Archive for July, 2010

We know the Truth about 911 but . . .

Saturday, July 31st, 2010


By WJ Anthony

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Police Abuse . . . is no little thing!

Wednesday, July 28th, 2010

By WJ Anthony

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is there a solution?   Consider this …

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks to Larken Rose for his stimulus.

Saturday, July 24th, 2010

Pak-China Strategic Ties Irks The Indo-Israelis

Posted on 14. Jul, 2010 by Jeff in Uncategorized

Obama Must Not Be A Tool

To Promote The Indo-Israeli Agenda


The US Should Not Be Unnerved on Nuclear Deal

between China and Pakistan


By Sajjad Shauk

Pak-China Talks In Progress

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Saturday, July 17th, 2010

HOW LIEBERMAN STOLE OUR FREEDOMS

Real Zionist News (SM)

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

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

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

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

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

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

PERSECUTING THE LIGHT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SEE: The Brother Nathanael Foundation Website HERE

___________________________________

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

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

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

And: A Jewish Police State Is Coming Click Here

And: A New Vision For A New America Click Here

CLICK: Brother Nathanael! Street Evangelist!

Support Brother Nathanael! HERE


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

“Truth will set you free.” …

Monday, July 12th, 2010

DEBUNKING   JOE FARAH’S   JEWISH

FABLES

By Rev. Ted Pike
12 July 10

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From Farah to Facts

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

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

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

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

The Encyclopedia confirms that before 1948

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

General Moshe Dayan tells the truth:

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

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

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

Zionist Terror Ends Palestinian Dreams

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

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

Footnotes:

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

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

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

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

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

“Seek … it, and the truth shall set YOU free !”

Tuesday, July 6th, 2010

The Anti-Empire Report

The Anti-Empire Report

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

Some thoughts on “patriotism” written on July 4

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another thing Americans have to be thankful for on July 4

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

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

Separation of oil and state?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Class assignment:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Choosing a warlord

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

Note to subscribers

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

Notes

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

William Blum is the author of:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Home

HOW should YOUR Taxes Be Spent?

Sunday, July 4th, 2010

By WJ Anthony

The Declaration’s second paragraph states:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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