|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
 |
Report Terrorists: Please see the link in the email below from the Free Muslims Coalition to anonymously report Muslim extremists: From: Free Muslims Coalition <admin@freemuslims.org> Dear Friend, If you value our newsletter, please tell your friends and family about the Free Muslims and have them sign up to receive our newsletter via our Web site. (Non-muslims are encouraged to sign up, too, since it increases the awareness of people that not all muslims are terrorists). CONFRONT TERRORISM AND ISLAMIC EXTREMISM WITH US 1) Report instances of extremism or support for terrorism: submit an anonymous report, telling us about any individuals or groups advocating Muslim extremist ideology, engage in apologetic support for terrorist organizations or advocates "Jihad." Visit www.freemuslims.org/support/reportextremism.php 2) Start a local Free Muslims chapter in your area: We currently have 12 chapters worldwide, and are looking for more activists to lead the cause in their state, city, territory, or country. Visit www.freemuslims.org/support/startchapter.php 3) Make a tax deductible contribution to the Free Muslims: Online at www.freemuslims.org/support/donate.php or We thank you for supporting us through the years and look forward to your continued support. Very truly yours, No Terror Attacks Are No Accident As we finish another year without a terrorist attack, it’s a good time to think about why. The media and liberal politicians will tell you it’s an accident or a matter of luck. They are dead wrong. The reason we have not been attacked in the more than six years after 9/11 is the hard work of the FBI, the CIA, and our military, and the sweeping changes that have taken place in the intelligence community under George W. Bush. Bush’s proclamation that any country harboring a terrorist will be considered a terrorist country has meant that Arab countries began cooperating in the war on terror, turning over thousands of terrorists and leads. Bush made the FBI become more prevention-oriented. While the FBI always wanted to stop terrorist plots and did so in many cases, when it got the bad guys, as it did in the first World Trade Center bombing, it usually closed the case. Now every case becomes the basis for developing new sources who may be run out for years to infiltrate terrorist groups. As Art Cummings, who heads the FBI’s international counterterrorism operations, told me for my book ”The Terrorist Watch: Inside the Desperate Race to Stop the Next Attack,” “Pre-9/11, the first consideration was, I got an indictment in my pocket ... Slap it down on the table, pick the guy up, you throw him on an airplane. You bring him home, you put him in jail, and you go, ‘Okay, I’ve done a great job today.’” If that were to happen today, Cummings says, “I would have told my agents they basically just put Americans more in jeopardy rather than less in jeopardy. It’s a completely different approach and bears little resemblance to the previous one.” Now when an agent wants to make an arrest, Cummings tells the agent, “Your objective is not to make the arrest. Your objective is to make that suspect our collection platform. That guy now is going to tell us just how big and broad the threat might be. He now becomes a means to collection, instead of the target of collection. I want you to understand his entire universe.” According to the media, the FBI and CIA still don’t talk to each other. But in 2005, Bush established the National Counterterrorism Center in McLean, Va., where 200 analysts from the CIA and FBI sit side-by-side analyzing threats 24 hours a day. A secure video conference takes place three times a day with all members of the intelligence community and the White House to analyze threats and parcel out leads. The USA Patriot Act has torn down the so-called wall imposed by Attorney General Janet Reno, a wall that prevented FBI agents from sharing information with each other and with the CIA. The much-maligned Patriot Act has allowed the FBI to wiretap a terrorist regardless of what phone he uses, an authority the FBI already had in organized crime cases. The National Security Agency (NSA) intercepts ordered by Bush opened for the FBI a window on terrorist activity within the U.S. Since 9/11, the FBI, CIA, and the military have rolled up some 5,000 terrorists worldwide — a headline you will never see in the Washington Post or New York Times. Thus, many plots are never hatched, because terrorists have been killed, arrested, or sent back to their own countries and imprisoned. Instead of hailing the efforts to connect the dots, the media demonize those who are trying to protect us and portray the tools that uncover clues to plots as “spying on innocent Americans.” When a plot is successfully rolled up, the media minimize it. When the FBI foiled a plot to blow up John F. Kennedy International Airport in June 2007, the New York Times buried the story on page A37 of its final edition. In the dream world of the editors of the New York Times, such threats to America are far less important than the fact that 75-year-old Andrea Mosconi has a job of playing violins in a museum in Italy to keep them in shape, a feature which the Times played on page one the same day. The media have even managed to portray Saddam Hussein as relatively benign. But as revealed in “The Terrorist Watch,” in seven months of secret debriefings, Saddam admitted to FBI agent George Piro that he planned to resume his weapons of mass destruction program — including developing nuclear weapons — within a year. Many in the media could not bear to hear that Bush might have been at least partially right about Saddam, and few newspapers reported the story. When the media and politicians run out of ways to deny credit to Bush for making us safer, they will claim that al-Qaida has chosen to space out its attacks. But al-Qaida’s attempt to blow up nine American airliners crossing the Atlantic in 2006 and the alleged role of an al-Qaida affiliate in the assassination of Benazir Bhutto are reminders that al-Qaida is constantly on the attack. While the media underplay the threats, distort descriptions of the measures needed to uncover the next plot, and mischaracterize the progress in the war on terror, they also undermine it by revealing secrets of how the FBI and CIA are trying to stop the next attack. If the media revealed real abuses, they would be justified in exposing them, but that has not been the case. Since 9/11, the courts and Congress have allowed all of the Bush programs for uncovering terrorists to continue. Calling the media disclosures “devastating,” Fran Townsend, who leaves this week as chief of the White House counterterrorism efforts, told me, “It’s not just a question of you’re putting individuals at risk. The real risk is to the lives of Americans who may suffer an attack because we couldn’t stop it, because the source was taken out.” Without a reliable way to get information about this secret war, Americans are at the mercy of the media’s slanted portrayal. Referring to President Bush, Chris Matthews said to Rudy Giuliani recently on MSNBC, “When he was in New York at Ground Zero in his most memorable statement ever, he said we`re going to get the people who knock down these buildings ... How many years do you think the American people should wait for our president to make good on his promise to get the guys who killed 3,000 Americans? This guy [Osama bin Laden] is apparently in Pakistan, and we haven’t done it. Are you satisfied with this?” In fact, with the exception of bin Laden and his deputy Ayman al-Zawahri, who are isolated, nearly all the al-Qaida operatives responsible for the 9/11 attack have been killed or captured. Contrary to Matthews’ insinuation and to the New York Times’ Dec. 31 editorial assertion that Bush’s policies “have not made any of us safer,” the war on terror has been an astounding success. But that success has led many Americans to become complacent. As a result, in the 2008 presidential election, we face a critical choice: Given that al-Qaida is intent on wiping out the U.S. with nuclear weapons, as FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III has told me, do we continue on the offensive, dealing with threats before they materialize, or do we return to the pre-9/11 approach? Back then, because of politically correct rules imposed by the Clinton administration, FBI agents were not allowed to follow suspects into mosques that are open to the public. CIA officers had to get special permission to recruit sources with so-called human rights violations. FBI agents could not look at public online chat rooms to develop leads on people who might be recruiting terrorists or distributing information on making explosives. If NSA intercepted a call from bin Laden to an operative in New York about detonating a nuclear device the next day, the FBI was not allowed to see a transcript of the call because no warrant had been obtained in advance. Already, politicians are trying to roll back the clock and take away tools necessary not only to connect the dots, but to find them in the first place. In fact, presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama last August voted against revising the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to allow NSA to continue to monitor calls by foreign terrorists without a warrant even if all parties are situated overseas. In an example of that same short-sightedness, Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards claimed that the war on terror is not a strategy to make America safer. Rather, it’s a political slogan or “bumper sticker” used by the Bush administration to cover up its mistakes. “Remember that old Edmund Burke quote,” Republican candidate Mitt Romney responded. “‘The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.’ And that, I am afraid, is the boiled-down version of what John Edwards said—that good men should do nothing. Put their head in the sand and hope it all goes away.” “When you go so far as to suggest that the global war on terror is a bumper sticker or slogan, it kind of makes the point that I’ve been making over and over again that the Democrats or at least some of them are in denial…” Giuliani said. Contrary to John Edwards’ take, the lesson of the 1990s when terrorists first attacked the World Trade Center and attacked American embassies in Africa and the USS Cole is, “We just didn’t take it seriously enough,” Senator Joe Lieberman, also a Democrat, has told me. Asked how he feels about attacks by Democrats on measures like the Patriot Act and programs like the NSA intercepts to help track and apprehend terrorists, Lieberman says he is “disappointed” because “my colleagues for various reasons — some ideological, some political — are missing this threat to us.” Those on the front lines of the war on terror know exactly what is at stake. “You make a mistake, there are dead people,” Art Cummings says. When I interviewed Bush with other journalists in September, the president made it clear that he will never back down. As we enter a new year, the question for all of us is: Will we? Allah or Jesus? Last month I attended my annual training session that's required for maintaining my state prison security clearance. During the training session there was a presentation by three speakers representing the Roman Catholic, Protestant and Muslim faiths, who explained each of their belief systems. I was particularly interested in what the Islamic Imam had to say. The Imam gave a great presentation of the basics of Islam, complete with a video. After the presentations, time was provided for questions and answers. When it was my turn, I directed my question to the Imam and asked: "Please, correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand that most Imams and clerics of Islam have declared a holy jihad [Holy war] against the infidels of the world. And, that by killing an infidel, which is a command to all Muslims, they are assured of a place in heaven. If that's the case, can you give me the definition of an infidel?" There was no disagreement with my statements and, without hesitation, he replied, "Non-believers!" I responded, "So, let me make sure I have this straight. All followers of Allah have been commanded to kill everyone who is not of your faith so they can go to Heaven. Is that correct?" The expression on his face changed from one of authority and command to that of a little boy who had just gotten caught with his hand in the cookie jar. He sheepishly replied, "Yes." I then stated, "Well, sir, I have a real problem trying to imagine Pope John Paul commanding all Catholics to kill those of your faith or Dr. Stanley ordering Protestants to do the same in order to go to Heaven!" The Imam was speechless. I continued, "I also have problem with being your friend when you and your brother clerics are telling your followers to kill me. Let me ask you a question. Would you rather have your Allah who tells you to kill me in order to go to Heaven or my Jesus who tells me to love you because I am going to Heaven and He wants you to be with me?" You could have heard a pin drop as the Imam hung his head in shame. This is a true story and the author, Rick Mathes, is a well known leader in prison ministry. Needless to say, the organizers and/or promoters of the 'Diversification' training seminar were not happy with Rick's way of dealing with the Islamic Imam and exposing the truth about the Muslim's beliefs. I think everyone in the US should be required to read this, but with the liberal justice system, liberal media, and the ACLU, there is no way this will be widely publicized. Please pass this on to all your email contacts. DON'T WE ALL FEEL SAFER NOW? Following the tragic events of September 11, 2001 the Department of Homeland Security was established and the Transportation Safety Administration (TSA) took over the screening of passengers and luggage at airport terminals. The Patriot Act was passed, a highly intrusive and unconstitutional piece of legislation. The Patriot Act II followed. Now legislation is being pushed at the federal level to establish a National ID card. All of this in the name of safeguarding America against terrorism. But are we safer? If we listen to the main stream media, we are. After all, every time the issue comes up there’s a constant parade of people before the camera spouting “it’s for our safety” on the television screen. But are we really safer? While we don’t hear much, in the mainstream media, about the illegal aliens pouring across the border from Mexico into the United States, the e-waves keep us up to date on what the mainstream media chooses to ignore. Pray tell, how is America safer when our borders are open to any and all who wish to cross illegally into our country, no questions asked and no measures taken to staunch the flow? The problems plaguing the TSA have, in some instances, made a blip on the radar screen of the main-stream media with stories about luggage rifled for prescription medications and other items of value. In one instance a family returning from a fishing trip in Alaska discovered their catch to be lighter by several pounds after going through security at the Spokane International Airport. The culprit didn’t think the people would miss a few pounds of their prize catch!!! Other stories emanating from the world of the airport security screeners are just as outrageous yet these people are supposed to have survived a rigorous background check. Early in March 2005 a pilot appeared before the microphones and cameras to say that security at airports is no better now than before September 11, 2001, aside from the reinforced cockpit doors and passenger screening measures which, in too many instances, have fallen far short of common sense but have proven inconvenient to the American traveler not to mention being privacy invasive and, in too many cases, personally humiliating. The story went on to enumerate on the training airport security screeners are supposed to receive and what they actually receive. So, with all this staring us in the face, are we really safer? Doesn’t look like it. So what good are all these measures — the Department of Homeland Security, the Patriot Acts, the airport security screeners, the National ID card — if we aren’t safer? As one gentleman so aptly put it, all of these measures are not aimed at making America and Americans safer, these measures are aimed at the rights of the American people afforded them under the Constitution and Bill of Rights. And they have been all along. Of the Athenians, Edward Gibbon has stated, “In the end, more than they wanted freedom, they wanted security. They wanted a comfortable life, and they lost it all — security, comfort and freedom. When the Athenians finally wanted not to give to society but for society to give to them, when the freedom they wished for most was freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free.” In Nazi Germany, Hitler told the people that registering firearms was for their safety. Then he confiscated the firearms leaving the people defenseless against the heinous brutality of his goons. In America today, it is one “crisis” after the next, and people are rushing to give up their rights for security. He who refuses to learn the lessons of the past are doomed to repeat them. IN PERSPECTIVE Last week Americans rejoiced as the Bush/Kennedy/McCain/Kyl amnesty-for-illegal-aliens bill went down to defeat. Senator Ted Kennedy eulogized the bill as though it were his child, and soundly chastised those who opposed it as anti-American and a “small minority.” His parting shot was that the bill would be back “tomorrow.” We who rejoice at this victory for America and legal Americans, both those born here (naturalized) and those who have come here and become residents legally, should raise our voice in thanks to God above for this victory; but we should not let down our guard or believe for one instant that evil men are not, at this moment, plotting to get their amnesty through by other means. We’ve watched this happen before and it will happen this time also. The amnesty-for-illegal-aliens bill is but a symptom of what ails America. At the hands of people who should not have had and should not now have a seat in our government, were not and are not statesmen by any stretch of the imagination, our country has been led down a path focused on dissolving our borders in the pursuit of regional and global government. Democrat and Republican alike, the goal has been the same. That goal is becoming more and more apparent to Americans by the day. It the last six years, it has become painfully obvious to all but the wittingly ignorant that the events of September 11, 2001 were not the result of acts of foreign terrorists but were orchestrated from within our own government. People are becoming aware... that through contacts, the CIA paid Mohammad Atta, the supposed ringleader of September 11, 2001, $100,000 in August 2001. Americans are rapidly coming to the realization that organizations, supposedly established for the well-being of American citizens, are not what they purport to be. One of those organizations is the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), referred to in many quarters as the greatest terrorist organization in the world. So much for King George’s “War on Terror.” Former CIA agents are now coming forward and talking about their roles in destabilizing governments at the wishes of presidents. That is called meddling in the affairs of other nations — Cuba, Central America, South America, the Middle East, all in the interests of American imperialist expansionism. Ron Paul hit the nail on the head when he stated, to the ire of Rudy Giuliani, that you do not do this type of thing to other nations without expecting blowback. To even think that there won’t be blowback is arrogant, indeed. The American taxpayers cannot understand why people of other nations hate America. Maybe the American people need to open their eyes to what their leaders are doing, not in the name of what is best for America and Americans as claimed, but what is best in the name of imperialist expansionism with a specific and treasonous goal in mind — one world government. What is going on inside this country — with outsourcing, companies moving out of the U.S. to other countries, amnesty for illegal aliens, declining wages and loss of jobs resulting in a declining economy, moves to regionalize services, the move to unite the United States, Canada and Mexico into the North American Union — are all part of getting America ready to become part of a one-world government. The activities by leaders of the United States in other countries are intended to lead the world into a one-world government. In that context, one can readily understand the comment by King George that our Constitution is “nothing but a g-d piece of paper!” Even though I have no respect for his world view, John Perkins laid out very succinctly in his book, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, why the people of other nations hate America. He has just released another book that is supposedly more telling, The Secret History of the American Empire. Americans who want to know why there is so much strife in the world today need look no further than their elected in Washington DC to know who the culprits are. There has not been a president in office since World War I who has not been controlled by a small but select group of one-world government advocates, within and from outside this country. The mystery of the death of John F Kennedy has been, since his death, called a “conspiracy theory.” The recent revelations of E Howard Hunt, on his death bed, shed light on CIA involvement at the hands of the one-world-order crowd, including but not limited to, Lyndon Baines Johnson. Likewise, the bombing of the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City. Evidence now exists that Timothy McVeigh was but a puppet of CIA handlers; other evidence leads to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the FBI. Despite the hate-filled invective rant of the likes of Edwin A Sumcad, Most Despised GOP Presidential Aspirant Used By Haters Of America To Air Chips On the Shoulder, the haters of America are not the people trying to stop the likes of King George; they are not the people exposing the truth of September 11, 2001; they are not the unpaid observers watching our borders for illegal invaders; they are not the people fighting and dying in Iraq; they are not the growing number who support Ron Paul; they are not the people who opposed the amnesty-for-illegal-aliens bill; they are not the growing number who oppose the North American Union or the so-called “free trade” agreements; the haters of America are the likes of Ted Kennedy, George H W Bush, George H Bush, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, John McCain, Fred Thompson, and every Senator who voted for cloture of S 1689, the amnesty-for-illegal-alien bill (including my own two senators, Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray who have never seen an anti-American bill they didn’t like). Americans are waking up to the reality that the American Dream is headed the way of the U.S.S.R. and Hitler Germany. When we have a president who believes himself above the law, breaks the law wittingly, invades other nations in the interests of imperialist expansionism and the one-world-order, and the United States House of Representatives does absolutely nothing, Democrat and Republican alike, the American Dream becomes the pipe dream of yesterday. The events of September 11, 2001, perpetrated by our own government, was an act of treason. Every individual involved in the planning and carrying out of the events of September 11, 2001, committed an act of treason. Every individual who has acted to cover up and attain benefit (the war in Iraq, the U.S. Patriot Act; the Department of Homeland Security) from the events of September 11, 2001, has committed treason. Every individual who has acted to deceive the American people about the events of September 11, 2001, has committed treason. It is time that the activities of the Central Intelligence Agency and the Federal Bureau of Investigation be fully disclosed to the American people. No more hiding behind the claim of “national security.” It is time those elected as the servants of the people be bound down from the mischief that has resulted from failure to abide their oaths of office to uphold the United States Constitution. It is time these people be held accountable for the crimes they have committed against the people of this nation and the people of other nations. It is time the ranks of those entrusted by the people to do the business of the people be purged of one-world-government advocates. It is long past time that the United States of America be returned to the foundations that made this country the greatest nation in the world. THE ARAB LEGACY OF HATE One of the reasons why it is so difficult for the average American to relate to Arabs and to Palestinians in particular is the level of hatred that they bear against Israel and Jews in general. Many American Christians see the restoration of Israel as one of the great miracles of the 20th century, a fulfillment of Biblical prophecy, especially since it took place on the heels of the Nazi holocaust in Europe. And therefore they see the hatred of Israel by Palestinians and Arabs as not only anti-Biblical but anti-Christian. But from a merely psychological viewpoint, such hatred is also pathological and unhealthy. We all know that people consumed by hatred cannot lead normal lives because they are driven by an emotion that not only creates gut-eating inner stress, but leads to the kind of terrorist acts that took place on September 11th against America and more recently against Israel. Arab opposition to Jewish settlement in Palestine goes back quite a ways. In the years of early immigration before the 1948 war, Jews bought land from Arabs and made it bloom. Since Palestine was a British mandate at that time, all transfers of land from Arabs to Jews were normal real estate transactions. Jews were not stealing anybody’s land. Despite the legality of all of this, there were anti-Jewish riots in Palestine that resulted in many Jews being slaughtered. But the Zionist movement gained strength in the 1930s when Hitler took control of Germany and launched his campaign of persecution and terror against Germany’s Jewish citizens. Many Jews, reading the handwriting on the wall, emigrated to Palestine. The whole Zionist idea was to provide Jews with a haven from persecution, which they could call their own. During the war against Hitler, the Arabs were pro-Nazi, whereas Jewish settlers formed the Jewish Brigade to help the British fight against the German Afrika Korps in North Africa. Yet, in an attempt to appease the Arabs, the British put sharp restrictions against any further immigration of Jews to Palestine. After World War II, when the surviving Jews of Europe examined the catastrophe they had lived through, they realized that there was no possibility of returning to the way things were before the war. Hundreds of Jewish communities had been destroyed. There was no place for them to return to. And so, by the thousands they headed to Palestine. Others headed to North America and elsewhere, but the majority, renewed in their determination to rebuild Jewish life, went to the land that held that promise. The language of the Jews in Palestine was their ancient language of the Bible, Hebrew. In fact, the revival of Hebrew was another miracle in the restoration of the Jewish commonwealth. In other words, the survivors did not linger in the refugee camps any longer than they had to. They were anxious to resume constructive lives in which they could create new families and raise new children. Meanwhile, in Palestine, as the Jewish population increased, so did Arab opposition. The Arabs had little sympathy with the plight of Jews after the holocaust. However, it should be acknowledged that many ordinary Arabs worked with Jews from the beginning of settlement to today. But it was the Islamic religious and political leadership that harbored the greatest hatred against the Jews. When in 1948 the United Nations voted in favor of a partition plan to divide Palestine into separate Jewish and Arab states, Arab leaders rejected it. And so, when the British finally departed from Palestine, leaders of the Jewish community declared the restoration of Israel as a sovereign state, thus fulfilling a dream two thousand years old. Christians around the world realized that what they were witnessing in their lifetime was a fulfillment of Biblical prophecy. No sooner was the State of Israel founded, than Arab armies from Egypt, Transjordan, Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq invaded the infant state in the determination to crush it and drive the Jews into the sea. But another miracle took place, and Israel was able to defeat the Arab armies and add more territory to their small state. Jordan held on to East Jerusalem and most of the West Bank, which was mainly populated by Arabs, and Egypt annexed the Gaza Strip. The Arabs who fled Palestine during the war were settled in refugee camps awaiting some future event that would permit them to return to their homes. The event they were told to wait for was the destruction of Israel in which the Jews would either be exterminated or forced out of the land to somewhere else. And they led their children to believe that their lives could not be improved until Arabs were victorious over the Jews. Meanwhile, despite the Arab boycott and nonrecognition, the Jewish state grew in population and industry. Several million Jews migrated to Israel, mainly from Arab countries where they were persecuted. Also, when Russian Jews were permitted to leave the communist paradise, many of them headed to Israel. In the Six Day War in 1967, Israel again defeated the armies of Egypt, Syria and Jordan, reoccupied the Gaza Strip, and conquered the Sinai Peninsula, the Golan Heights, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem. For the first time in 2000 years, the Jews had complete control of their ancient capital and the ancient provinces of Samaria and Judea. In 1973, Egypt launched a surprise attack against Israel on Yom Kippur in an attempt to regain the Sinai. Although Israel was able to fend off the attack, the war led to peace negotiations between Egypt’s Anwar Sadat and Israel’s Menachem Begin, and the return of the Sinai to Egypt. Meanwhile, during all of those years, Israel was regularly attacked by Palestinian terrorists whose goal it was to destroy the Jewish state. The chief organizer of this terrorism was none other than Yasser Arafat, who organized the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) with the help of the Soviet Union. As of today, the goal of the PLO is still the destruction of Israel, and their chosen method of combat is terrorism. During all of this time, the movement to destroy Israel has been fueled by a force of hatred maintained at the highest level by unrelenting propaganda and incitement. Just as the previous attacks against Israel have failed, the present attack will also fail. But the hatred will hardly go away. The Arab Islamic leadership will sustain it because hatred and perpetual war have become their way of life. It is time for American leadership to realize that Israel must be permitted to do to Palestinian terrorists what the U.S. is now doing to their Taliban brothers in Afghanistan. There can be no Palestinian autonomous entity as long as it harbors the kind of terrorists who are committing murder and mayhem against innocent Israeli men, women and children on buses, in restaurants, in shopping malls, and on the highways. No nation should be expected to tolerate such a high level of bloody murder of its people. And no nation can escape its duty to protect its citizens by the only means that works: a war to the finish against Palestinian terrorists. PALESTINIAN JUSTICE: LYNCHING While Palestinians are calling for an investigation of the fictitious massacre in Jenin, no one will be investigating the wanton execution of three Palestinians in Hebron without hearings or trials for suspected collaboration with Israel. That is known as lynching, defined in the dictionary as “murdering an accused person by mob action and without lawful trial.” But that is routine Palestinian justice, and that is not the first time that such lynchings have taken place. According to the Boston Globe (4/24/02) “The three Palestinian men were rousted from their beds yesterday morning, hands trussed behind their backs and gags shoved in their mouths. Then they were shoved and yanked over to Salam Street, where they were shot dead as a mob of their compatriots cheered and jeered. … Even telling a Jew the name of the street on which you stand is a betrayal of the people, one of the masked gunmen told onlookers at the execution scene. … During the heavy fighting of the first three weeks of April, militias summarily executed dozens of suspected informants, some simply for having had business dealings with Israelis.” The Palestinian Authority has done nothing to curb this form of mob justice. It reminds us of what happened early in the intifada when two Israeli reservists happened to mistakenly drive into Palestinian territory and were brutally murdered by a frenzied mob. That “incident” has been forgotten by the media and the UN. Yet, the Palestinians are demanding that their gunmen holed up in the Church of the Nativity should be handed over to the Palestinian Authority for trial in Gaza, where no doubt they will be acquitted as patriots. Israel is anxious to arrest about 30 of the gunmen, wanted for deadly attacks on Israelis, but apparently about 13 of them will be exiled to Italy. And who knows what will happen to them once they get to Italy, that’s if Italy will take them. We don’t expect the UN, or Europeans, or Palestinian sympathizers to be concerned with Palestinian justice as practiced against other Palestinians. Their only concern is what Israel does in its own defense against the barbarism of their Arab neighbors. During the standoff, three Armenian Orthodox priests managed to escape from the church with the help of Israeli troops when they hung a sign from a window away from the gunmen which read, “Please help us.” After they escaped they reported that the militants smashed crucifixes, urinated on relics, and destroyed furniture and glass. The priests themselves, dehydrated and starved, were treated in a rough, threatening manner by the gunmen. But once the historic church is evacuated, we shall have a chance to see what actually took place inside. It is becoming more and more obvious that the only way that Palestinians and Israelis can ever become reconciled is if a new leadership develops among the Palestinians. The present leadership represents the self-destructive, barbaric policies of Yasser Arafat and his terrorist minions. There can be no peace as long as Arafat remains the leader of the Palestinians. Obviously, there are many rational Palestinians who would like to make peace with the Israelis, but they don’t dare say a word or make a move while the lynch mobs rule the territory. We have been told over and over again by the Palestinians that there can be no peace as long as Israeli settlements remain in the West Bank and Gaza. A million Arabs live in Israel, so why can’t 200,000 Jews live in the West Bank and Gaza? Why must Arab Palestine be Judenrein? The settlements were built on unoccupied land and did not displace any Arab towns or villages. With Israel being as small as it is, the settlements are little more than suburbs of Jerusalem or Tel Aviv. Besides, both Samaria and Judea are just as much part of the Promised Land as the rest of Israel. Jews have as much right to live there as the Arabs. But since Arafat has done everything in his power to whip up the most bitter and murderous hatred of Jews among Palestinians, the likelihood of peace in the near future seems quite remote. Meanwhile, another suicide bomber has killed at least 15 young Israelis in a gaming hall and wounded about 60 others, and Prime Minister Sharon has cut short his visit to the U.S. and returned to Israel. It is obvious that the military incursion in the West Bank did not completely wipe out the terrorist network. Which means that Israel may have to reoccupy the entire West Bank in order to assure security for its own people. The Palestinian Authority failed to become a viable, democratic government worthy of running a sovereign state. There can be no statehood as long as its future leaders are terrorists. HOW TO STOP SUICIDE BOMBERS One sure way to stop the suicide bombers in Israel is to hold the parents responsible for their child’s crime. Today, Palestinian parents willingly and proudly send off their kids to become suicide bombers and commit mass murder inside Israel. In exchange for sacrificing their child, they receive from Saddam Hussein or Saudi Arabia a cash payment of $35,000. The Israeli Knesset should pass a law making it a capital crime to offer a child to become a sacrificial suicide bomber. After all, such sacrifice is tantamount to murdering one’s own child. The $35,000 the parents receive should be confiscated and their house appropriated or destroyed. If the suicide bomber knew that he was also condemning his parents to death, he might not be so eager to carry out his mission. The most recent attacks against civilian buses in Jerusalem packed with school children and commuters indicate that strong preventive measures are necessary to end these massacres. It is doubtful that Palestinian parents, knowing that they will be held responsible for their child’s crime, will approve of having their child used as a suicide bomber. At present the parents who abet and encourage the suicide bombings suffer no consequences for their actions. They receive their $35,000 and can purchase new apartments or cars or whatever. Since they so proudly proclaim their child’s crime of murdering Israelis, they should be made to pay the price of their child’s crime. The Israelis should make an example of at least one such Palestinian family, by confiscating their reward, imprisoning them, trying them for the crime of contributing to the murder of their own child, and if found guilty, executing them. Putting such parents on trial would show the world what kind of demented individuals these parents are. It would reveal the depth of their hatred of Jews to the point that they are willing to turn their children into suicidal bombers. This kind of demented hatred and demonic motivation would show the world what Israel is up against. Just as the Germans under the Nazis became sadistic barbarians, likewise the Palestinians under Arafat have become equally barbaric, lacking the very basic principles of normal behavior that make civilization possible. And they are doing all of this in the name of Allah! In a previous article we urged the Israeli government to create a new settlement for every attack by a suicide bomber. Apparently, the government didn’t care for that idea. What they are doing now is reoccupying territory once under Palestinian control. But will that stop the suicide-bombers? No. But executing the parents will. THE NAZI CONNECTION TO ISLAMIC TERRORISM Chuck Morse’s latest book, The Nazi Connection to Islamic Terrorism, Adolf Hitler and Haj Amin al-Husseini, provides the clearest, most incisive history of how Islamo-fascism and Jihad terrorism have become the dominant political philosophy in the Arab world. It is the untold story of how Nazism took root in the Islamic world through the untiring efforts of the Mufti of Jerusalem whose aim it was to destroy the Jews in Palestine. Morse writes: The Nazi Holocaust appears to have kicked into high gear on November 25, 1941 during a Berlin meeting between the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini (1895-1974) and the Nazi Fuhrer of Germany, Adolf Hitler. At that well-documented meeting, Hitler promised al-Husseini, the Palestinian pan-Arab leader, that after securing a dominant military position in Europe, he would send the Wehrmacht, the Nazi war machine, on a blitzkrieg across the Caucasus and into the Arab world under the guise of liberating the Arabs from British occupation. It should be noted that merely two months after the Hitler-Husseini meeting, the famous Wansee Conference took place in which the Nazis produced their plan to exterminate the Jews of Europe. Although Husseini spent the war in Germany, he managed to flee the advancing Allied forces and made his way to Cairo. While the captured Nazi leaders were tried at Nuremberg, Husseini escaped judgment and became the major force in transferring Hitler’s program of genocide to the Arab world. During the war, he had recruited Bosnian Muslims to serve in Nazi-Muslim SS Hanshar brigades who slaughtered Jews and Christian Serbs in Nazi-occupied Yugoslavia. Memory of that slaughter was one of the reasons why the Serbs went after the Bosnian Muslims fifty years later. After the war, Husseini established working links between Nazis and Arabs in the Muslim world. He also got rid of anyone who stood in his way. That is why moderate Arabs are so rare. Husseini killed most of them. He began his public career after World War I, when moderate Arab leader Emir Feisal signed an agreement with Chaim Weizmann recognizing the Balfour Declaration, which facilitated the development of a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Feisal believed that a Jewish Palestine would help the newly liberated Arab world develop into modern states with prosperous economies. But Husseini refused to accept a Jewish Palestine, and he instigated pogroms to force the Jewish settlers out. The first pogrom took place in 1920. Morse writes: In 1921, shortly after the launching of the 1920 pogrom and for reasons that will forever remain shrouded in mystery, Sir Herbert Samuel, a British Jew who had been appointed as British High Commissioner of the Palestine Mandate that same year, appointed al-Husseini as Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. Despite vigorous opposition to this appointment, Husseini proceeded to instigate violence against the Jews in Palestine and spread hatred of Jews throughout the Arab world, brutally purging any Arab who opposed him. In 1937, Husseini met with Adolf Eichmann in Palestine and became a full-fledged paid Nazi agent. In 1941, Husseini moved on to Baghdad where he helped organize the pro-Nazi Rachid Ali officers’ coup against the British government in Iraq. When the coup failed, Husseini fled to Rome and then to the Third Reich. One of the Iraqi coup plotters was General Tufah Khariallah, uncle, guardian, mentor and future father-in-law of Saddam Hussein. The Mufti was also a mentor to Yasir Arafat who is believed to be Husseini’s nephew. Overlooked in the history books is the fact that about 100,000 European Muslims fought on the Nazi side in World War II. They included two Bosnian Muslim Waffen SS Divisions, an Albanian Waffen SS Division in Kosovo and Western Macedonia, the Waffengruppe der-SS Krim, formations consisting of Chechen Muslims from Chechnya, and other Muslim formations in Bosnia-Hercegovina. Bosnian Muslims who were in the Croatian pro-Nazi Ustasha were especially brutal toward the Christian Serbs. In 1943, a report on Ustasha activities stated: The Ustasha terror began in Mostar. The Ustashi, the majority of them local Mohammedans, are arresting, looking, and shipping off Serbs or killing them and throwing the bodies in the Neretva River. They are throwing Serbs alive into chasms and are burning whole families in their homes. Outside of Zagreb the strongest Ustasha hotbed is Sarajevo. The Muslims committed unbelievable barbarities for they murdered women and children even with scissors. After reading this book you will have no trouble understanding the origin of Islamo-fascism and Jihad terrorism. The author has packed the book with detailed documentation as well as photographs showing Husseini inspecting his Nazi-Muslim troops. Morse shows how Husseini’s legacy of hate and murder and his aim to destroy Israel have been carried forth by Arafat and his murderous Palestinian terrorists right to the present. The book is available through Amazon.com. IN DEFENSE OF OUR PERSONNEL AT ABU GHRAIB The swift court martial of Specialist Jeremy Sivits, who pled guilty to the charges of abusing prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison, gave the distinct impression that what had taken place at the prison was unauthorized and illegal. But if that was the case, why did the guards take all those incriminating photos with their own faces in them? According to the Boston Globe (5/20/04): Asked by Judge James Pohl why the soldiers had abused the prisoners that night, Sivits said they had followed the directions of the military intelligence officers who oversaw the prison's interrogation functions. The accused soldier "said that they were told by intelligence to keep doing what they were doing to the inmates because it was working. They were talking," Sivits said, "I guess they mean they were talking when they were interrogated." If the abuse of the prisoners had not been authorized or permitted, the guards would not have taken the pictures. Nor would Sivits have participated. He is the kind of soldier who would never, ever do anything that would lead to a court martial. He was the perfect obedient soldier. Nor would his fellow soldiers do anything to jeopardize their military careers. They were asked to do a distasteful job, and they did it. And this is confirmed by a report in USA Today, 5/13/04: "Lawyers for two of the soldiers at the center of the Iraq prisoner-abuse scandal said Wednesday that military intelligence personnel ordered the photographs taken of the soldiers with bound and naked prisoners….Military intelligence soldiers worked behind the scenes to tell military police how to pose Iraqis in humiliating positions." Why this treatment of the prisoners? Obviously they were not there for jaywalking. They were considered dangerous terrorists who had been psychologically conditioned by their Islamic trainers to kill Americans, foreigners, and Iraqis in the name of Allah. The latest victim of these robotic killers was the head of the Iraqi Governing Council, Izzadine Saleem, killed by a car bomb, which also killed six others, on 5/17/04. The detainees at Abu Ghraib are for the most part from the same group of dedicated killers. The guards at the prison had been told by the intelligence people to soften them up for in-depth interrogation. That meant using psychological techniques to undo the conditioning the terrorists had undergone to become robot killers for Allah. Behavioral psychologists have devised a whole battery of treatments that can make these killers maleable to interrogation: humiliation, being dominated by women, hooding, nudity, the threat of perverse sexual practices, sleep deprivation, loud noise, photo taking, etc. Since these detainees had not been captured as soldiers in uniform, they were not protected by the Geneva convention. They were robot killers, operating internationally under a different set of circumstances, and thus not protected by the Geneva convention. In other words, the kind of "abuse" they were subjected to by American guards was limited to those forms that aided the interrogation process. We don't know if there was a manual that described how all of this was to be done. We are sure that Israelis has used a variety of techniques to extract information from captured terrorists. Do the Israelis have a manual prescribing these techniques? Virtually every police department in the world uses a variety of techniques to extract information from terrorists. The guards at Abu Ghraib seem to have been following some basic rules. They were not a bunch of GIs inventing new techniques. But they seemed to enjoy what they were doing. After all, abusing a robot killer totally under your control is a lot better than being beheaded by one of them. And the abuse, for the most part, was pretty mild compared to what other governments do to their prisoners. But when a woman is shown holding a naked prisoner on a leash, as in one of the supposedly horrendous photos, we are all supposed to be shocked and horrified as was Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker. But the woman's role is vitally important in breaking down the mindset of the Islamic terrorist. It's important to look at what was done at Abu Ghraib in the proper perspective. The detainees were being abused for a reason: to confuse the minds of these sadistic killers. These terrorists show no mercy or conscience when they kill innocent people. They have been turned into murderous robots by their trainers. Behavioral psychologists have spent years developing techniques that can turn these robots into normal human beings with consciences. The abuse is an important part of the process. Does it work? We don't know why the behavioral psychologists haven't stepped forward and explained to the public why they consider these techniques to be necessary. The Israelis are probably the world's experts on trying to turn terrorist robots into normal human beings. But apparently it isn't easy, and we wonder what their success rate has been. That's what we should be thinking about instead of flaying ourselves with guilt and apologizing for what we are trying to do in bringing normalcy to Iraq. Throughout history torture has been used by inquisitions of all sorts to extract information and confessions from people. But modern behavioral psychology has provided us with better, more humane tools to do the same thing. No more racks or physical torture, just some varieties of abuse that may turn a terrorist into a harmless human being. None of the American guards at Abu Ghraib should be prosecuted for what they did. They were engaged in activities calculated to save American and Iraqi lives. Although Time magazine, to its indignant shock and horror, called the abuse "scandalous, abhorrent, sadistic," they and their fellow liberals have not provided any alternative, civilized means of defanging the terrorists, many of whom are still out there killing our soldiers and innocent Iraqis. For our loyal soldiers at the prison to be punished for doing a thankless job is a terrible show of ingratitude on the part of the American people. If anyone is owed an apology, it is they. HOW BARNEY FRANK HELPED THE 9/11 HIJACKERS I have just finished reading the 500-page 9/11 Commission Report, and what becomes quite apparent is that the weakest link in our antiterrorism defense system prior to 9/11 was the Immigration and Naturalization Service. It was so weak that it became a revolving door for al Qaeda sleeper terrorists who were issued visas that permitted them to come and go as they pleased. And the one man responsible for creating this revolving door was Congressman Barney Frank of Massachusetts, whose 1989 Frank Amendment to INS procedures paved the way for the 19 hijackers to freely enter this country, take flying lessons, and quietly prepare for their deadly attack with no notice from our intelligence agencies. Gerald Posner, in his highly informative book, Why America Slept, writes (p. 16): From the 1983 bombing of the marine barracks in Lebanon that killed 241 soldiers to the 1985 hijackings of TWA Flight 847 and the cruise liner Achille Lauro, Middle Eastern terror was now on the White House's priority agenda. Some CIA officers complained to the president's national security team about their frustration with the FBI and warned that America was vulnerable to Islamic terrorists entering on legal visas and setting up sleeper cells. Reagan responded in September 1986 by forming an interagency task force, the Alien Border Control Committee (ABCC), whose purpose was to block entry of suspected terrorists and to deport militants who either had come into the country illegally or had overstayed their visas. The CIA and FBI joined the ABCC effort. Six months after its formation, the ABCC had its first notable success. The CIA tipped off the FBI to a group of suspected Palestinian terrorists in Los Angeles. The Bureau arrested eight men. But instead of being lauded, the Bureau and the Agency came under harsh attack from civil liberties groups who argued that the ABCC should be banned from using any information the CIA gained from the government's routine processing of visa requests. Congressman Barney Frank, the Massachusetts Democrat who was a strong advocate of protecting civil liberties, led a successful effort to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act so that membership in a terrorist group was no longer sufficient to deny a visa. Under Frank's amendment, which seems unthinkable post-9/11, a visa could only be denied if the government could prove that the applicant had committed an act of terrorism. Rendered toothless by the Frank amendment, the Reagan administration had virtually no way to block entry visas even when there was information linking the individuals to terrorist groups. And that is why the 9/11 hijackers were able to carry out their devastating attack without any notice by our intelligence agencies. The Clinton administration had also set up a "wall" between the CIA and the FBI so that sharing intelligence between them became illegal. The 19 hijackers were made up of two working groups, the four pilots who would take over the cockpits and fly the planes into the buildings and the fourteen enforcers who would kill the airline pilots and control the passengers. The hijacker pilots included: Mohamed Atta, leader of the hijackers, who landed in Newark, New Jersey, from Prague on a visitor's visa issued in Berlin on June 3, 1999. He crashed American Airlines Flight 11 into the South Tower of the World Trade Center; Ziad al-Jarrah, the hijacker pilot of United Airlines Flight 93, which crashed in Pennsylvania. He received his pilot's license in Hamburg, Germany, and entered the U.S. on June 27 at Newark; Marwan al Shehhi, the hijacker pilot of United Airlines Flight 175 which crashed into the North Tower. He arrived in the U.S. at Newark on May 29, 2000 on a tourist visa issued in the United Arab Emirates and cleared customs in less than a half-hour; and Hani Honjour, hijacker pilot of American Airlines Flight 77 which crashed into the Pentagon. He first entered the U.S. on a student visa in 1996, returned to Saudi Arabia, then traveled from the United Arab Emirates back to the U.S. in December 2000 on a student visa. The fourteen enforcers had little trouble getting tourist visas to the U.S. Even though they knew no English, exhibited none of the behavior of middle-class tourists, these unmarried young men received their visas without a hitch. The well-oiled revolving door was working just fine. The 9/11Commission Report states (p. 237): The muscle hijackers began arriving in the United States in late April 2001. In most cases they traveled in pairs on tourist visas and entered the United States in Orlando or Miami, Florida; Washington D.C.; or New York. Those arriving in Florida were assisted by Atta and Shehhi, while Hazmi and Hanjour took care of the rest. By the end of June, 14 of the 15 muscle hijackers had crossed the Atlantic. Thanks to Barney Frank, there was no way that the U.S. government could keep these sleeper members of al Qaeda out. Nor could they be tracked after arrival. They came with a lot of money, rented cars and apartments, took flying lessons, worked out at gyms, and took transcontinental flights to familiarize themselves with the interiors of the planes they would be hijacking and the routines of the pilots and cabin attendants. Of course, 9/11 changed all that. The country had finally decided that the only way to fight terrorism was to find the terrorists and kill them before they could kill us. The result is that visas to the U.S. are no longer given to individuals suspected of being terrorists. But it took the lives of 3,000 innocent victims before the Frank Amendment could be abolished. WHY JEWS SHOULD VOTE FOR BUSH If you are an American Jew and are inclined to vote for Senator Kerry, you will be doing what al-Qaida and all of Israel's enemies want you to do: get rid of George Bush. While many Muslims voted for Bush in 2000, this year they are going to vote for Kerry. Why? Because Kerry is against the war in Iraq and may not "stay the course," as we know that Bush will. Israel's enemies want Kerry to win, and that includes Yasser Arafat, plus the former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahatir Mohamad who said that "Jews rule the world by proxy." Iran, the new Socialist Spanish government, and the Vietnamese Reds want Kerry to win. Also, polls show that most Frenchmen and Germans want Kerry to win. The Communist Party USA also wants the Massachusetts senator to win. Bush has turned out to be the best friend Israel has had in the White House for a very long time. Clinton was willing to pressure Israel into giving in to virtually all of Arafat's demands. But despite this, Arafat rejected Israel's concessions and launched the latest Intifada, which is now in its fourth year and has resulted in thousands of deaths. After 9/11, it became obvious to President Bush that the war against terror had to include the terrorist regime of Arafat, whom he no longer considered to be a legitimate partner for peace. As a result, he has set aside decades of liberal policies supported by previous presidents, the pro-Arab State Department, the pro-Palestinian European Union, the United Nations and the Arab League. He has rejected his own father's view that the Jewish settlements were an obstacle to peace. In fact, the present President Bush recognizes Israel's right to retain some key West Bank settlements as part of any peace plan with the Palestinians. The President has also said that he would recognize a Palestinian state only if it renounced terrorism, is democratic, and willing to live in peace with Israel. This is the best support that any American president has ever provided Israel. And why is he doing this? Because as a student of the Bible, Bush is convinced that Israel is special nation in the international scheme of things and that America's relationship with Israel is providential. He clearly understands that the return of the Jews to the Holy Land and the creation of the Jewish state is one of the great miracles of the 20th century. Just as George Washington believed that the creation of the United States was providential, so there are millions of Christians in America who believe the same of the creation of the State of Israel in 1948. The Democratic candidate, Senator Kerry, does not see history in the same way. He is politically motivated and wants to be president because he thinks he ought to be president. And when it comes to the problems of the Middle East we shall simply see a return to the failed policies of the pro-Arab State Department. The invasion of Iraq got rid of a tyrant who was sending $25,000 to the parents of suicide bombers in Palestine. That was the same tyrant, Saddam Hussein, who lobbed Scud missiles into Israel during the first Gulf War. Israel-as well as America-is safer because we have gotten rid of Saddam Hussein. He had the power to arm al-Qaida with lethal weapons of mass destruction. And so it was imperative to destroy his regime. In fact, the destruction of Saddam's regime has caused Libya's leader, Col. Gadhafi, to give up his own weapons of mass destruction. Thus, three of Israel's hardcore enemies, the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, Saddam's regime in Iraq, and Gadhafi's regime in Libya are no longer a threat to Israel or the United States. And all of this has been achieved in an incredibly short time. Meanwhile, in Iraq we see the true cruelty and barbarism of the insurgents. We must help the Iraqis establish a democratic government that can provide peace and security for themselves, and a friendly partner for peace in the Middle East. Russia, South Korea, The Philippines, and Japan want Bush to win. It would be tragic if the Jews of America would vote against the embattled Israelis who want Bush to win. The people in Israel instinctively know that Bush is on their side and they need his steady, unwavering support in the next four years. Their message to the Jews of America is simple: please be on our side when you vote. Don't help our enemies win. AN ALTERNATIVE TO "TORTURE" Much is being written and talked about these days of our alleged torturing of the terrorists in our custody, especially at the Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad. Some human-rights advocates have complained vociferously of our treatment of the Al-Qaida prisoners at Guantanamo. We've seen these TV images of orange-clad, shackled detainees shuffling to interrogations. But it is obvious that our military has a problem: how do we get information out of these terrorists who consider themselves martyrs for Allah, have nothing else to live for, and therefore cannot be persuaded to provide information that would help us in our struggle against them? To an Islamic terrorist, martyrdom is their highest aspiration. That is their sole purpose for living. It is part and parcel of their adherence to a religion that calls for such self-sacrifice in the name of Allah. They are like living mummies, wrapped from head to foot, embalmed in the cloth of a religion that requires total submission to the will of Allah. Of course, different Muslims may have different interpretations of Allah's will, but the terrorists consider it to be a holy call for human self-sacrifice. For their suicidal action that kills their enemies as well as themselves, they are rewarded in Paradise with a large number of Virgins recruited for their pleasure by Allah. Whose sisters are these virgins, and don't too have human rights? And once they are no longer virgins, what happens to them? The only alternative treatment for these fanatical prisoners is to try to wean them away from their religion, in short, to convert them to Christianity. Is that against their human rights? We have provided every Muslim prisoner at Guantanamo with a copy of the Koran. Why give them the book that keeps them enslaved to Allah? How about also giving them a copy of the Christian Bible translated into Arabic? How about having them listen to lectures given by Muslim converts to Christianity? Would the human rights advocates consider that a form of cruel and unusual punishment? When American prisoners were held by the communists, the latter tried to brainwash them into becoming communists. But their methods backfired. It simply made their prisoners more patriotic Americans, despite their real brutal and painful torture. But, as Christians, we would be trying to liberate these Muslim prisoners from their enslavement by a malevolent religion that calls for their death as martyrs. I have no idea whether or not giving them a Bible to read would have much of an affect on these men, who are so completely committed to their religion. But it would be worth a try. Perhaps the religion of love might begin to separate them from their religion of death. All we would have to do is simply put doubt in their minds over the rightness of their religion. Of course, they would be under great pressure from other prisoners not to read the Bible and refuse to attend lectures. Perhaps they have been so deeply brainwashed by Osama bin Laden, that conversion is an impossibility. That would teach us something about the fanatical psychology of these terrorists, and why they should be locked up for life. Should they be given their freedom while they are still wedded to their religion of death, they would no doubt seek a means of exercising their martyrdom by killing as many of us as they can. Many Muslims have become Christians, and we should consult such persons who might help us design a program that would have an impact on these prisoners. What led them to convert to Christianity? How can we put doubt in the minds of Islamic true believers? Do they have an Achilles heel? Would they not rather live than die? How about showing them Mel Gibson's film, The Passion of the Christ? So let us not think about torture, even the very benign kind used at Abu Ghraib, when we are unwilling to try something else. It makes no sense to give these prisoners copies of the Koran so that they can keep being the terrorists they've become. Let's take back the Korans and give them something else to read. IS ARIEL SHARON THE CHARLES deGAULLE OF ISRAEL? Anyone who remembers the horrors that de Gaulle inflicted on French Algeria when he handed over that territory to the Algerian terrorists in 1962 will find remarkable similarities between what was done then by the French leader and what is being done now in Gaza by Sharon. In the case of French Algeria, a million Europeans—Christians and Jews—were forced to abandon their farms, vineyards, businesses, schools, churches and synagogues and take to the boats for Metropolitan France. It was a surrender of Christian civilization to the Muslims and set the stage for the slow takeover of France itself by Islam. De Gaulle had been brought to power in 1958 to defend French Algeria and its million of French citizens, which included many loyal Muslims. In Algiers he made a powerful speech in which he told these citizens, “Je vous ai compris,” “I have understood you.” And then he proceeded to betray them in a brutal and arrogant way, destroying the most patriotic men in his army and replacing them with traitors. Of course, he had the backing of the communists and the left. As for the French in Algeria, they were labeled “right wing extremists.” The same situation now exists in Israel, where Sharon has had to rely on the support of the left to carry out his plan to evacuate the Jews from Gaza. He is willing to destroy their homes, farms, schools, and industries for the same reason that de Gaulle destroyed French Algeria: he didn’t think it was worth the effort to save it. The result has been an unhindered march of several million Muslims into Europe. Thus de Gaulle destroyed the work of over a hundred years to make Algeria a part of the French Republic, and bring its people under the protection of an enlightened Christian civilization. France had invaded North Africa in the 1840s to put a stop to the piracy and kidnappings of the Barbary Arabs. And after that was done, Europeans from France, Italy, and Spain settled there and built a thriving economy. And when oil was discovered, it made French Algeria all the more valuable. But when Algerian terrorists launched their campaign of “national liberation,” they did it with the help of the Soviet Union and the entire communist world, including the French communist party. De Gaulle, whom we suspect was sympathetic to socialism, surrendered it all to the Reds. Patriotic Frenchmen saw it all as a great betrayal. That is why there were attempts by former army officers to assassinate de Gaulle. But they never succeeded because the majority of the French people either approved of the betrayal or simply shut their mouths and accepted what had become inevitable. In Israel, polls are taken almost daily to show that the majority of Israelis approve of Sharon’s plan to destroy the Jewish settlements in Gaza. But there is growing resistance to the plan, even among army men, because it looks like an abject surrender to Arab terrorists without any gain or benefit to Israel’s security. In fact, some Israelis see it as the beginning of the dismantling of the Jewish state itself, which seems to have lost its Zionist zeal, its Biblical mission. Meanwhile, de Gaulle’s legacy has become the Islamization of France. Brigitte Bardot, the famous French film star, wrote a book in 2002, “A Scream in the Silence,” about the Muslim takeover of France. She wrote: “I am against the Islamization of France….For centuries our forefathers, the ancients, our grandfathers, our fathers gave their lives to chase all successive invaders from France.” But today the French government acquiesces to its growing Islamic population, tolerating growing anti-Semitism in order not to offend its Muslim citizens. The will to survive as Christian France no longer exists. The Jewish settlers in Gaza represent a Jewish will not only to survive, but to overcome tremendous obstacles to their success. To destroy them is to replace the will to survive with the will to surrender. The great tragedy of their destruction is just beginning, yet some of the Jewish farmers in Gaza are already planting the seeds for their next harvest, oblivious to what Sharon intends to do to them. The horrible memories of what de Gaulle did to French Algeria are virtually unknown to the people of Israel. Thus, its hard lessons have not been learned. But as the philosopher Santayana once remarked, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” WHY THE LEADERS OF HAMAS ARE "DEMOCRATS" When Robert Welch coined the phrase, “This is a republic, not a democracy, let’s keep it that way,” he made an important contribution to American political debate and understanding. The Founding Fathers loathed democracy. The idea of unfettered majority vote was anathema to them. And that is why they constructed a Constitution that broke up government power into three separate branches—Executive, Legislative, and Judicial—and put strong restrictions on what the majority could do to the minority, and what the minority could do to the majority. The result was a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy. In a pure democracy, the majority has the power to destroy a minority. That’s what happened in Germany in 1933 when Hitler’s National Socialist Party was voted in by the majority. Hitler then consolidated his power into the Nazi dictatorship with its deranged racism and plans for world domination. All of this was stated by Hitler in his own book, Mein Kampf, which any German could have read. At first German Jews assumed that Hitler would not last long. The Nazi movement was so much against basic German traditions of cultural and religious tolerance. But they were wrong. And now among Palestinians, sixty years after Hitler, we have the same situation. A political party, Hamas, determined to wipe Israel off the map, has acquired political power through the democratic vote. This is pure democracy, unfettered by any constitutional limitations. Hamas has stated its plans in its Covenant of 1988: the total destruction of Israel. It is uncanny how similar are the events that recently took place among the Palestinians and what happened in Germany in 1933. The Germans had Mein Kampf, and the Palestinians have the Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement, popularly known as Hamas. In the case of Germany, it led to a world war and total ruin. What it will lead to in the case of Hamas is still an open question. But if they do not renounce their plans, it could lead to the total ruin of the Palestinians. The Covenant states: Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it. Our struggle against the Jews is very great and very serious…. The Movement is but one squadron that should be supported by more and more squadrons from this vast Arab and Islamic world, until the enemy is vanquished and Allah’s victory is realized…. The Movement’s programme is Islam…and the Koran is its constitution. Its extent in place is anywhere that there are Muslims who embrace Islam as their way of life everywhere in the globe. [Hamas] is one of the links in the chain of the struggle against the Zionist invaders. It goes back to 1939, to the emergence of the martyr Izz al-Din al Kissam and his brethren the fighters, members of Muslim Brotherhood….[T]he Islamic Resistance Movement aspires to the realisation of Allah’s promise, no matter how long that should take…. The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Muslim generations until Judgment Day…. Nationalism, from the point of view of the Islamic Resistance Movement, is part of the religious creed…. Since this is the case, liberation of Palestine is then an individual duty for every Muslim wherever he may be. Hamas sees its movement as part of the Muslim Brotherhood engaged in the centuries-long struggle against the Christian Crusades and the later ideological invasions by missionaries and secular orientalists who affected Arab education. The Covenant states: This, in its turn, paved the way for the imperialistic invasion that made [Gen.] Allenby declare on entering Jerusalem: “Only now have the Crusades ended.” General Guru stood at Salah el-Din’s grave and said: “We have returned, O Salah el-Din.” To Hamas the liberation of Palestine is part of the greater struggle of Islam against the Christian West, and particularly against Western ideology. “Jihad is its path and death for the sake of Allah is the loftiest of its wishes.” For this reason Hamas seeks a revitalization of pure Islamic education for Muslim men and women who will be willing to die for the cause. The Covenant states: Side by side with this, a comprehensive study of the enemy, his human and financial capabilities, learning about his points of weakness and strength, and getting to know the forces supporting and helping him, should also be included. Thus, it was possible for the 9/11 hijackers to live in America and enjoy its freedoms without being converted or seduced from Islam. Their hatred of the infidel provided the motivation to kill more Americans in a few hours than would have otherwise been possible. The Covenant states further: [Hamas] believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Muslim generations until Judgment Day…. This Waqf remains as long as earth and heaven remain. Any procedure in contradiction to Islamic Sharia, where Palestine is concerned, is null and void. There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors…. Since this is the case, liberation of Palestine is then an individual duty for every Muslim wherever he may be…. This should be realized by every Muslim. In other words, genocide is the religious duty of every Muslim. It is important that basic changes be made in the school curriculum, to cleanse it of the traces of ideological invasion that affected it as a result of the orientalists and missionaries who infiltrated the region following the defeat of the Crusaders at the hands of Salah el-Din (Saladin)…. It is necessary to instill in the minds of the Muslim generations that the Palestinian problem is a religious problem, and should be dealt with on this basis. Hamas, like Hitler, also believes that Jews are engaged in a worldwide conspiracy to control the world: They were behind the French Revolution, the Communist Revolution and most of the revolutions we heard and hear about, here and there. With their money they formed secret societies, such as Freemasons, Rotary Clubs, the Lions and others in different part of the world for the purpose of sabotaging societies and achieving Zionist interests…. They obtained the Balfour Declaration, formed the League of Nations through which they could rule the world. They were behind World War II, through which they made huge financial gains by trading in armaments, and paved the way for the establishment of their state. It was they who instigated the replacement of the League of Nations with the United Nations and the Security Council to enable them to rule the world through them. There is no war going on anywhere, without having their finger in it…. After Palestine, the Zionists aspire to expand from the Nile to the Euphrates…. Their plan is embodied in the “Protocol of the Elders of Zion,” and their present conduct is the best proof of what we are saying…. The present Zionist onslaught has also been preceded by Crusading raids from the West and other Tatar raids from the East. Obviously, Hamas has a view of history that has become part of the fantasy world Palestinians believe in. Also, the Waqf concept must serve as a warning to Europe, which is in the process of being invaded and taken over by Muslims. The Covenant states that when the leaders of the Islamic armies conquered Syria and Iraq, “it was decided that the land should be left with its owners who would benefit from its fruits. As for the real ownership of the land and the land itself, it should be consecrated for Muslim generations till Judgment Day.” In twenty to fifty years, Western Europe, with its declining native populations, may be dominated by Muslims who will claim it as a Waqf. The Covenant makes it plain that Hamas cannot compromise on its basic program without destroying its reason for being. And if Hamas links up with the Iranians who share the same views, we shall be facing a new World War against Islamic Jihad—armed with nuclear weapons. THE LESSONS OF UNITED 93 I have just seen United 93, and it is obvious that many Americans have not only forgotten what happened on 9/11 but don’t want to be reminded of it. The film is a powerful and disturbing experience. But what rivets the audience is the realization that this is a true story, not a work of fiction, not make-believe. It happened, and there is no reason to believe that it can’t happen again. Fanatical Islam is on the march and it aims to destroy everyone and everything that does not bow down and submit to Allah, the pagan Muslim deity. Considering what happens every day in Iraq, where Islamic fanatics kill other Muslims, who can doubt that Islam is a satanic religion that celebrates murder and mayhem. If we are to restore order to the world, we shall have to defeat this Islamic fanaticism. But how can it be defeated? Even Democrats now realize that pulling out of Iraq before peace and order are established in that blighted country would be catastrophic not only for Iraqis but also for the West. Europeans already cower in fear of the large Muslim immigrant population that has settled among them. Thus, demographically, Europe is doomed to be dominated by Islam in thirty to fifty years. And even some American publications have been afraid to print the Danish cartoons for fear of incurring Islamic wrath. These are the same publications that think nothing of revealing the secret methods our government is using to capture and interrogate Islamic fanatics and disrupting their plans. But simply because the United States has not suffered any major Islamic attack on our shores since 9/11, too many Americans have become complacent about the continued threat. Bush is criticized for the manner in which the Iraq war has been conducted. But after our stunning success in Afghanistan and the initial invasion of Iraq, who could have predicted the ferocity and barbarism of the insurgency in which restaurants, markets, mosques, police stations are bombed every day. And for what purpose? To create the kind of chaos that would discourage us and cause a premature departure of coalition forces from Iraq. What now seems quite imperative is that we must indeed stay the course. With the Iranian president Ahmadinejad’s threats to destroy Israel, we must remain in the Middle East to counter that madman’s ambitions. There are critics who like to claim that Israel’s interests formulate American foreign policy. But what would the world be like if we stood by and let Israel be destroyed and were then faced by an unstoppable Islamic force, delirious with triumph and armed with nuclear weapons aimed against us? Does anyone believe that these suicidal fanatics would not use these weapons if they had them? The lesson of United 93 is a reminder of what was done to America on one day in which 3,000 innocent American lives were obliterated. The film bluntly reveals the confusion that reigned among our government officials as they witnessed in total disbelief what was happening before their very eyes. Disbelief is what made America so vulnerable. In fact, the terrorists were able to bring to a halt America’s entire aviation transport system. Nobody had told American officialdom what Islamic fanatics were capable of doing. So we learned the hard way at the cost of 3,000 lives. We are told that the vast majority of Americans are dissatisfied with the way the President is conducting the war. The Democrats, so far, have not offered any alternative strategy. Some of them say that we must set a date certain for our departure, no matter the situation on the ground. That would definitely elate the spirits of the terrorists. They would like nothing better than to know when the Americans would give up the struggle and get out. United 93 demonstrated what ordinary Americans are capable of doing when faced with terror. They decided to fight back even though they lost the battle. We honor their bravery, and the least we the living can do is make sure that no other Americans are ever put in the position the passengers on United 93 were put in. Which makes us wonder why The New York Times and Washington Post decided to reveal some of the secret methods our government is using to counter terrorist activities. Do we honor those who died on 9/11 by not punishing these traitors? On September 11th, there were Americans who had to decide whether to jump from the towers in Manhattan or burn to death, or whether to try to subdue the terrorists on United 93 or let them crash the plane into the U.S. Capitol. These are the kinds of decisions Americans should not be forced to make. But make them they did. At the end of the movie, the audience filed out of the theater in stunned silence. There was nothing to be said, but everything to be felt. The Original American Foreign Policy "It is our true policy to steer clear of entangling alliances with any portion of the foreign world." -- George Washington I have written before about the critical need for Congress to reassert its authority over foreign policy, and for the American people to recognize that the Constitution makes no distinction between domestic and foreign matters. Policy is policy, and it must be made by the legislature and not the executive. But what policy is best? How should we deal with the rest of the world in a way that best advances proper national interests, while not threatening our freedoms at home? I believe our founding fathers had it right when they argued for peace and commerce between nations, and against entangling political and military alliances. In other words, noninterventionism. Noninterventionism is not isolationism. Nonintervention simply means America does not interfere militarily, financially, or covertly in the internal affairs of other nations. It does not mean that we isolate ourselves; on the contrary, our founders advocated open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations. Thomas Jefferson summed up the noninterventionist foreign policy position perfectly in his 1801 inaugural address: "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations — entangling alliances with none." Washington similarly urged that we must, "Act for ourselves and not for others," by forming an "American character wholly free of foreign attachments." Yet how many times have we all heard these wise words without taking them to heart? How many claim to admire Jefferson and Washington, but conveniently ignore both when it comes to American foreign policy? Since so many apparently now believe Washington and Jefferson were wrong on the critical matter of foreign policy, they should at least have the intellectual honesty to admit it. Of course we frequently hear the offensive cliché that, "times have changed," and thus we cannot follow quaint admonitions from the 1700s. The obvious question, then, is what other principles from our founding era should we discard for convenience? Should we give up the First amendment because times have changed and free speech causes too much offense in our modern society? Should we give up the Second amendment, and trust that today's government is benign and not to be feared by its citizens? How about the rest of the Bill of Rights? It's hypocritical and childish to dismiss certain founding principles simply because a convenient rationale is needed to justify interventionist policies today. The principles enshrined in the Constitution do not change. If anything, today's more complex world cries out for the moral clarity provided by a noninterventionist foreign policy. It is time for Americans to rethink the interventionist foreign policy that is accepted without question in Washington. It is time to understand the obvious harm that results from our being dragged time and time again into intractable and endless Middle East conflicts, whether in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, or Palestine. It is definitely time to ask ourselves whether further American lives and tax dollars should be lost trying to remake the Middle East in our image. A Foreign Policy for Peace, Prosperity, and Liberty Introduction Mr. Speaker: Thomas Jefferson spoke for the founders and all our early presidents when he stated: "peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none..." which is, "one of the essential principles of our government". The question is: Whatever happened to this principle and should it be restored? We find the 20th Century was wracked with war, peace was turned asunder, and our liberties were steadily eroded. Foreign alliances and meddling in the internal affairs of other nations became commonplace. On many occasions, involvement in military action occurred through UN resolutions or a presidential executive order, despite the fact that the war power was explicitly placed in the hands of Congress. Since World War II, nearly 100,000 deaths and over a quarter million wounded (not counting the many thousands that have been affected by Agent Orange and the Persian Gulf War Syndrome) have all occurred without a declaration of war and without a clear-cut victory. The entire 20th century was indeed costly, with over 600,000 killed in battle and an additional million wounded. If liberty had been truly enhanced during that time, less could be said about the imperfections of the policy. The evidence, however, is clear that we as a people are less free, and the prosperity we still enjoy may be more illusionary than many realize. The innocent victims who have suffered at the hands of our militarism abroad are rarely considered by our government. Yet they may well be a major factor in the hatred now being directed toward America. It is not currently popular to question corporate and banking influence over a foreign policy that replaced the wisdom of Washington and Jefferson. Questioning foreign government influence on our policies, although known about for years, is not acceptable in the politically correct environment in which we live. There's little doubt that our role in the world dramatically changed in the 20th century, inexorably evolving from that of strict non-interventionism to that of sole superpower, with the assumption that we were destined to be the world policeman. By the end of the 20th century, in fact, this occurred. We have totally forgotten that for well over a hundred years we followed the advice of the founders by meticulously avoiding overseas conflicts. Instead we now find ourselves in charge of an American hegemony spread to the four corners of the earth. Now we have entered the 21st century, and there is not a country in the world that does not either depend on the U.S. for protection, or fear her wrath if they refuse to do her bidding. As the 20th century progressed, American taxpayers were required to finance, with great sacrifices to their pocketbooks and their liberty, the buying of loyalty through foreign aid and intimidation of those countries that did not cooperate. The question remains, however: Has this change been beneficial to freedom and prosperity here at home, and has it promoted peace and trade throughout the world? Those who justify our interventionist policies abroad argue that the violation of the rule of law is not a problem, considering the benefits we receive for maintaining the American empire. But has this really taken into consideration the cost in lives lost, the damage to long-term prosperity, as well as the dollar cost and freedoms we have lost? And what about the future? Has this policy of foreign intervention set the stage for radically changing America- and the world- in ways not yet seen? Were the founders completely off track because they lived in different times, or was the foreign policy they advised based on an essential principle of lasting value? Choosing the wrong answer to this question could very well be deadly to the grand experiment in liberty begun in 1776. The Slippery Road to World Policeman The transition from non-interventionism to our current role as world arbiter in all conflicts was insidious and fortuitous. In the early part of the 20th century, the collapse of the British Empire left a vacuum, which was steadily filled by a US presence. In the latter part of the century, the results of World War II and the collapse of the Soviet system propelled us into our current role. Throughout most of the 20th century, it was our competition with the Soviets that prompted our ever-expanded presence around the world. We are where we are today almost by default. But does that justify interventionism or prove it is in our best interest? Disregarding for the moment the moral and constitutional arguments against foreign intervention, a strong case can be made against it for other reasons. It is clear that one intervention begets another. The first problem is rarely solved, and new ones are created. Indeed, in foreign affairs a slippery slope exists. In recent years, we too often slipped into war through the back door, with the purpose rarely defined or understood and the need for victory ignored. A restrained effort of intervention frequently explodes into something that we did not foresee. Policies end up doing the opposite of their intended purpose- with unintended consequences. The result is that the action taken turns out to actually be detrimental to our national security interests. Yet no effort is made to challenge the fundamental principle behind our foreign policy. It is this failure to adhere to a set of principles that has allowed us to slip into this role, and if unchallenged, could well undo the liberties we all cherish. Throughout history, there has always been a great temptation for rulers to spread their influence and pursue empire over liberty. Few resist this temptation to power. There always seems to be a natural inclination to yield to this historic human passion. Could it be that progress and civilization and promoting freedom require ignoring this impulse to control others, as the founders of this great nation advised? Historically, the driving force behind world domination is usually an effort to control wealth. The Europeans were searching for gold when they came to the Americas. Now it's our turn to seek control over the black gold which drives much of what we do today in foreign affairs. Competing with the Soviet Union prompted our involvement in areas of the world where the struggle for the balance of power was the sole motivating force. The foreign policy of the 20th century replaced the policy endorsed by all the early presidents. This permitted our steadily growing involvement overseas in an effort to control the world's commercial interests, with a special emphasis on oil. Our influence in the Middle East evolved out of concern for the newly created state of Israel in 1947, and our desire to secure control over the flow of oil in that region. Israel's needs and Arab oil have influenced our foreign policy for more than a half a century. In the 1950s, the CIA installed the Shah in Iran. It was not until the hostage crisis of the late 1970s that the unintended consequences of this became apparent. This generated Iranian hatred of America and led to the takeover by the reactionary Khoumini and the Islamic fundamentalists. It caused greater regional instability than we anticipated. Our meddling in the internal affairs of Iran was of no benefit to us and set the stage for our failed policy in dealing with Iraq. We allied ourselves in the 1980s with Iraq in its war with Iran, and assisted Saddam Hussein in his rise to power. As recent reports reconfirm, we did nothing to stop Hussein's development of chemical and biological weapons and at least indirectly assisted in their development. Now, as a consequence of that needless intervention, we're planning a risky war to remove him from power. And as usual, the probable result of such an effort will be something our government does not anticipate- like a takeover by someone much worse. As bad as Hussein is, he's an enemy of the Al Qaeda, and someone new may well be a close ally of the Islamic radicals. Although our puppet dictatorship in Saudi Arabia has lasted for many decades, it's becoming shakier every day. The Saudi people are not exactly friendly toward us, and our military presence on their holy soil is greatly resented. This contributes to the radical fundamentalist hatred directed toward us. Another unfavorable consequence to America, such as a regime change not to our liking, could soon occur in Saudi Arabia. It is not merely a coincidence that 15 of the 9/11 terrorists are Saudis. The Persian Gulf War, fought without a declaration of war, is in reality still going on. It looks now like 9/11 may well have been a battle in that war, perpetrated by fanatical guerillas. It indicates how seriously flawed our foreign policy is. In the 1980s, we got involved in the Soviet/Afghan war and actually sided with the forces of Osama bin Laden, helping him gain power. This obviously was an alliance of no benefit to the United States, and it has now come back to haunt us. Our policy for years was to encourage Saudi Arabia to oppose communism by financing and promoting Islamic fundamentalism. Surely the shortcomings of that policy are now evident to everyone. Clinton's bombing of Sudan and Afghanistan on the eve of his indictment over Monica Lewinsky shattered a Taliban plan to expel Osama bin Laden from Afghanistan. Clinton's bombing of Baghdad on the eve of his impeachment hardly won any converts to our cause or reassured Muslim people in the Middle East of a balanced American policy. The continued bombing of Iraq over these past 12 years, along with the deadly sanctions resulting in hundreds of thousands of needless Iraqi civilian deaths, has not been beneficial to our security. And it has been used as one of the excuses for recruiting fanatics ready to sacrifice their lives in demonstrating their hatred toward us. Essentially all Muslims see our policy in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as being openly favorable toward Israel and in opposition to the Palestinians. It is for this reason they hold us responsible for Palestinian deaths, since all the Israeli weapons are from the United States. Since the Palestinians don't even have an army and must live in refugee camps, one should understand why the animosity builds, even if our pro-Israeli position can be explained. There is no end in sight. Since 9/11, our involvement in the Middle East and Saudi Arabia has grown significantly. Though we can badger those countries- whose leaders depend upon us to keep them in power- to stay loyal to the United States, the common people of the region become more alienated. Our cozy relationship with the Russians may not be as long-lasting as our current administration hopes, considering the $40 billion trade deal recently made between Russia and Saddam Hussein. It's more than a bit ironic that we find the Russians now promoting free trade as a solution to a difficult situation while we're promoting war. This continuous escalation of our involvement overseas has been widespread. We've been in Korea for more than 50 years. We have promised to never back away from the China-Taiwan conflict over territorial disputes. Fifty-seven years after World War II, we still find our military spread throughout Europe and Asia. And now, the debate rages over whether our national security requires that we, for the first time, escalate this policy of intervention to include "anticipatory self-defense and preemptive war." If our interventions of the 20th century led to needless deaths, unwinnable wars, and continuous unintended consequences, imagine what this new doctrine is about to unleash on the world. Our policy has prompted us to announce that our CIA will assassinate Saddam Hussein whenever it gets the chance and that the government of Iraq is to be replaced. Evidence now has surfaced that the United Nations inspection teams in the 1990s definitely included American CIA agents who were collecting information on how to undermine the Iraqi government and continue with the routine bombing missions. Why should there be a question of why Saddam Hussein might not readily accept UN inspectors without some type of assurances? Does anybody doubt that control of Iraqi oil supplies, second only to Saudi Arabia, is the reason U.S. policy is belligerent toward Saddam Hussein? If our goal is honestly to remove dictators around the world, then this is the beginning of an endless task. In the transition from the original American foreign policy of peace, trade, and neutrality to that of world policeman, we have sacrificed our sovereignty to world government organizations, such as the UN, the IMF, the World Bank, and the WTO. To further confuse and undermine our position, we currently have embarked on a policy of unilateralism within these world organizations. This means we accept the principle of globalized government when it pleases us, but when it doesn't, we ignore it for the sake of our own interests. Acting in our own interest is to be applauded, but what we're getting is not a good alternative to a one-world government. We don't get our sovereignty back, yet we continue to subject ourselves to a great potential financial burden and loss of liberty as we shift from a national government, with constitutional protection of our rights, to an international government, where our citizens' rights are threatened by treaties we haven't ratified, like the Kyoto and International Criminal Court treaties. We cannot depend on controlling the world government at some later date, even if we seem to be able to do that now. The unilateralist approach of dominating world leaders and arbitrarily ignoring certain mandates- something we can do with impunity because of our intimidating power- serves only to further undermine our prestige and acceptability throughout the world. And this includes the Muslim countries as well as our European friends. This merely sets the stage for both our enemies and current friends to act in concert against our interests when the time comes. This is especially true if we become financially strapped and our dollar is sharply weakened and we are in a much more vulnerable bargaining position. Unilateralism within a globalist approach to government is the worst of all choices. It ignores national sovereignty, dignifies one-world government, and places us in the position of demanding dictatorial powers over the world community. Demanding the right to set all policy and exclude ourselves from jurisdictional restraints sows the seeds of future discontent and hostility. The downside is we get all the bills, risk the lives of our people without cause, and make ourselves the target for every event that goes badly. We get blamed for the unintended, unforeseen consequences and become the target of terrorists that evolve from the radicalized fringes. Long-term, foreign interventionism does |