentagon consultant. The difference between now and then is simply that the base of operations has moved, “roughly the difference from New York to Philadelphia.”
Yet once again terrorism has fallen off America’s map, landing at or near the bottom of voters’ concerns in recent polls. There were major attacks in rapid succession last week in Pakistan, Afghanistan (the deadliest in Kabul since we “defeated” the Taliban in 2001) and at the American consulate in Turkey. Who listened to this ticking time bomb? It’s reminiscent of July 2001, when few noticed that the Algerian convicted of trying to bomb Los Angeles International Airport on the eve of the millennium testified that he had been trained in bin Laden’s Afghanistan camps as part of a larger plot against America.
In last Sunday’s Washington Post, the national security expert Daniel Benjamin sounded an alarm about the “chronic” indecisiveness and poor execution of Bush national security policy as well as the continuing inadequacies of the Department of Homeland Security. Mr. Benjamin must feel a sinking sense of dj vu. Exactly seven years ago in the same newspaper, just two months before 9/11, he co-wrote an article headlined “Defusing a Time Bomb” imploring the Bush administration in vain to pay attention to Afghanistan because that country’s terrorists “continue to pose the most dangerous threat to American lives.”
And so we’re back where we started in the summer of 2001, with even shark attacks and Chandra Levy’s murder (courtesy of a new Washington Post investigation) returning to the news. We are once again distracted and unprepared while the Taliban and bin Laden’s minions multiply in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This, no less than the defiling of the Constitution, is the legacy of an administration that not merely rationalized the immorality of torture but shackled our national security to the absurdity that torture could easily fix the terrorist threat.
That’s why the Bush White House’s corruption in the end surpasses Nixon’s. We can no longer take cold comfort in the Watergate maxim that the cover-up was worse than the crime. This time the crime is worse than the cover-up, and the punishment could rain down on us all.
© 2008 The New York Times
by Patrick Wood
“We are moving to a global village and yet we don’t have our global elders. The Elders can be a group who have the trust of the world, who can speak freely, be fiercely independent and respond fast and flexibly in conflict situations.” (http://www.theelders.org website)
The Elders have arrived on the world scene. Thus far, there are 12 self-appointed “apostles” of globalism to manage the “global village.” This group represents the cream of the globalist crop.
- Nelson Mandela – Former president of South Africa
- Desmond Tutu – Former general secre-tary of the South African Council of Churches
- Ela Bhatt – Founder of SEWA (Self-Employed Women’s Association) in India
- Gro Brundtland – Former chair of the World Commission of Environment and Development (the Brundtland Commission), and driving force behind Sustain-able Development
- Jimmy Carter – Former president of the United States
- Muhammad Yunus – founder of Grameen Bank
- Graca Machel – President of Foundation for Community Development in Mozambique
- Kofi Annan – Former Secretary-General of the United Nations
- Lakhdar Brahimi – Former Under-Secretary General of the United Nations
- Fernando H. Cardoso – Former President of Brazil
- Mary Robinson – Former President of Ireland; former United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
- Aung San Suu Kyi – Freedom fighter and figurehead leader in Burma since 1988
Initial funding was secured from global players such as Richard Branson, Peter Gabriel, Humanity United, Tick Tarlow, the United Nations Foundations, and others.
The original idea behind The Elders came from British musical icon, Peter Gabriel.
The current Executive Director of The Elders is Dr. Robert A. Pastor (surprised?), who is also known as the “father of the North American Union” because of his tireless work to unite Mexico, Canada and the United States into a common block similar to the European Union.
Pastor has a very long association with Jimmy Carter dating back to the 1970’s, and with other members of the Trilateral Commission. For instance, he was the executive director of the infamous Linowitz Commission that produced the policy blueprint for Carter to give away the U.S.-owned Panama Canal during Carter’s presidency.
The Linowitz Commission consisted of eight members, seven of which were members of the Trilateral Commission. The temporary ambassador/negotiator to Panama was Commissioner Sol Linowitz.
Despite humanity’s dark history of corruption and war, Elder Desmond Tutu not only disagrees but also believes that he is held in such high regard so as to qualify himself for global eldership…
“Despite all the ghastliness that is around, human beings are made for goodness. The ones who ought to be held in high regard are not the ones who are militarily powerful, nor even economically prosperous. They are the ones who have a commitment to try and make the world a better place. We – The Elders – will endeavor to support those people and do our best for humanity.” – [Desmond Tutu, http://theelders.org website]
In case you are thinking this is a spoof, forget it. Go to their website and check it out for yourself!
The Elders apparently assume that most, if not all, of the world they serve will be under Marxist control because their members are decidedly pro-Marxist.
When a pro-Marxist group tells you that they are going to do what’s good for humanity, that’s reason enough for you to fortify your home and build a perimeter. After all, well over 100 million people died in the last century because they didn’t go along with what their Marxist leaders conjured up for them.
Indeed, Jimmy Carter and Robert Pastor both show their true colors by their association with The Elders. Globalist ego seems to know no bounds.
Ed Note: If you study the picture above, you will see Robert Pastor squatting at the center of the front row. Jimmy Carter is seen in the back row over Pastor’s left shoulder.
Picture courtesy of http://www.TheElders.org website
By Byron J. Richards, CCN
A new attack against health freedom, drug safety, and dietary supplements was launched last week by Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA) with major support from Michael Enzi (R-WY). It is called the Food and Drug Administration Revitalization Act (S1082). This legislation was planned over the past few years working hand-in-glove with the FDA’s dysfunctional management and legal team – meaning this legislation was written for the profits of Big Pharma and Big Biotech AT THE EXPENSE OF SAFETY AND HUMAN HEALTH.
S1082 is a Trojan Horse bill that pretends to address safety issues. Unbelievably, the bill turns the FDA into a drug development company that will expose Americans to new and dangerous biological drugs that have little testing to prove safety or effectiveness. And to top it off, the bill gives broad new regulatory powers to the FDA that can be used to frivolously attack dietary supplements and forward the FDA management’s anti-American globalization agenda.
On April 18, 2007, S1082 was approved by the HELP committee (which Kennedy and Enzi control) and now moves to the floor of the Senate. In a slick move, Kennedy has attached his long-planned FDA/Big Pharma “reform” measures to the renewal of Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA). Current PDUFA law expires later this year and must be reviewed by Congress. PDUFA allows Big Pharma to pay the FDA fees to speed the approval of its drugs. The new Kennedy bill will increase these FDA bribes to 380 million dollars in 2008, well over 50% of the FDA budget for new drug approvals. This is like paying the mob for protection. Kennedy, by replacing the existing PDUFA law with this new bill (S1082), is ensuring that his twisted legislation is the one that will be put before the Senate for a vote.
The FDA Drug Company, an Agency with New Regulatory Power
It is hard for anyone to comprehend that the agency that is supposed to be in charge of drug safety is about to become a drug company. It is astonishing that the FDA will now manage a full scale business activity that uses a “non profit” foundation as a shield to avoid international patent problems, protect proprietary rights of its commercial drug-development enterprise, and massively expands FDA regulatory powers to quickly remove anything from the market that is competition to its own products and licensing agreements.
This new FDA business enterprise is called the Reagan-Udall Foundation for the Food and Drug Administration (see pages 105-125). In previous versions of the Kennedy bill it was going to be an independent drug company within the FDA (the Reagan-Udall Institute for Applied Biomedical Research). In the current bill it is a “non profit” collaboration of the FDA, private industry, government funding, and private funding. It is run directly by the FDA even though it pretends to not be part of the government. Under this scam taxpayers will foot the bill for drug development and then be charged outrageous prices for the drugs. Furthermore, the new bill seeks to allow a massive expanse of FDA regulatory power through this new foundation. For example, on pages 106-107 the bill states:
“The purpose of the Foundation is to advance the mission of the Food and Drug Administration to modernize medical, veterinary, food, food ingredient, and cosmetic product development, accelerate innovation, and enhance product safety….The Foundation shall [take] into consideration the Critical Path reports and priorities published by the Food and Drug Administration, identify unmet needs in the development, manufacture, and evaluation of the safety and effectiveness, including post approval, of devices, including diagnostics, biologics, and drugs, and the safety of food, food ingredients, and cosmetics.”
Through this foundation the FDA is seeking broad new regulatory power that it currently does not possess. This will include the authority to attack any dietary supplement (which are food ingredients) as unsafe based on its use of “Critical Path” technology. This means the FDA will use proteomics (the advanced study of proteins in biological systems) to assess changes in biomarkers (the change in the state of a protein at the molecular level) in order to establish whatever it wants to consider as a risk. The FDA can slant this technology, based on their own personal opinions, to make anything they want appear as a risk – including your favorite dietary supplements that you use to stay healthy.
Deceiving the Public
This new bill panders to concerns of Americans regarding the safety of drugs. This legitimate worry is used by Kennedy and Enzi to garner support when in reality the bill does just the opposite – exposing Americans to almost unfathomable new drug risks and dangers while simultaneously making it possible to remove super safe, therapeutic, and helpful dietary supplements. The entire Critical Path initiative is a plan to race new and untested powerful biological drugs onto the market and experiment on patients all over the country – throwing caution to the wind as far as drug safety is concerned.
While S1082 also pretends to address the issues of drug safety, in reality all the needed Big Pharma loopholes are firmly in place. Additionally, the establishment of a clinical trial database as written in this proposed law will enable Big Pharma to hide experimental and undesirable side effects. Instead of full disclosure we will have a sterilized clinical trial database that will have the net effect of being used as a tool by Big Pharma to promote off label use of drugs. This is a far cry from disclosure that results in safety.
In response to the Kennedy con Charles Grassley (R-IA) immediately attacked the legislation on the floor of the Senate:
“The bill [S1082] does not address the outstanding critical problem that the office responsible for post-market drug safety lacks the independence, lacks the authority to promptly identify serious health risks and take necessary steps that will protect the public. As I think we all agree, the FDA is in desperate need of major overhaul.”
The problem for Grassley, and all Americans, is that his true safety reform measures for the FDA are being held hostage by the HELP committee which is under the control of Kennedy and Enzi. His proposed legislation is S. 468: Food and Drug Administration Safety Act of 2007 and S. 467: Fair Access to Clinical Trials Act of 2007. As Grassley told the Senate:
“Let me be clear: Big Pharma does not like these bills. FDA management does not like these bills. Lobbyists are spending hours upon hours lobbying against these bills…What is wrong with establishing a separate center within the FDA–not outside the FDA, within the FDA–with its only job being that of a watchdog for those drugs already in the market?…What is wrong with supporting a clinical trial registry and results database that also requires sponsors to reveal their negative trials?…I propose there is nothing wrong with any of these proposals.”
The situation is rather grave for all Americans. Kennedy has attached repressive legislation to replace the PDUFA funding thereby ensuring that his agenda will come before the Senate for a vote. The only real opposition to the legislation is coming from Grassley, who is attacking the weakness in FDA reform regarding drug safety and clinical trials. An even greater threat to the public – turning the FDA into a drug company and creating new regulatory powers that can be used to attack dietary supplements and remove them from the market – is being ignored by everyone – until now. Kennedy knows he can defeat Grassley and keep Grassley’s bills from ever seeing the light of day. Can Kennedy defeat the American public? Solving this problem is up to you.
The Secret FDA Agenda – Government Against the People
The FDA is a puppet organization. Its management is a revolving door with Big Pharma, Big Biotech, and Big Agriculture. The behavior of its management team, set by its current leader Andrew von Eschenbach – but fully entrenched in its long and ugly history, is one of acting as a police-force bully to forward the profits of those with money and stamp out all competition (under the false guise of consumer protection). The FDA management fully believes it is above any law that is in its way or any attempt at Congressional oversight. It gives lip service to its safety mission. It is a cult unto itself.
The anti-American FDA is actively seeking to undermine U.S. laws and harmonize our dietary supplement laws with Mexico and Canada. This is being done through the Trilateral Cooperation Charter – an illegal agreement set up with health regulatory agencies in Mexico and Canada. It is part of the campaign towards a North American Union, one which would be a catastrophe for health freedom in this country as dietary supplement laws in Canada and Mexico are far more restrictive than in the U.S.
The FDA would also like to harmonize our dietary supplement laws with the evolving international standards set by Codex, thus branding therapeutic nutrition as dangerous and risky and needing to be sold by Big Pharma or removed from the market altogether (if it competes with a blockbuster category of drugs). Codex is planning to use the same proteomics and biomarker technology that will be used by the FDA’s Critical Path Initiative to remove therapeutic dietary supplements from the international market and force their policies on America, thereby superseding the Sovereignty of American law on threat of trade sanctions. The FDA fully supports draconian Codex guidelines to regulate dietary supplements and is working with the Germans to concoct technology to brand nutrients as drugs. The FDA management is as bad as any government agency can get. Under the leadership of Andrew von Eschenbach it has plummeted to an al
By Cliff Kincaid
With his record of defending American borders and national Sovereignty in ruins, President Bush has decided to conclude his second term in office by making common cause with those who think America’s future lies in appeasing the “international community.” He apparently wants his “legacy” to be that he cared for the rest of the world. Watch your wallets—and your freedom.
The latest phase of this “legacy building” campaign began with a plea on Wednesday for more money to fight AIDS. This provided a photo opportunity for the President to pose with a black child. So far, about $200 billion has been spent by the federal government on AIDS, without any cure or vaccine being developed. But it looks “compassionate” to throw money at the problem. Tens of billions are now being spent, some of it provided by agreements brokered through Bill Clinton’s foundation, to fight AIDS with potentially toxic and lethal drugs.
On the eve of the G-8 meeting of major industrialized nations in Germany, Bush gave a global warming speech on Thursday at an event hosted by the U.S. Global Leadership Campaign. This is a coalition of business and non-government organizations that includes the pro-world government Citizens for Global Solutions, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Ted Turner’s U.N. Foundation, Planned Parenthood, the American Friends Service Committee, the Alliance for a Global Community, and the United Nations Association.
It looks like Bush is abandoning what’s left of his conservative base before they abandon him.
Bush told the group, “This is a fine organization and it’s an important organization. It’s rallying businesses and non-governmental organizations and faith-based and community and civic organizations across our country to advance a noble cause, ensuring that the United States leads the world in spreading hope and opportunity.”
Another part of this “legacy building” is his decision to seek ratification of the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), a dangerous document that transfers control of the oceans and much of the land area of the world as well to a U.N. bureaucracy. It finances its activities with a global tax. The pact is endorsed by some of the same groups and individuals involved in the Global Leadership Campaign.
UNCLOS charges American corporations a “fee” for exploiting ocean resources for the benefit of America and threatens these same corporations with global climate change litigation before an international court if they “pollute” the oceans from anywhere on the face of the earth.
U.S. Navy support for UNCLOS masks the sharp decline in U.S. Naval forces. The number of U.S. ships has declined under Bush to 276, from a high of 594 under President Reagan, who rejected UNCLOS. The Bush budget projects their further decline to 210. The American Shipbuilding Association says that, if present trends continue, the U.S. Naval Fleet will decline to 180 ships by 2024.
Those who haven’t been paying attention think that Bush’s policy for the last six years has been “unilateralist” and anti-U.N. He did keep us out of the global warming and International Criminal Court treaties. He also withdrew the U.S. from the ABM treaty so the nation could pursue national missile defense. But generally speaking, he has been pouring huge amounts of money into the U.N. and associated institutions. Office of Management and Budget figures show that U.S. financial contributions to the U.N. System under Bush have gone from $3.1 billion in fiscal year 2001 to $5.3 billion in fiscal year 2005.
The office of Senator Tom Coburn, who requested and released the information, commented in a press release that “According to the report, in 2005, the United States gave $5.3 billion to the U.N—a 30% increase from 2004 funding level of $4.1 billion. Almost every Department of the U.S. government plus several independent agencies fund the U.N. Although the U.N. does not track this information or at least does not make such information public, most experts say the total U.N. budget is between $15-20 billion. The U.S. funded portion is between 25% and 30%.”
But that’s not good enough for the Global Leadership Campaign. It thinks too little has been spent on international affairs.
In his speech to the group, Bush seemed to be proposing another and much-tougher global warming treaty. “By the end of next year, America and other nations will set a long-term global goal for reducing greenhouse gases,” he said. “To help develop this goal, the United States will convene a series of meetings of nations that produce most greenhouse gas emissions, including nations with rapidly growing economies like India and China.” He said each nation would develop a “national target” of reducing greenhouse gases.
With this speech, Bush has capitulated to the alarmists who blame man-made greenhouse gases for perceived changes in climate.
In the past, at the G-8 meetings, the Bush Administration has been opposed to measures by France and Britain to endorse global taxation schemes. One of them, an international tax on airline travel, was sold as a “solidarity contribution” to fight AIDS. A new bureaucracy, UNITAID, has been created to receive and spend the global tax revenue.
The U.N. has been pushing a global tax to fight global warming that amounts to a 35-cents-per-gallon gasoline tax hike.
This time, it can be anticipated that Bush Administration opposition to global taxes will completely collapse. After all, the White House has already endorsed a global tax scheme through the Law of the Sea Treaty.
All of this opens the door for Congress to promote and pass a carbon tax of some kind, perhaps as part of the new global warming treaty that Bush apparently envisions. It will be difficult for Bush to resist such a tax, in light of his recent rhetoric on the subject.
Bush is putting in place the New World Order his father talked about.
WHEN THE MOVERS OF COMMERCE STAGE PROTESTS LIKE THIS ONE AGAINST THE WAR-STATE AND WORK SLOW-DOWNS, LIKE THE ROLLING TRUCKER PROTESTS, THEN PEOPLE BEGIN TO BELIEVE IN THEIR OWN POWER, UNITING FOR THEIR OWN SURVIVAL.
The International Longshore and Warehouse Union at the Port of San Francisco will stop work for 8 hours on May Day to protest continued funding of the Iraq war, in a “no peace, no work” holiday, effectively closing down the Port for the day.
var sburl6041 = window.location.href; var sbtitle6041 = document.title;var sbtitle6041=encodeURIComponent(“Why Left and Right Must Unite”); var sburl6041=decodeURI(“http://www.augustreview.com/news_commentary/general/why_left_and_right_must_unite_2007110379/”); sburl6041=sburl6041.replace(/amp;/g, “”);sburl6041=encodeURIComponent(sburl6041);
By Patrick Wood, Editor
When the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, who cared about political party affiliation? Men (and women) dropped everything to defeat the common enemy. Why? Because survival of their country was as risk!
We face just such a time as that.
We are being plundered by free trade, private-public-partnerships and international banks. Our food and product safety mechanisms have been systematically dismantled and are headed toward all-time lows. Our farms are being destroyed to extent that we are now net importers of food (and lousy food, at that). Our manufacturing base is almost completely gone as companies are bought and sent to cheaper labor markets.
This is just the tip of the iceberg. Can you hear the crunching, tearing sound of our midsection being ripped open?
If either Republicans or Democrats could have fixed America, they would have done it long before now.
The more you look, the more you see that both major U.S. political parties are dominated by the same group of global elitists. The same super-rich foundations. The same NGO’s. The same global bankers. The same lobbyists. The same global corporations.
Furthermore, the globalizers know that in order to keep our eyes off of them, they need to keep us fighting among ourselves over issues more petty than merely saving our nation from total extinction.
The fact is, if Americans would stop fighting long enough to see these hijackers for who they really are and for what they have done to us, they would puke them out of the U.S. in less than a country minute.
My message to liberals and conservatives of all flavors is this: “If you don’t stop bickering and get down to business of protecting our Sovereignty, we aren’t going to have a country left to bicker in!”
In other words, stop falling for cheap tricks that point you down infinitely contentious trails leading to nowhere. This only buys the enemy more time to make another thousand cuts on what’s left of our already wounded carcass.
I have heard for years from both conservatives and liberals that we need to join forces to save America. But, the bickering just gets louder.
My contribution to this mess is to offer a new social networking web site, LeftRightUnite!, where all sides can get together in a constructive way, for a specific purpose — to save the ship-of-state for another day.
If you don’t know what a social network is, think MySpace.com or FaceBook.com. If you still don’t know, you will just have to go there and grab a membership to find out. Either way, it won’t cost you a dime.
With LeftRightUnite!, you can blog, make friends, join action groups, locate people around you, organize protests, visits to your legislators, whatever.
Just don’t sit still!