Monday, March 19, 2007

BLACKWATER USA


Published on Thursday, January 25, 2007 by the Los Angeles Times

Our Mercenaries in Iraq
The president relies on thousands of private soldiers with little
oversight, a disturbing example of the military-Industrial complex.
by Jeremy Scahill

As President Bush took the podium to deliver his State of the Union address Tuesday, there were five American families receiving news that has become all too common: Their loved ones had been killed in Iraq. But in this case, the slain were neither "civilians," as the news reports proclaimed, nor were they U.S. soldiers. They were highly trained mercenaries deployed to Iraq by a secretive private military company based in North Carolina — Blackwater USA.
The company made headlines in early 2004 when four of its troops were ambushed and burned in the Sunni hotbed of Fallouja — two charred, lifeless bodies left to dangle for hours from a bridge. That incident marked a turning point in the war, sparked multiple U.S. sieges of Fallouja and helped fuel the Iraqi resistance that haunts the occupation to this day.
Now, Blackwater is back in the news, providing a reminder of just how privatized the war has become. On Tuesday, one of the company's helicopters was brought down in one of Baghdad's most violent areas. The men who were killed were providing diplomatic security under Blackwater's $300-million State Department contract, which dates to 2003 and the company's initial no-bid contract to guard administrator L. Paul Bremer III in Iraq. Current U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, who is also protected by Blackwater, said he had gone to the morgue to view the men's bodies, asserting the circumstances of their deaths were unclear because of "the fog of war."
Bush made no mention of the downing of the helicopter during his State of the Union speech. But he did address the very issue that has made the war's privatization a linchpin of his Iraq policy — the need for more troops. The president called on Congress to authorize an increase of about 92,000 active-duty troops over the next five years. He then slipped in a mention of a major initiative that would represent a significant development in the U.S. disaster response/reconstruction/war machine: a Civilian Reserve Corps.
"Such a corps would function much like our military Reserve. It would ease the burden on the armed forces by allowing us to hire civilians with critical skills to serve on missions abroad when America needs them," Bush declared. This is precisely what the administration has already done, largely behind the backs of the American people and with little congressional input, with its revolution in military affairs. Bush and his political allies are using taxpayer dollars to run an outsourcing laboratory. Iraq is its Frankenstein monster.
Already, private contractors constitute the second-largest "force" in Iraq. At last count, there were about 100,000 contractors in Iraq, of which 48,000 work as private soldiers, according to a Government Accountability Office report. These soldiers have operated with almost no oversight or effective legal constraints and are an undeclared expansion of the scope of the occupation. Many of these contractors make up to $1,000 a day, far more than active-duty soldiers. What's more, these forces are politically expedient, as contractor deaths go uncounted in the official toll.
The president's proposed Civilian Reserve Corps was not his idea alone. A privatized version of it was floated two years ago by Erik Prince, the secretive, mega-millionaire, conservative owner of Blackwater USA and a man who for years has served as the Pied Piper of a campaign to repackage mercenaries as legitimate forces. In early 2005, Prince — a major bankroller of the president and his allies — pitched the idea at a military conference of a "contractor brigade" to supplement the official military. "There's consternation in the [Pentagon] about increasing the permanent size of the Army," Prince declared. Officials "want to add 30,000 people, and they talked about costs of anywhere from $3.6 billion to $4 billion to do that. Well, by my math, that comes out to about $135,000 per soldier." He added: "We could do it certainly cheaper."
And Prince is not just a man with an idea; he is a man with his own army. Blackwater began in 1996 with a private military training camp "to fulfill the anticipated demand for government outsourcing." Today, its contacts run from deep inside the military and intelligence agencies to the upper echelons of the White House. It has secured a status as the elite Praetorian Guard for the global war on terror, with the largest private military base in the world, a fleet of 20 aircraft and 20,000 soldiers at the ready.
From Iraq and Afghanistan to the hurricane-ravaged streets of New Orleans to meetings with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger about responding to disasters in California, Blackwater now envisions itself as the FedEx of defense and homeland security operations. Such power in the hands of one company, run by a neo-crusader bankroller of the president, embodies the "military-industrial complex" President Eisenhower warned against in 1961.
Further privatizing the country's war machine — or inventing new back doors for military expansion with fancy names like the Civilian Reserve Corps — will represent a devastating blow to the future of American democracy.
Jeremy Scahill is a Puffin Foundation Writing Fellow at The Nation Institute and the author of the forthcoming "Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army." He can be reached at jeremy@democracynow.org.


Source: http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0125-25.htm

NAPOLEON, THE JEWS, NOW MUSLIMS

Napoleon, the Jews and French Muslims






Published: March 18, 2007


E-Mail Article
Listen to Article
Printer-Friendly
3-Column Format
Translate
Share Article
Add to Clippings

PARIS: Not all stories from the past have relevance today. But here is one not very well-known story about the Jews in Napoleonic France that has much relevance to French Muslims in our own time.
Two hundred years ago, in one of his lesser-known demonstrations of megalomania,
Napoleon, who had morphed in a few short years from a servant of the French Republic to emperor, reconvened what he called the Great Sanhedrin — a name taken from the governing body of the Jewish community under the Roman Empire. This council of French Jewish leaders was summoned to resolve a series of issues left unsettled since the French Revolution.
In September 1791, the National Assembly had granted Jews full citizenship, making France the first country in Europe to give them civil rights. This was not done entirely in the spirit of liberty, equality and fraternity. The hope was that by unlocking the ghetto gates and removing all restrictions on employment and movement, Jews would stop acting like a separate nation within France and ineluctably become French.
But legal emancipation is not social emancipation. Complaints that the Jews were stuck in their old ways persisted, particularly in Alsace and Lorraine, where the majority of the community lived.
Today in Opinion

Repairing the damage to the U.S. military

Protecting American wages

Other Views: Christian Science Monitor, Dong-A Ilbo, Frontier Post

To find out if there was something in Jewish law and custom preventing integration, Napoleon summoned a council of Jewish leaders and put to them 12 questions about Jewish laws and customs. To modern eyes, these questions combine ignorance, condescension and insensitivity. One was: Are Jews allowed to have more than one wife? Another: Can a Jew marry a Christian?
But the more important questions related to the transition a marginalized people were making to a new idea of citizenship: Jews born in France were treated by the law as citizens, did they regard France as their country? Did they feel they had an obligation to defend it?
In response to Napoleon's questions, 200 years ago this month, a group composed of 71 leading rabbis and businessmen met in the Hotel de Ville in Paris to deliberate on their responses and present them to the emperor. Their answers stated what is now considered obvious, that there was nothing inherent in the religion preventing full integration of the Jewish community into French life. Twelve months later, by imperial decree, the Jewish confession was brought under state control. Jews were obligated to take French names and had to apply annually for a license to do business.
And here is where the story is relevant to our times. French public opinion about Muslims today echoes public opinion about Jews 200 years ago. "They" are not integrating, "they" remain separate. Recently, after much legal wrangling, a Muslim school opened in Lyon. It was the third to open in recent years and a poll in Le Figaro showed that 76 percent of French people opposed the creation of such schools, even though there are Jewish and Christian private schools in France.
When a French Muslim student is forbidden to wear a hijab to school it excites debate about the meaning of secularism in France. The definitions of that term echo the words in the debates about Jews at the time of Napoleon.
And, although modern politicians would not be so insensitive as to put the questions as bluntly as Napoleon, it is not difficult to imagine French cabinet ministers (or cabinet ministers in any European country) wondering about the role of imams in deciding legal matters in the Muslim community; or, given the radical movements sweeping global Islam, wanting to ask young Muslims whether they regard the French as their brothers or strangers? And, to whom do they owe first allegiance, their country or their faith?
On March 11, in the same exceptionally grand room at the Hotel de Ville where their forefathers met, French Jews marked the bicentenary of that event. The words on every speaker's lips were integration and community and patriotism and faith. Speaker after speaker testified that all were compatible with one another.
Sitting in the back of the hall, as the ceremony reached its conclusion with the French Army's choir singing La Marseillaise, a couple of thoughts and one question came to mind.
The price of integration for the minority was not cheap. The practice of Judaism today would be unrecognizable to the recently emancipated Jews of Napoleon's time. Those changes were made necessary by the requirements of integration. Second, there has always been a section of the French majority that has rejected Jewish attempts at integration. Yet despite the Dreyfus Affair and the Holocaust, French Jewish patriotism was undiminished.

The question was: Could one imagine a ceremony at the Hotel de Ville in 200 years where the Muslim community reaffirms its commitment to French definitions of secularism, integration, faith and patriotism?
Michael Goldfarb is currently writing a history of Jewish Emancipation from the French Revolution to the Dreyus Affair.


SAVE THE CHILDREN!




THE DRUMS OF WAR: IRAN

[Photo: www.zenithgallery.com/.../hanson1.html]


January 29, 2007
Drums of War and Orchestrated Hysteria about Iran
by Rodrigue Tremblay

I'm fed up to the ears with old men dreaming up wars
for young men to die in."
George McGovern, former US senator and presidential candidate

"Governments constantly choose between telling lies and fighting wars, with the end result always being the same. One will always lead to the other."
Thomas Jefferson, (1743-1826), 3rd US President

"The United States no longer bothers about low intensity conflict. It no longer sees any point in being reticent or even devious. It puts its cards on the table without fear or favour. It quite simply doesn't give a damn about the United Nations, international law or critical dissent, which it regards as impotent and irrelevant."
Harold Pinter, 2005 Nobel Laureate for Literature, acceptance speech


I have believed for quite some time now that once the Bush-Cheney tandem reached a dead-end in Iraq, as was amply predictable, they would try to save face and camouflage their failure by raising the ante and launching a new war of aggression against Iran, all the while wrapping themselves in the flag. For that, see my article of April 16, 2006, where I wrote (after the disaster in Iraq): "Bush may thus be tempted to raise the ante and go after Iran to reclaim his 'Commander-in-Chief' mantle." I would add now that the Bush-Cheney duo want to complete what they started in Iraq during the few years they have left before them. Most military experts believe that Iran can be contained militarily. But, make no mistake about it; the main rationale behind the pressures being exercised upon Iran at this time has little to do with concerns about weapons of mass destruction, but a lot to do (as in 1953 when Mossadegh was overthrown) with this country's oil reserves and how it uses them. Regime change in Tehran; that's what the Bush-Cheney administration is after.

As to war preparations, the current situation resembles what prevailed during the fall of 2002, when lies and misinformation were used all over the place (by the administration and by the neocon press) to stir up passions against Saddam Hussein and Iraq. Today, the objectives are the same and the tactics used are also the same. Indeed, the same forces are at work in the same two countries—the U.S. and Israel—to exaggerate the military threats posed by Iran and to attempt to link Iran to the al-Qaida terrorist network in order to justify an attack. There is something very pathetic about the rage with which the pro-war lobby is beating the drum for military action against Iran, and the Bush-Cheney administration's musings about using nuclear weapons of mass destruction.. It is political madness in action. But why is such madness occurring seemingly only in these two countries?

The first thing to be understood is that all these wars in the Middle East have been planned for more than ten years by a small group of Washington Neocons who penned a document, in 1996, calling for such wars, in order to balkanize the Middle East for Israel's sake and to allow American companies to take control of the enormous oil reserves present in that part of the world. In 1996, in a report on strategy prepared by the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies (a think-tank created by AIPAC) and titled "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm," future advisors to the Bush-Cheney administration (Perle, Feith, Wurmser, etc.) proposed "removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq," and then to go on "engaging Hizballah, Syria, and Iran."

The Clinton administration refused to embrace fully this incendiary strategy, but large campaign contributions behind the scheme and promises of an oil bonanza persuaded oil-men Bush II and Cheney that American military power could be used profitably to implement the neocon plan. That is why, after 9/11, the Bush-Cheney administration requested a blanket approval Resolution from the American Congress to take control militarily and reorganize politically the entire Middle East. The senators reduced this mandate to Iraq, but the Bush-Cheney intentions were crystal clear: Total domination of the entire Middle East

The second overlooked reality is the tight grip the pro-Israel neocon establishment holds over the Bush-Cheney White House, both sides of Congress and the American corporate media. For years now, not only the American Neocons but also the Israeli government itself has demanded that the U.S. attack Iran. Its Lobby has spearheaded the campaign. In Colin Powell's words, the 'JINSA crowd' at the Defense Department, which is full of transferees from the neocon Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), has been most active and effective. What's more, we have been warned: Israel's Deputy Prime Minister Shaul Mofaz said it: "2007 (will be) the decisive year,” to deal with Iran. —He might be proven right. He made this comment just after he talked, on January 21, (2007) with visiting U.S. Under Secretary of State Nicholas Burns. Besides, the Israeli government has usually gotten what it wanted from the Bush-Cheney administration, even if it meant committing the United States to a disastrous policy.

Just as for the Iraq war, the coming Iran war will be orchestrated by the same Neocons, and will also be a product of a campaign led by the Israeli government and its all powerful fifth column in America. On November 15, 2006, for example, Israel's outgoing U.S. ambassador Danny Ayalon seemed to have been privy to Bush's intentions: "U.S. President George W. Bush will not hesitate to use force against Iran in order to halt its nuclear program." — On January 21 (2007), chief Neocon and former director of the U.S. Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee, Richard Perle, made it very clear when he said: "If all options were exhausted in the attempt to stop the Iranian nuclear project, and US military involvement was needed for a successful strike on Tehran, President George Bush would give the green light for the operation."
American politicians of both major political parties also seem to trip over each other in their rush to go to Israel and declare that their country, the USA, should attack Iran. In the last two months, a host of presidential candidates did just that, from John McCain, to Hillary Clinton, to Mitt Romney, to John Edwards, all pledging allegiance to a pre-emptive defense of Israel with a war of aggression against Iran. The last in line is former Senator John Edwards a Democratic presidential candidate who, in a mid-January trip to Israel, also established his own credentials for becoming president by declaring: "Americans can be educated (sic) to come along with what needs to be done with Iran." And, to be sure he is well understood, he added: "All options are on the table to ensure that Iran will never get a nuclear weapon."

And third, less we forget, a war against Iran has also been promoted by Bush's Christian fundamentalist supporters. The latter meet frequently in the White House to discuss foreign policy, and some are openly praying for a coming Armageddon that they see happening soon.

And that is where we stand today, after the disastrous 2003 American-led war against Iraq, the murderous, American-supported Israeli war against Lebanon in 2006, and now, with the table being set for an American-initiated war of aggression against Iran, possibly involving the use of nuclear weapons. This is all part of a grand Middle East neocon plan that we see slowly unfolding under our very eyes.

We may ask, who is happy with all these successive illegal and immoral wars of aggression? Answer: the Israeli government, its sycophants in the U.S., the arms industry and certain big oil interests who have already mapped their foray in the region, plus George Bush's wild-eyed fundamentalist supporters, for whom an attack on Iran is just what God has ordered.

Who is unhappy? The young Americans who are sent half way around the world to die or be maimed, and their families left behind; the people in the Middle East, who are bombed and massacred and who see their countries destroyed and their resources stolen; the American taxpayers, who are footing the obscene bill for these whimsical and imperialistic wars; and the entire world population who look on, unbelievingly, to this return to calculated barbarism and lawlessness, and who witness, powerless, the destruction of the United Nations.


Rodrigue Tremblay lives in Montreal and can be reached at rodrigue.tremblay@yahoo.com
Also visit his blog site at www.thenewamericanempire.com/blog.
Author's Website: http://www.thenewamericanempire.com/
_______________________________________________
Posted, January 29, 2007, at 5:30 am

Email to a friend:
http://www.TheNewAmericanEmpire.com/tremblay=1055

Send contact, comments or commercial reproduction requests (in English or in French) to:
bigpictureworld@yahoo.com
N.B.: Messages may be published in our weblog, unless you request otherwise.

Please register to receive free emails on new postings of articles.
Send an email with the word "subscribe" to: bigpictureworld@yahoo.com


Home: TheNewAmericanEmpire.com

© 2007 by Big Picture World Syndicate, Inc.

Sunday, March 18, 2007

ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI ON "W"

Zbigniew Bzrezinski Gives Bush a ‘Failed F’
By: SilentPatriot on Sunday, March 18th, 2007 at 1:27 PM - PDT


Jimmy Carter's National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski appeared on Late Edition this morning to discuss his new book Second Chance: Three Presidents and the Crisis of American Superpower. Brzezinski is truly a great scholar of history and provides an incisive analysis of the geopolitical climate, particularly with regard to the disaster unleashed by our hasty invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq.
Download (1780) Play (1334) Download (777) Play (913)
BRZEZINSKI: I think what this president has done to America's position in the world is unconscionable and will take years to undo after 2008, provided we don't plunge into some terrible expanded conflict before he leaves office. And what concerns me the most about Iraq is now that it is no longer a war of national interest. It's a war of presidential hubris and has the potential for expanding into Iran.
In case you missed it, Mr. Brzezinski was on The Daily Show last week.
He also testified before Congress last month and had some very disturbing predictions about Iraq and a potential showdown with Iran.
Transcript below the fold…

CNN.com:
BLITZER: Welcome back to "Late Edition." I'm Wolf Blitzer in Washington. Our next guest sounded one of the early alarms against the war in Iraq and warned of potentially disastrous results.
The former national security Zbigniew Brzezinski served under former President Jimmy Carter. He is the author of an important new book, "Second Chance: Three Presidents and the Crisis of American Superpower." Dr. Brzezinski is a frequent guest here on "Late Edition." Thanks for coming in.
ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI, FORMER NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: Wolf, it's good to be with you.
BLITZER: Congratulations on this new book. Let me summarize briefly, as far as Iraq is concerned, three of your conclusions in this book. The war in Iraq caused calamitous damage to America's global standing, it's a geopolitical disaster and it's increased the terrorist threat to the United States. Are those three of your main summaries?
BRZEZINSKI: Yes.
BLITZER: Let's talk about each one. It's caused calamitous damage to America's global standing. How calamitous would you assess the damage?
BRZEZINSKI: I'll just give you one example, but one could talk literally for an hour. The BBC recently conducted a worldwide poll asking people to rank countries in terms of their most positive contributions to world affairs and the ones that have made the most negative.
The three most negative countries rated by some 28,000 responders were in this sequence: The worst, I'm sorry to say, Israel. Second, Iran. Third, the United States. Now, this is 15 years after we became the only global superpower, when we had a chance to really shape the world. And this is now how we're rated.
BLITZER: And you also say this has become a geopolitical disaster for the United States?
BRZEZINSKI: Yes. Because in the Middle East there is now great turmoil, and in many respects Iran has benefited geopolitically from the destruction of Iraq, and that, of course, creates problems for us. And beyond that, we seem to be bogged down.
BLITZER: Are the 28 million or so, 27 million people of Iran better off now than they were under Saddam Hussein?
BRZEZINSKI: You mean of Iraq.
BLITZER: I mean of Iraq.
BRZEZINSKI: Look, today in The New York times, there has come the big box which measures conditions. It's very hard to say that they're better off. I think in some respects, they're worse off. And then there's a further statistic which is not there, with which I am somewhat familiar. The country had about 25 million people when we were there.
Two million left, probably the very best, the best educated. They literally have left to Jordan, to Syria and so forth. About a million and half have been displaced from their homes, so they're internal refugees. And maybe as many as half a million were neither born because of a lower birth rate or died earlier because of higher mortality or were physically killed.
So we have deprived that country of close to three million people. And we devastated the country.
BLITZER: You also say instead of reducing the terror threat against the United States, the war in Iraq has increased the terror threat to the United States. Explain what your thinking is on that.
BRZEZINSKI: Yes. It has intensified hostility toward the United States, in the Middle East, and increasingly in the Muslim world at large. We have contributed to that not only by what we have been doing in Iraq, but we have contributed to it also by a kind of Islamophobic language which identifies almost all Muslims as enemies. And that of course creates a wider, bigger, more fertile recruiting ground for terrorists.
BLITZER: But you also heard Stephen Hadley, the current national security adviser, say by fighting al Qaida in Iraq, the United States is preventing them from coming over here and committing terrorist acts in the U.S. homeland.
BRZEZINSKI: Look, if you were to extend that logic to its logical conclusion, we should be fighting, and we might be fighting before long also in Iran, more deeply in Afghanistan, potentially in Pakistan. What the administration fails to understand, and it's a fundamental historic error is that we cannot be acting like an imperial power in the post-imperial age, like a colonial power in a post-colonial age.
The only way to eradicate terrorism is to have the support and consensus of all the moderates in the countries that potentially breed terrorists. And not trying to do it by ourselves with means which increasingly alienate people.
BLITZER: You're a professor, and you give grades to three U.S. presidents. You teach at my alma mater at Johns Hopkins University at the School of Advanced International Studies. Now let's talk about the grades that you give these presidents.
You give the first President Bush a solid B. You give President Clinton an uneven C, and you give the current President Bush a failed F. All right, let's talk about the first President Bush. Why does he get a solid B?
BRZEZINSKI: Because he did extremely well in handling the disintegration of the Soviet bloc, really skillfully, much better than Reagan would have done it. And he acted with resolution, but inconsequentially in the Middle East. He failed to exploit the enormous standing he had, really enormous, to set in motion some larger, more compelling vision of the new world that the United States would shape, being now the global leader.
BLITZER: And he did presumably well, at least you say, in dealing with Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait.
BRZEZINSKI: But didn't follow up on it. And didn't follow up on the possibility…
BLITZER: But here's what I don't understand. You say he didn't follow up. You criticize the current President Bush for going in and getting rid of Saddam Hussein, but you're saying that the first President Bush should have gotten rid of Saddam Hussein then?
BRZEZINSKI: No. I'm saying he could have exploited it by being politically more persistent and more insightful to overthrow Saddam from within. I think the Army, the Baathists might have overthrown Saddam in those circumstances, especially if we were prepared to push on against the Iraqi armed forces.
But even more significant failure was the failure to exploit the remarkable standing he had, including participation of Arab countries in the war, to push for peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians. That was the moment to make a really basic push.
BLITZER: All right. Now, what about Bill Clinton? You give him an uneven C, even though for eight years of his presidency the country was basically at peace.
BRZEZINSKI: Yes. It was basically at peace. It was prosperous. But I also say that he was full of good intentions but rather self- indulgent. And I don't mean anything necessarily personal about him or only in part. The country became self-indulgent. It became kind of disinclined to really make any sacrifices.
Hedonism almost became a virtue. We weren't prepared to undertake the kind of self-restraint, self-denial that is necessary in this modern world to provide leadership. He wouldn't address the problems of poverty, of social injustice, not to mention ecology.
BLITZER: But how did he handle the crisis in Bosnia and Kosovo?
BRZEZINSKI: Very well. And I give him credit for that.
BLITZER: Because an uneven C, a lot of students, graduate students of yours would be unhappy if they got a C.
BRZEZINSKI: Well, I was known to be a tough grader. But his major failing again was the Middle East. Instead of exploiting the special standing of the United States as a mediator, he essentially kind of embraced Israel in a way in which, while giving more support to Israel, he diminished his ability to mediate between the Israelis and the Palestinians and create peace, which Israel more than anybody else needs badly.
And hence, he left eight years kind of slip, out of self- indulgence.
BLITZER: You give an F, a failed F, to the current president.
BRZEZINSKI: Yes.
BLITZER: That is a total failure. BRZEZINSKI: I'm sorry to say, this is terrible. I think what this president has done to America's position in the world is unconscionable and will take years to undo after 2008, provided we don't plunge into some terrible expanded conflict before he leaves office. And what concerns me the most about Iraq is now that it is no longer a war of national interest. It's a war of presidential hubris and has the potential for expanding into Iran.
BLITZER: Even in these final two years of his presidency?
BRZEZINSKI: That's I think the biggest danger that we face right now.
BLITZER: The book is entitled "Second Chance: Three Presidents and the Crisis of American Superpower." Zbigniew Brzezinski is the author. Thanks for coming in, Dr. Brzezinski.
BRZEZINSKI: Wolf, as always.


MURTHA ON 'LATE EDITION'

Murtha: “Why would I believe” Cheney?
By: SilentPatriot @ 3:54 PM - PDT

On Late Edition this morning, Wolf asked Jack Murtha for his response to Dick Cheney's charge that a withdrawal from Iraq would result in chaos.

Download (533) Play (446) Download (236) Play (297)
MURTHA: Why would I believe that? I mean, all the things that they have predicted have — everything I predicted turned out to be true. Nothing they predicted turned out to be true. Why would I believe there's going to be chaos in the Middle East just because they say it? The Iraqis don't believe that. The countries on the periphery don't believe that and the public doesn't believe it. The public wants us out. They spoke in the last election.
Granted this seems like the obvious answer, but among America's political punditry elite, those who have consistently been wrong about everything (Cheney, Ledeen, etc.) are still regarded as experts, whereas those who were correct the entire time (Murtha, Dean, Gore, etc.) are considered unserious no-nothing hacks* who should be ignored.
This reminds me of an exchange Tim Russert had with Lindsay Graham two weeks ago. To his credit, Timmeh hit the nail on the head:
MR. RUSSERT: But many Americans will say that those who supported the war are saying, “Trust us, see this through,” the same people who said, “There are weapons of mass destruction. General Shinseki’s wrong, we don’t need hundreds of thousands of troops. We will be greeted as liberators.”
SEN. GRAHAM: Mm-hmm.
MR. RUSSERT: “The cost of the war,” according to Lawrence Lindsey, “won’t be more than $200 billion.” “There won’t be any sectarian violence.” All those judgments were wrong. Why should the American people continue to belive in those same people who had so many misjudgments leading up and executing the war?
The answer, of course, is we shouldn't.

Source: http://www.crooksandliars.com/
* I think author meant: KNOW-Nothings

HALLIBURTON MOVING TO DUBAI

Halliburton Moving to Dubai

By: SilentPatriot on Monday, March 12th, 2007 at 12:59 PM - PDT
I wonder if they're doing this to avoid the scrutiny of Henry Waxman. They do have a long track record ripping off American taxpayers at the expense of the troops.
MSNBC:
U.S. oil services firm Halliburton Co. is moving its headquarters and chief executive to Dubai in a move that immediately sparked criticism from some U.S. politicians.
Texas-based Halliburton, which was led by Vice President Dick Cheney from 1995-2000, did not specify what, if any, tax implications the move might entail. It plans to list on a stock exchange in the Middle East once it moves to Dubai — a booming commercial center in the Gulf. The company said it was making the moves to position itself better to gain contracts in the oil-rich Middle East.
“This is an insult to the U.S. soldiers and taxpayers who paid the tab for their no-bid contracts and endured their overcharges for all these years,” said judiciary committee chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy, a Vermont Democrat.

Source: http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/03/12/halliburton-moving-to-dubai/

Saturday, March 17, 2007

REAPING THE WHIRLWIND



Reaping the Whirlwind


Where is the Occult Deluge Taking us?










"There is a generation that curseth their father, and doth not bless their mother. There is a generation that are pure in their own eyes, and yet is not washed from their filthiness. There is a generation, O how lofty are their eyes! and their eyelids are lifted up. There is a generation, whose teeth are as swords, and their jaw teeth as knives, to devour the poor from off the earth, and the needy from among men. Proverbs 30:11-14
Since the Harry Potter abomination hit the fan a few years ago, there have been a few voices trying to sound a warning that all is not well, indeed--nothing is well about our society being so infatuated with evil and the supernatural. This ministry has placed online a website telling the truth about the supernatural, its source, its aims, its effects, and its destiny. If you have not visited it we would invite you to drop in and have a browse. ( http://www.harrypottermagic.org/ Please don't be turned off by the cartoon entry as we are trying to reach a class that only gravitate to this sort of thing.)
People with real spiritual insight realize it is much too late and much too little because the seed has been sown and the whirlwind is coming fast and partly already here. Where the protest was needed was decades ago when cute witches and wizards and 'the magic kingdom' first came into theaters and later the TV. When you step away from God's Truth and His Principles it is always like taking the first step onto a waterslide--no matter how much you may not intend to go to the bottom--you will have no choice in the matter. Of all people on earth, Seventh-day Adventists should have known enough to stay away from occult waterslides! But I am sad to say, little by little the ideas of 'cute magic' and so on have infiltrated our ranks just as much as the world.
Through the years since establishing 'harrypottermagic' we have, of course, received many e-mail comments. I think you deserve to know the facts about these comments. Most, as you would expect, are irate and protesting our speaking against HP and like literature--it is a type of blasphemy as far as they are concerned.
Many letters come from people in Wicca, witchcraft covens and pagan New-Age activities. These letters are so similar that you get the feeling that only one brain controls all these folk.
The next class are the fantasy and entertainment addicted who feel that there is no affect whatever made to the character or mind by what one reads or watches. This group really is the one to blame for the approaching whirlwind of wickedness --their 'Oh its just a story, just in fun' attitude has paved the road for wickedness to sweep our world.
The nastiest letters received are from two classes: Practicing witches and Seventh-day Adventists. No, its not a typo folks - next to witches the nastiest letters have come from professed SDAs.
Do we get encouraging letters? Yes, occasionally we get letters from young people who have heeded* the warning and are grateful and a few parents have rejoiced in finding someone taking a stand against this evil targeting the young. Some have told how the minute they saw HP advertised, they recognized it as demonic. Yes, the Holy Spirit has a few hearts in Christianity that are tuned in and God can warn them.
The commonest type of feedback by far are those saying that HP has no affect on character except to promote love and the importance of friendship. Here is what happened this week (1st October 2006) Day one I receive one such letter telling me that I should show better respect to Harry Potter and there is no way that it has a bad effect on children. They also stated that these stories in no way cause children to want to get into witchcraft or spiritualism. I deleted it as I have learned that it is a waste of valuable time to respond to these folk. (We are warned NOT to dialogue with spiritualists and that is what these people really are whether or not they know it.)
Day 2 I receive this information from a person that is observing some rather ominous signs of the approaching whirlwind. Here is this unsolicited eye-witness report:
How close to the end?
Let me tell you how close. Last week some of my students got on the bus, sat down and one of them asked the others this question: "What would you rather do, STRANGLE A BABY GIRL, OR KILL A DOG." They all began to discuss this question with lots of laughter and a chilling coldness. One girl piped up and said: "It would depend on if the baby girl had cancer, then it would make more sense to kill her." Then I heard several of them discuss different way to murder and kill. Then one of the boys said: "I would like to go to a slaughter house, you know where they butcher cows for meat, and I would like to take a knife and just stab one of the cows to watch it die, they are going to be butchered and die anyhow." He was not joking.

That conversation is no lie or exaggeration. It shows you just how wicked and perverse this generation is. Today I heard sexually explicit language from a bunch of them, they usually try not to let me hear, because I will give them a conduct negative report but today they were carelessly loud, and I would not repeat what I heard for it would make me and you blush. Earlier in the day two girls were on the bus themselves, and they were chatting back and forth about how one of the girls just hates another girl, and how she beat her up, and then she made comment about how she 'slept' with that girls boyfriend. These teens HAVE NO SHAME, NO GUILT. 50 years ago we tried to keep things secret, but not today. Everything is OK....I even have a boy on my bus who wore a skeleton scarf over his face to school, and not for Halloween. Today if they are into witchcraft they do not hide it....but flaunt it...if they are homosexual they flaunt it...no shame, and they are very disrespectful to adults.

They are putting rings in their lips, noses, and all over their bodies. Some of them are making their earlobes big like the natives in Africa used to do. One of the students has his earlobes so big now that he had his pen poked through the hole while walking beside my bus.

There are some quiet good kids, but they are in the minority...Remember when the children came out and mocked Elisha? That is what this generation is like...Horrible. And, with all the senseless crimes taking place right now I believe THAT THE TIME IS NOW FOR THE END TIME EVENTS TO START HAPPENING. LINDA

I should have also said that is is NORMAL EVERYDAY TALK on my school bus.....
Same Day I received a pathetic little letter from a child just pleading with me to teach her witchcraft and/or magic because she loves it so much. Folks--this deluge is getting those inclined to wickedness, yes--But it is also getting the innocent but ignorant little ones who think that if they could learn magic or become a psychic they could help people.
You may be tempted to say that the above letter is an isolated happening: Oh No friends! it is everywhere like flood waters overflowing a swamp. I spoke to a man that lives many miles from me and he told me that he has overheard the same type of grossness and horror from youngsters passing his home.
Not long ago when traveling in another area I had stopped at a road service facility and while waiting for the washroom, I came face to face with the strangest sight I ever saw outside of pictures of darkest heathenism--a teenage boy with a face so full of metal rings and devices inserted into his skin that your first impulse is pity like you would feel for a mangled victim of an explosion! The other day even in my area far from major cities, I saw a teen with masses of occult symbols tattooed over his hands and arms, and they were not the washable type either. I hope our people know that the marking of the body and the wearing of rings etc. in the skin is a sign of allegiance to Satanic forces.
The last five years has witnessed the explosion of Halloween into the biggest even of the year and instead of a few children going door to door for candy (which was bad enough) Not every one has to design and have their costume and they are worn to WORK even in hospitals, schools and banks!
A week ago I entered a store and the Halloween objects and masks were so vile and so hideous that one would fear frightening small children out of their minds or even to death! (It HAS actually happened!)
Dear readers, if you have been guilty of thinking any occult or fantasy story or activity is 'just for fun', then please repent and seek the Lord for cleansing while you still can! Are fantasy or fictional videos, games, books or pictures in your home? Get them out! Devils can stay with their stuff and God cannot bless a people with the light we have received who will still excuse what is unreal and untrue as 'harmless fun'.
The next thing you must do if you want to be protected by God when the whirlwind really hits, is to PROTEST each and every deviation into fantasy and any reference to magic, occult or the world of witches and wizards that tries to enter your home, school or church. Educate others as to the truth about spiritualism and what the devil is doing with all this 'cute' but deadly poison.
A time of trouble is coming such as the world has never seen before! Prophecies in the Bible indicate that the women and children are going to be the main source of the horror. Why? Because never before have our children been systematically trained from babyhood to torture, kill and destroy by some of the most sophisticated entertainment equipment that has ever cursed the earth. little hearts have been hardened to sympathy by watching cruelty and death thousands of times over by the time they are even toddlers. Never before has feminism, (including goddess worship) which is totally spiritualist in origins and goals been so devastatingly powerful in our society.
Be AWARE that the seemingly innocent practices of wearing a little idol-pinned to your clothes--having 'an angel on your shoulder' is just as much breaking the 2nd commandment as any heathen breaks it. Cute little pictures of baby-faced angels* with little bare bums, delicate fairies and so on have no part with God's true people. When we bring any supernatural item or occult practice into our lives and homes, we open a keyhole or even a whole door to Satan to enter to bring darkness, confusion and misery.
In connection with the last message comes the information that God is going to seek to 'turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.' Mal 4:6. It is a desperate, last ditch stand on the part of God to turn back the approaching nightmare! Fathers, take heed! If you have been careless, leaving the training of children largely to your wife, wake up! Take a good look and take a solid stand for your home on the side of the Lord.
Time is running out--the clouds are dark-- the whirlwind is coming. Are you TOTALLY on the Lord's side? Or do you love your little pet demons, 'just for fun'?

Source: http://www.temcat.com/TC%20Letters/Wirlwind.htm
Note: *Indicates correction of grammar or spelling; Also red highlights added.

THE WRECKING CREW


I watched them tearing a building down,
A gang of men in a busy town.
With a ho-heave-ho and a lusty yell
They swung a beam and the sidewall fell.
I asked the foreman, "Are these men skilled
And the men you'd hire if you had to build?"
He gave a laugh, saying, "No, indeed!
Just common labor is all I need.
I can easily wreck in a day or two
What builders have taken a year to do."
-Anon
(Published in Review and Herald, January 7, 1954.)

Friday, March 16, 2007

THE LORD'S PLATFORM


REMNANT RESOURCE CENTER

WHO'S MESSING WITH THE LORD'S PLATFORM !
~FIND OUT!
"What greater deception could be foisted upon our people than for Satan to bring falsehood from within the church, while the members expect it to come from a source outside the church. How well we have been prepared to receive it by being taught to depend upon a system of religious organization to warn us of its approach and arrival, rather than encouraged to look to the platform of truth established in the early years of the movement." Jon A. Vannoy "Under Which Banner?" 1981, p. 81.
WE ARE BEING KEPT ASLEEP BY MESSAGES OF 'PEACE AND SAFETY' WHEN ALL HELL IS ABOUT TO FALL ON OUR HEADS. IT IS TIME TO REALIZE THAT THINGS ARE NOT WHAT WE ARE BEING TOLD TO BELIEVE!!
... Satan, as a powerful general has taken the field, and in this last remnant of time he is working through all conceivable methods to close the door against light that God would have come to his people. He is sweeping the whole world into his ranks, and the few who are faithful to God's requirements are the only ones who can ever withstand him, and even these he is trying to overcome. - Advent Review and Sabbath Herald -DT- 12-24-89
... Satan, surrounded by evil angels, and claiming to be God, will work miracles of all kinds to deceive, if possible, the very elect. God's people will not find their safety in working miracles; for Satan would counterfeit any miracle that might be worked. God's tried and tested people will find their power in the sign spoken of in Exodus 31:12-18. ( The SABBATH!!) They are to take their stand on the living word, -- "It is written." This is the only foundation upon which they can stand securely. Those who have broken their covenant with God will in that day be without hope and without God in the world. -TI- Testimonies to Southern Africa -PG- 61
NOT ONLY YOUR LIFE BUT YOUR ETERNAL DESTINY HANGS ON HAVING A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT IS HAPPENING. DON'T END UP HERE—
“The whole wicked world stand arraigned at the bar of God, on the charge of high treason against the government of heaven. They have none to plead their cause; they are without excuse; and the sentence of eternal death is pronounced against them. It is now evident to all that the wages of sin is not noble independence and eternal life, but slavery, ruin, and death. The wicked see what they have forfeited by their life of rebellion. The far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory was despised when offered them; but how desirable it now appears. "All this," cries the lost soul, "I might have had, but I chose to put these things far from me. Oh, strange infatuation! I have exchanged peace, happiness, and honor for wretchedness, infamy, and despair." All see that their exclusion from heaven is just. In their lives they declared, We will not have this Jesus to reign over us. The Story of Redemption, p.425

PSALM 107


1O give thanks unto the LORD, for he is good: for his mercy endureth for ever.
2Let the redeemed of the LORD say so, whom he hath redeemed from the hand of the enemy;
3And gathered them out of the lands, from the east, and from the west, from the north, and from the south.
4They wandered in the wilderness in a solitary way; they found no city to dwell in.
5Hungry and thirsty, their soul fainted in them.
6Then they cried unto the LORD in their trouble, and he delivered them out of their distresses.
7And he led them forth by the right way, that they might go to a city of habitation.
8Oh that men would praise the LORD for his goodness, and for his wonderful works to the children of men!
9For he satisfieth the longing soul, and filleth the hungry soul with goodness.
10Such as sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, being bound in affliction and iron;
11Because they rebelled against the words of God, and contemned the counsel of the most High:
12Therefore he brought down their heart with labour; they fell down, and there was none to help.
13Then they cried unto the LORD in their trouble, and he saved them out of their distresses.
14He brought them out of darkness and the shadow of death, and brake their bands in sunder.
15Oh that men would praise the LORD for his goodness, and for his wonderful works to the children of men!
16For he hath broken the gates of brass, and cut the bars of iron in sunder.
17Fools because of their transgression, and because of their iniquities, are afflicted.
18Their soul abhorreth all manner of meat; and they draw near unto the gates of death.
19Then they cry unto the LORD in their trouble, and he saveth them out of their distresses.
20He sent his word, and healed them, and delivered them from their destructions.
21Oh that men would praise the LORD for his goodness, and for his wonderful works to the children of men!
22And let them sacrifice the sacrifices of thanksgiving, and declare his works with rejoicing.
23They that go down to the sea in ships, that do business in great waters;
24These see the works of the LORD, and his wonders in the deep.
25For he commandeth, and raiseth the stormy wind, which lifteth up the waves thereof.
26They mount up to the heaven, they go down again to the depths: their soul is melted because of trouble.
27They reel to and fro, and stagger like a drunken man, and are at their wit's end.
28Then they cry unto the LORD in their trouble, and he bringeth them out of their distresses.
29He maketh the storm a calm, so that the waves thereof are still.
30Then are they glad because they be quiet; so he bringeth them unto their desired haven.
31Oh that men would praise the LORD for his goodness, and for his wonderful works to the children of men!
32Let them exalt him also in the congregation of the people, and praise him in the assembly of the elders.
33He turneth rivers into a wilderness, and the watersprings into dry ground;
34A fruitful land into barrenness, for the wickedness of them that dwell therein.
35He turneth the wilderness into a standing water, and dry ground into watersprings.
36And there he maketh the hungry to dwell, that they may prepare a city for habitation;
37And sow the fields, and plant vineyards, which may yield fruits of increase.
38He blesseth them also, so that they are multiplied greatly; and suffereth not their cattle to decrease.
39Again, they are minished and brought low through oppression, affliction, and sorrow.
40He poureth contempt upon princes, and causeth them to wander in the wilderness, where there is no way.
41Yet setteth he the poor on high from affliction, and maketh him families like a flock.
42The righteous shall see it, and rejoice: and all iniquity shall stop her mouth.
43Whoso is wise, and will observe these things, even they shall understand the lovingkindness of the LORD.

PAUL EXPLAINS JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH


14I am debtor both to the Greeks, and to the Barbarians; both to the wise, and to the unwise.
15So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel to you that are at Rome also.
16For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
17For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.
18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.***** Romans 1: 14-32.


Note: (All bolds and highlights added by blogmaster.)

HOMOSEXUALITY 'IMMORAL'


Top general calls homosexuality 'immoral'

By Aamer Madhani
Tribune national correspondent
Published March 12, 2007, 10:47 PM CDT


Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Monday that he supports the Pentagon's "don't ask, don't tell" ban on gays serving in the military because homosexual acts "are immoral," akin to a member of the armed forces conducting an adulterous affair with the spouse of another service member.Responding to a question about a Clinton-era policy that is coming under renewed scrutiny amid fears of future U.S. troop shortages, Pace said the Pentagon should not "condone" immoral behavior by allowing gay soldiers to serve openly. He said his views were based on his personal "upbringing," in which he was taught that certain types of conduct are immoral.
RSSAudioGeneral Pace on "don't ask, don't tell" March 12, 2007 We ask, you tell

Do you agree with Gen. Pace that homosexual acts are "immoral"? Yes No Do you agree with the "don't ask, don't tell" policy? Yes No
"I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts," Pace said in a wide-ranging discussion with Tribune editors and reporters in Chicago. "I do not believe the United States is well served by a policy that says it is OK to be immoral in any way."As an individual, I would not want [acceptance of gay behavior] to be our policy, just like I would not want it to be our policy that if we were to find out that so-and-so was sleeping with somebody else's wife, that we would just look the other way, which we do not. We prosecute that kind of immoral behavior," Pace said.The "don't ask, don't tell" policy caused an uproar in the military when signed into law by President Clinton in 1993. At the time, supporters of the policy inside and outside the military argued that it was essential for the cohesion of combat units, not a question of morality.Under the policy, gays and lesbians may serve only if they keep their sexual orientation private and do not engage in homosexual acts. Their commanders may not ask about their orientation.Charles Moskos, a military sociologist at Northwestern University who was instrumental in helping the Pentagon craft the "don't ask, don't tell" law, said it is unusual for a top commander to use morality as a justification for the policy. But he said he has repeatedly heard enlisted members use that reasoning when opposing gays in the military."With the enlisted, it's a question of cohesion, but morality is something they always bring up," said Moskos, who declined to comment specifically on Pace's remarks.Critical of Pakistan's leaderAddressing a range of other military topics, Pace said House Democrats' proposal to wind down the war could hamper President Bush's planned troop "surge" in Iraq by creating 45-day gaps in troop levels.He said it remains to be seen whether Shiite militiamen loyal to radical cleric Moqtada Sadr have laid down their arms to contribute to stability in Baghdad or have merely "gone to ground" until the latest Baghdad security sweeps by U.S. and Iraqi troops end.Turning to Afghanistan and Pakistan, he said that Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf's policy of courting tribal leaders on the border with Afghanistan has not prevented cross-border incursions by Taliban and Al Qaeda operatives."It is proper for us to point out to President Musharraf that people are continuing to come across the border," Pace said, noting that there has been an increase in cross-border attacks.The "don't ask, don't tell" policy, which gay-rights advocates and other critics condemn as discriminatory, has come into question once again as the Bush administration, the Pentagon and Congress grapple with a military that commanders say has been stretched too far by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.A 2005 government audit showed that about 10,000 troops have been discharged because of the policy. Among those discharged were more than 322 linguists, including 54 Arabic specialists, according to the Government Accountability Office report. The U.S. military, like the nation's foreign service and intelligence community, faces shortages of foreign-language specialists."The real question is: What is moral about discharging qualified linguists during a time of war simply for being gay or lesbian?" said Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights advocacy group.About 23 percent of troops know someone in their unit who is gay or lesbian, according to a recent Zogby International poll of troops who served in Iraq and Afghanistan. About 55 percent of troops who know a gay peer said the presence of gays or lesbians in their unit was well known by others.Last month, Rep. Martin Meehan (D-Mass.) revived the debate in Congress by introducing legislation to reverse the military's ban on openly gay service personnel. Meehan's proposal has 106 sponsors, including six Republicans.Issue enters campaignThe issue is also starting to percolate in the 2008 presidential campaign. Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) a longtime foe of the policy her husband signed into law, has stated that it should repealed. Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) says a repeal would be ill-advised.

Retired Army Gen. John Shalikashvili, a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who once supported "don't ask, don't tell," recently reversed his position and wrote in a newspaper column that it was time to allow gays to serve. Shalikashvili cited projected shortages in the military as one of the reasons for his change of heart.During a broad discussion about the situation in Iraq, Pace said that the U.S. military would not be able to reach its plan of sending 21,500 more combat troops and up to 7,000 support troops to Iraq if the Democrats are able to pass their proposed legislation. The Democrats' plan, which was unveiled last week and centers on the withdrawal of all U.S. combat forces by September 2008, includes requirements that troops spend a minimum amount of time at their home bases.

Do you agree with Gen. Pace that homosexual acts are "immoral"? Yes No Do you agree with the "don't ask, don't tell" policy? Yes No
The legislation allows President Bush to waive those standards, but such a move could prove politically embarrassing to the White House, which has been lambasted by the Democratic leadership and some Republicans for stretching the military too thin.Pace said the military would have no problems reaching the legislation's standards for training and equipping the troops. But the rest of the requirements could have "enormous impact" on the troops' efforts to stamp out the Iraqi insurgency and settle the country's sectarian violence."We would have 45-day gaps which would mean that part of a territory would basically be vacated to the enemy and ... you would have to fight your way back in," Pace said.The required rest periods would stop the U.S. military from reaching its plan of having 20 combat brigades deployed to Iraq. And at times, it could leave as few as 14 brigades on the battlefield, Pace said.On Monday in Washington, Vice President Dick Cheney accused anti-war lawmakers of undermining U.S. troops by supporting the Democratic measure, which would tie a withdrawal of forces by 2008 to the administration's request for $100 billion for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars."When members [of Congress] speak not of victory but of time limits, deadlines and other arbitrary measures, they are telling the enemy simply to watch the clock and wait us out," Cheney said, appearing before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.Regarding Pakistan, Pace said that a controversial treaty that Musharraf signed with tribal chiefs in north Waziristan province has not produced the results that the Pakistani leader hoped it would in reducing cross-border attacks by Taliban and Al Qaeda insurgents.Under the treaty, Pakistan withdrew its army from the area in exchange for a vow by the tribal leaders to prohibit operations by Islamic militants.Pace also addressed a growing scandal over the shoddy treatment that injured soldiers have received at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, where veterans and their families complained of a confusing bureaucratic maze and poor living conditions.The general thanked the media that investigated and publicized the hospital conditions, saying the military should have been more "responsive and proactive" in acknowledging the problems.He praised the military's initial handling of the war wounded, noting that "incredibly effective and world-class" treatment on the battlefield has helped far more injured troops survive than in the past. But he said the armed services need to be better when care of the wounded is "turned" over to the Department of Veterans Affairs system.

Source: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-070312pace,1,4954133.story?page=2&cset=true&ctrack=1&coll=chi-news-hed

Thursday, March 15, 2007

WHO INHERITS THE KINGDOM OF GOD?


1 Corinthians 6:9-20 (King James Version)


9Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate*, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
11And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.
12All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.
13Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall destroy both it and them. Now the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body.
14And God hath both raised up the Lord, and will also raise up us by his own power.
15Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid.
16What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.
17But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.
18Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.
19What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?
20For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.

*(BOLD TYPE ADDED BY LOGMASTER.)

'GAY BABY' ARTICLE CAUSES FUROR



'The right blasted the Rev. R. Albert Mohler Jr. for saying homosexuality may be rooted in biology. He also called it sinful and a treatable condition, angering the left.



Furor Over Baptist's 'Gay Baby' Article




By DAVID CRARY
AP
NEW YORK (March 15) - The president of the leading Southern Baptist seminary has incurred sharp attacks from both the left and right by suggesting that a biological basis for homosexuality may be proven, and that prenatal treatment to reverse gay orientation would be biblically justified.

Controversial Statements
From the Blogs: An Assault on DignityTalk About It: Post Thoughts
The Rev. R. Albert Mohler Jr., one of the country's pre-eminent evangelical leaders, acknowledged that he irked many fellow conservatives with an article earlier this month saying scientific research "points to some level of biological causation" for homosexuality. Proof of a biological basis would challenge the belief of many conservative Christians that homosexuality - which they view as sinful - is a matter of choice that can be overcome through prayer and counseling. However, Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky., was assailed even more harshly by gay-rights supporters. They were upset by his assertion that homosexuality would remain a sin even if it were biologically based, and by his support for possible medical treatment that could switch an unborn gay baby's sexual orientation to heterosexual. "He's willing to play God," said Harry Knox, a spokesman on religious issues for the Human Rights Campaign, a national gay-rights group. "He's more than willing to let homophobia take over and be the determinant of how he responds to this issue, in spite of everything else he believes about not tinkering with the unborn." Mohler said he was aware of the invective being directed at him on gay-rights blogs, where some participants have likened him to Josef Mengele, the Nazi doctor notorious for death-camp experimentation. "I wonder if people actually read what I wrote," Mohler said in a telephone interview. "But I wrote the article intending to start a conversation, and I think I've been successful at that."

The article, published March 2 on Mohler's personal Web site, carried a long but intriguing title: "Is Your Baby Gay? What If You Could Know? What If You Could Do Something About It?" Mohler began by summarizing some recent research into sexual orientation, and advising his Christian readership that they should brace for the possibility that a biological basis for homosexuality may be proven. Mohler wrote that such proof would not alter the Bible's condemnation of homosexuality, but said the discovery would be "of great pastoral significance, allowing for a greater understanding of why certain persons struggle with these particular sexual temptations." He also referred to a recent article in the pop-culture magazine Radar, which explored the possibility that sexual orientation could be detected in unborn babies and raised the question of whether parents - even liberals who support gay rights - might be open to trying future prenatal techniques that would reverse homosexuality. Mohler said he would strongly oppose any move to encourage abortion or genetic manipulation of fetuses on grounds of sexual orientation, but he would endorse prenatal hormonal treatment - if such a technology were developed - to reverse homosexuality. He said this would no different, in moral terms, to using technology that would restore vision to a blind fetus. "I realize this sounds very offensive to homosexuals, but it's the only way a Christian can look at it," Mohler said. "We should have no more problem with that than treating any medical problem." Mohler's argument was endorsed by a prominent Roman Catholic thinker, the Rev. Joseph Fessio, provost of Ave Maria University in Naples, Fla., and editor of Ignatius Press, Pope Benedict XVI 's U.S. publisher. "Same-sex activity is considered disordered," Fessio said. "If there are ways of detecting diseases or disorders of children in the womb, and a way of treating them that respected the dignity of the child and mother, it would be a wonderful advancement of science." Such logic dismayed Jennifer Chrisler of Family Pride, a group that supports gay and lesbian families. "What bothers me is the hypocrisy," she said. "In one breath, they say the sanctity of an unborn life is unconditional, and in the next breath, it's OK to perform medical treatments on them because of their own moral convictions, not because there's anything wrong with the child." Paul Myers, a biology professor at the University of Minnesota-Morris, wrote a detailed critique of Mohler's column, contending that there could be many genes contributing to sexual orientation and that medical attempts to alter it could be risky. "If there are such genes, they will also contribute to other aspects of social and sexual interactions," Myers wrote. "Disentangling the nuances of preference from the whole damn problem of loving people might well be impossible." Not all reaction to Mohler's article has been negative. Dr. Jack Drescher, a New York City psychiatrist critical of those who consider homosexuality a disorder, commended Mohler's openness to the prospect that it is biologically based. "This represents a major shift," Drescher said. "This is a man who actually has an open mind, who is struggling to reconcile his religious beliefs with facts that contradict it."
Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP news report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press. All active hyperlinks have been inserted by AOL.
2007-03-15 02:39:05



Source: http://news.aol.com/topnews/articles/_a/furor-over-baptists-gay-baby-article/20070315023809990001?cid=2449




Tuesday, March 13, 2007

GLOBAL SLAVE PLANTATION



Fast Tracking the Global Slave Plantation
Friday March 09th 2007, 5:54 am


It is shameless, but wholly typical. “Fears about U.S. job losses from globalization are driving the debate over renewing the White House’s fast-track trade negotiating authority and may require legislative action on a number of fronts, a top Senate Democrat said,” reports the CIA’s favorite newspaper, the Washington Post. “The White House wants a renewal of fast-track trade legislation—also known as trade promotion authority—to finish the five-year-old Doha round of trade talks and pursue additional bilateral trade deals.”
Of course, this has nothing to do with fears of job losses, as impoverishing the American people, or rather putting them on a “level playing field” with the slave economy of “communist” China is the idea here. NAFTA was sold in much the same way. “NAFTA means jobs. American jobs, and good-paying American jobs. If I didn’t believe that, I wouldn’t support this agreement,” declared Clinton in 1993, as he signed “NAFTA side agreements.” Clinton, a member of the Trilateral Commission, knew the exact opposite would happen—NAFTA made sure “good-paying American jobs” would eventually end up in China by way of Mexico.
It is no mistake “fast track” legislation was passed by Congress in 1974, a mere year after the founding of the Trilateral Commission. “In Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, authority is granted to Congress ‘To regulate commerce with foreign nations.’ An end-run around this insurmountable obstacle would be to convince Congress to voluntarily turn over this power to the President. With such authority in hand, the President could freely negotiate treaties and other trade agreements with foreign nations, and then simply present them to Congress for a straight up or down vote, with no amendments possible,” writes Patrick Wood for the August Review. “When an agreement is about to be given to Congress, high-powered lobbyists and political hammer-heads are called in to manipulate congressional hold-outs into voting for the legislation. With only 20 hours of debate allowed, there is little opportunity for public involvement.” Of course, “congressional hold-outs” are a minor issue, as Congress is by and large a corporate bought and paid for whorehouse.
“Fast Track was created as a very specific legislative tool to accomplish a very specific executive task—namely, to ‘fast track’ the creation of the ‘New International Economic Order’ envisioned by the Trilateral Commission in 1973,” Wood continues. Some of us call it the “New World Order.” I call it the “Neoliberal World Order,” as it is all about neoliberal economic policy as envisioned by the Trilateral Commission, the Council on Foreign Relations, David Rockefeller, and Zbigniew Brzezinski, who tutored Jimmy Carter on the ins-and-outs of predatory globalism. It is interesting to note that Brzezinski has come out in vocal opposition to the neocon faction, determined to start “World War Four” at the behest of Israel, as this most certainly endangers the “New International Economic Order.”
According to Woods, “the United States has literally been hijacked by less than 300 greedy and self-serving global elitists who have little more than contempt for the citizens of the countries they would seek to dominate. According to Trilateralist Richard Gardner’s viewpoint, this incremental takeover (rather than a frontal approach) has been wildly successful.” Indeed, as the brisk clip of the so-called North American Union zipping along demonstrates, mostly unseen by the vast majority of Americans, this “incremental takeover,” as opposed to the in-your-face “frontal approach,” is “wildly successful.”
Former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers told the Senate Finance Committee “fast track,” due to expire, must be “put it in the broader context of adapting the economy to globalization,” that is to say remaking America in the image of the slave labor gulag, China. Our “representatives,” beholden to multinational corporations, declare they only want to “better equip Americans to compete in the global workplace,” that is to say get them accustomed to working for a hundred bucks a week or less.
Obviously, little to nothing stands in the way of a unitary decider “fast tracking” largely ignorant citizens into the global slave labor plantation, i.e., the “New International Economic Order” mapped out by the Trilateral Commission and the CFR.


GONZALES ACKNOWLEDGES MISTAKES

Gonzales Acknowledges Mistakes in Firings
Attorney General Rejects Calls for Resignation
By LARA JAKES JORDAN
AP
WASHINGTON (March 13) - Attorney General Alberto Gonzales rejected growing calls for his resignation Tuesday as scores of newly released documents detailed a two-year campaign by the Justice Department and White House to purge federal prosecutors.


Gonzales acknowledged his department mishandled the dismissals of eight U.S. attorneys and misled Congress about how they were fired. He said he was ultimately to blame for those "mistakes" but stood by the firings.

"I acknowledge that mistakes were made here," Gonzales told reporters at a news briefing after he canceled an out-of-town trip. "I accept that responsibility." He promised changes "so that the mistakes that occurred in this instance do not occur again in the future."

He focused on his department's dealings with Congress concerning the firings rather than the actual dismissals - which Democrats have suggested were politically motivated - and the planning behind them.

"I believe very strongly in our obligation to ensure that when I provide information to the Congress that it's accurate and that it's complete. And I am very dismayed that that may not have occurred here," he said.

Gonzales also accepted the resignation of his chief of staff, Kyle Sampson. The aide, along with then-White House Counsel Harriet Miers, had begun discussing possible firings of U.S. attorneys in early 2005, according to e-mails released Tuesday.


Most Popular - Last 24 Hours
Top General Calls Homosexuality 'Immoral'University Cuts Ties With Troubled SororityRegis Philbin Needs Heart Bypass SurgeryWar Protesters Target Pelosi at HomeElder Bush Reveals 'Ugliest Part' of FaintingIt was the second time in as many weeks that Gonzales was under fire. Last week, the attorney general and FBI Director Robert S. Mueller admitted the FBI improperly, and at times illegally, used the USA Patriot Act to secretly pry out personal information about Americans in terrorism investigations.

Gonzales, himself a former White House counsel, has been friends with President Bush for years, going back to when he served as Bush's secretary of state in Texas. Bush retains full confidence in the attorney general, said spokesman Dan Bartlett, traveling with Bush in Mexico.

"He's a standup guy," Bartlett said of Gonzales.

As for the firings, Bartlett said White House officials had heard complaints from members of Congress regarding prosecutors and Bush had raised the subject during an October 2006 meeting with Gonzales. He described the exchange as "offhand" and said Bush did not name any specific prosecutors but did identify their states.

"This briefly came up and the president said, 'I've been hearing about this election fraud issue from members of Congress and want to be sure you're on top of it as well,'" Bartlett said.

Bartlett said Gonzales responded, "I know and we're looking at those issues."

Democrats clamored for Gonzales' to resign. Republicans also said they were outraged at being misled over the circumstances of the firings. GOP Rep. James Sensenbrenner, a Judiciary Committee member, said the situation could cause Gonzales to "die by a thousand cuts."

For nearly two months, Democrats have accused the Justice Department of playing politics with the prosecutors' jobs. They suggested some of the U.S. attorneys were fired for either investigating Republicans or failing to pursue cases against Democrats. Several ousted prosecutors have told Congress they were improperly pressured by Republicans on pending cases.

Top Justice officials, including Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty, have maintained in congressional testimony the dismissals were based on the prosecutors' performance, not politics. The fired prosecutors headed the U.S. attorneys' offices in Albuquerque, N.M.; Grand Rapids, Mich.; Las Vegas; Little Rock, Ark.; Phoenix; San Diego, San Francisco and Seattle.

The e-mails released Tuesday revealed that the firings were considered and discussed for two years by Justice Department and White House officials. The issue first arose in a February 2005 discussion between Sampson and Miers, officials said. At the time, Miers suggested the possibility of firing all 93 U.S. attorneys. Such purges of the political appointees often come at the beginning of a new president's administration, not midway through.

The e-mails show Sampson discouraged the across-the-board housecleaning but began a review to weed out prosecutors whom the administration deemed to be performing poorly.

In a Sept 13, 2006, e-mail to Miers, Sampson listed one prosecutor, Bud Cummins in Little Rock, as "in the process of being pushed out." Five others - in Arizona, Nevada, Michigan, San Diego and Seattle - were listed as U.S attorneys "we should now consider pushing out."

Four days later, Miers responded: "Kyle, thanks for this. I have not forgotten I need to follow up on the info but things have been crazy."

Sampson then drew up an elaborate five-step plan to replace the targeted prosecutors with as little political fallout as possible, which he sent in a Nov. 15, 2006, e-mail to Miers, deputy White House counsel William K. Kelley and McNulty.

"We'll stand by for a green light from you," Sampson wrote to Miers and Kelley. Upon getting their approval, Sampson wrote, he asked that they "circulate it to Karl's shop" - which officials confirmed was a reference to Karl Rove , Bush's top political adviser and deputy chief of staff.

White House approval came a month later.

"We're a go for the US Atty plan," Kelley wrote in a Dec. 4, 2006, e-mail to Sampson and Miers. "WH leg, political, communications have signed off and acknowledged that we have to be committed to following through once the pressure comes."

The term "WH leg" refers to the White House office of legislative affairs, which deals with Congress. Copies of dozens of Sampson's e-mails to various White House and Justice Department officials were released by Congress and the Justice Department.

They also included documents from J. Scott Jennings, the White House deputy political director, who e-mailed Sampson about the Little Rock prosecutor's replacement from an address with a "gwb43.com" domain name. That domain is registered to the Republican National Committee, according to a Network Solutions tracking system.

Democrats on House and Senate judiciary panels said they would subpoena Miers, Rove and other White House and Justice Department officials if necessary to have them testify about the reasons for the firings.

Sen. Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y., renewed his call for Gonzales to resign and was joined by a host of other Democrats, including national party chairman Howard Dean and presidential hopeful John Edwards of North Carolina.

"This purge was based purely on politics, to punish prosecutors who were perceived to be too light on Democrats or too tough on Republicans," Schumer said. "Attorney General Gonzales has either forgotten the oath he took to uphold the Constitution or just doesn't understand that his duty to protect the law is greater than his duty to protect the president."

Republicans also joined in the criticism.

Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., said the dismissal of the U.S. attorney in Las Vegas was "completely mishandled by the United States attorney general." And Sensenbrenner warned that the Justice Department was "going to have to come up with some answers" in explaining the firings.

"If they don't, they're going to lose everyone's confidence," Sensenbrenner said. "What I'd like to hear is the truth."

Associated Press writer Laurie Kellman contributed to this report.


Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP news report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press. All active hyperlinks have been inserted by AOL.

Source: http://news.aol.com/topnews/articles/_a/gonzales-acknowledges-mistakes-in/20070313035709990001