Thursday, September 13, 2007

BEWARE THE CHRISTIAN JIHAD?

February 27, 2007

Spencer: Beware the Christian Jihad?

In FrontPage this morning I discuss the new fashion in the mainstream media: exposing the alleged plot to establish a theocracy in the U.S. -- the Christian plot, that is (news links in the original):

A new book that is climbing the New York Times Bestseller List warns Americans of a dedicated minority of religious fanatics who are hijacking a great religion and actively working to destroy the United States Constitution and set up a theocracy in America, in which nonbelievers will be discriminated against or even summarily killed. Nor is their nefarious vision confined to the United States alone: this small but influential and wealthy band of religious zealots is also trying to turn events in the Middle East to their own advantage, so as to advance their religious agenda there also.

Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, Muhammad Atta? No, James Dobson, Pat Robertson, and Tim LaHaye. The book in question is Chris Hedges’ American Fascists, which argues that America as we know it is under threat – not from Islamic jihadists, but from a small group of evangelical Christians who are determined to remake the United States as a Christian state. Warning about “Christianism,” a neologism coined to parallel “Islamism,” has become fashionable. Ranging from the merely hysterical to the ranting and paranoid, books sounding the alarms about Christian theocracy are appearing in large numbers. Among the crop published in 2006 alone were, besides Hedges’ book, American Theocracy by Kevin Phillips; The Baptizing of America by James Rudin; Kingdom Coming by Michelle Goldberg; The Theocons: Secular America Under Siege by Damon Linker; Thy Kingdom Come by Randall Balmer; Piety & Politics by Barry Lynn; and Religion Gone Bad by Mel White. Other popular books sound many of the same themes, including The Conservative Soul by homosexual activist and blogger Andrew Sullivan and the atheist apologetics The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins and Letter to a Christian Nation by Sam Harris.

A general tendency of such books is to equate to varying degrees, often in an off-handed manner suggesting that the equivalence was self-evident, Christian and Muslim “extremists,” “radicals,” or “fundamentalists.” Hedges declared that “the Christian Right and radical Islamists, although locked in a holy war, increasingly mirror each other. They share the same obsessions. They do not tolerate other forms of belief or disbelief. They are at war with artistic and cultural expression. They seek to silence the media. They call for the subjugation of women. They promote severe sexual repression, and they seek to express themselves through violence.” Sure, we’re told, the Islamists are working to impose religious rule on their societies, but so are the Christianists, and the Christianists posed the far more immediate and serious threat. Some even charge that just as the Taliban practiced stonings and beheadings, so would these “Christianists” if they got half a chance.

The threat is imminent. Hedges claims that “those arrayed against American democracy are waiting for a moment to strike, a national crisis that will allow them to shred the Constitution in the name of national security and strength.” He even asserts that “those in the movement often speak about such a moment with gleeful anticipation.” For now – but only for now – the Christian Right is “forced to function within the political system it seeks to destroy.”

If there really is a domestic threat of religious authoritarianism that threatens to destroy the Constitution, this would be a matter of considerable concern. But as the Qur’an says, “Bring your proof, if you be truthful” (2:111; 27:64). Good advice.

In support of his claims that “those arrayed against American democracy are waiting for a moment to strike, a national crisis that will allow them to shred the Constitution in the name of national security and strength,” Chris Hedges offers only a single quotation from “right-wing strategist” Howard Phillips, who said in a speech to the Council for National Policy that “it is time to leave the ‘political Titanic’ on which the conservative movement has for too long booked passage” and to “build an ark so that we can and will be ready to renew and restore our nation and our culture when God brings the tides to flood.”

A call to shred the Constitution? Phillips’ words read more plausibly as a call to a conservative movement demoralized by defeat after defeat not to give up, but to develop a new strategy and await a day in which their message will be received more favorably.

The primary focus of the theocracy foes’ fears is a movement arising from Calvinistic circles in the United States, Christian Reconstructionism. According to the anti-theocracy writers, Christian Reconstructionism has insinuated its adherents into the highest levels of government, and want to replace the Constitution with laws mandating the stoning of homosexuals and adulterers. The proof for this comes largely from the writings of the intellectual guiding lights of the Reconstructionist movement, and the chief villains of virtually every piece devoted to exposing its enormities: two American Calvinists, Rousas John Rushdoony (who died in 2001) and his son-in-law, Gary North.

Rushdoony and North may be well cast in this villain’s role, for at least according to some reports they apparently do depart from Christian tradition in calling for capital punishment for crimes such as adultery and homosexuality, as specified in the Book of Leviticus. In a 1998 piece in Reason magazine, Rushdoony is said to defend Biblical punishments for a variety of offenders: “blasphemers, heretics, apostate Christians, people who cursed or struck their parents, females guilty of ‘unchastity before marriage,’ ‘incorrigible’ juvenile delinquents, adulterers, and (probably) telephone psychics.” North is quoted in the same article defending the ancient Biblical punishment of stoning: “Why stoning? There are many reasons. First, the implements of execution are available to everyone at virtually no cost.”

Foes of theocracy point to statements like this one from the popular Presbyterian minister and writer George Grant: “Christians have an obligation, a mandate, a commission, a holy responsibility to reclaim the land for Jesus Christ -- to have dominion in the civil structures, just as in every other aspect of life and godliness. But it is dominion that we are after. Not just a voice. It is dominion we are after. Not just influence. It is dominion we are after. Not just equal time. It is dominion we are after. World conquest. That’s what Christ has commissioned us to accomplish. We must win the world with the power of the Gospel. And we must never settle for anything less….Thus, Christian politics has as its primary intent the conquest of the land -- of men, families, institutions, bureaucracies, courts, and governments for the Kingdom of Christ. It is to reinstitute the authority of God’s Word as supreme over all judgments, over all legislation, over all declarations, constitutions, and confederations. True Christian political action seeks to rein the passions of men and curb the pattern of digression under God’s rule.”

Strong words. But do statements like these amount to a manifesto to subvert the non-establishment clause of the U.S. Constitution and establish Christian rule in the United States? The “theocrats” themselves deny this. Chris Ortiz of Rushdoony’s Chalcedon Foundation explains: “The paranoid secularist reads this portion of Grant and links it with the political activism and lobbying of the Religious Right in order to assemble a frightening monster of religious fascism. But, Grant would likely be the first to argue that there is no theocratic conspiracy….In other words, don’t confuse the rhetoric or ideology of certain radical thinkers with the mass of conservative Christianity.”

Grant is indeed first to argue that there is no theocratic conspiracy, or at least, if there is, that he opposes it. Responding to claims that the passage above is a declaration of intent to destroy the U.S. Constitution, he wrote in an email to me:

1. My body of work demonstrates that I am an ardent defender of the 1st Amendment.

2. I am an opponent of “state churches.”

3. I am an opponent of confusing, blurring, or overlapping the spheres of authority and jurisdictions between church and state and family. […]

The quoted passage is from a long discussion regarding cultural evangelism, not petty partisanship. It is from a discussion of ends, not means. The language is the culmination of a discourse in the realm of eschatological theology, not practical activism….

In a similar vein, Rushdoony’s Chalcedon Foundation declares: “We propose an explicitly Biblical system of thought and action as the exclusive basis for civilization. Only by restoring the Christian Faith and Biblical law as the standard of all of life can Christians hope to re-establish Christian civilizations.” Theocracy? Maybe, but the statement goes on to say: “We believe that the source of godly change is regeneration by the Holy Spirit, not revolution by the violence of man…. No government in any form can make men Christians or truly obedient; this is the work of God’s sovereign grace. Much less should civil government try to impose Biblical law on an unbelieving society. Biblical law cannot be imposed; it must be embraced.”

In fact, much of the evidence that theocracy foes point to in order to establish their point that Christians intend to subvert the U.S. Constitution and replace it with Biblical law is actually evidence only that Christian pastors and leaders have for some years been reasserting the right and duty of Christians to participate in American public life, as over against the radical secularists who contend that any political activity by Christian groups constitutes a violation of the Establishment Clause.

The more conspiracy-minded among the theocracy foes, of course, brush aside such denials. The whole thing is a secret plot, you see – what else would you expect but that the plotters would deny their plotting? After all, according to Chris Hedges, the American values of “compassion, tolerance and belief in justice and equality” are “being dismantled, often with stealth…” There can be no rational response to such paranoia, or any definitive refutation of it, but it is noteworthy to compare these denials to the open statements by Muslim leaders about the Islamic supremacist imperative. For while there is no shortage of Muslim spokesmen who proclaim their rejection of terrorism, those who are pursuing the jihad are generally quite open about their intentions – in stark contrast to the flat denials from the very Christian leaders who are supposed to be leading the push for theocracy.

Before he left Britain one step ahead of law enforcement and returned to his native Lebanon, the jihadist Sheikh Omar Bakri Muhammad often boasted of his intention to “transform the West into Dar Al-Islam” and establish Islamic law on British soil. “I want to see the black flag of Islam flying over Downing Street,” he said, and his now-disbanded al-Muhajiroun group was dedicated to this goal. The transformation of Britain into an Islamic state could come in two ways, he explained: “if an Islamic state arises and invades,” in which case “we will be its army and its soldiers from within.” But if no such Islamic state arises, Bakri said that Muslims would convert the West to Islam “through ideological invasion...without war and killing.”

Al-Qaeda’s second in command, Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri, articulated a global vision in the summer of 2006: “War with Israel is not subject to a treaty, cease-fire, Sykes-Picot Treaty agreements, patriotism or disputed borders, but it is jihad for the cause of God until the entire religion is for him only. Jihad seeks the liberation of Palestine, the entire country of Palestine and to liberate every land that used to be a territory of Islam, from Spain to Iraq. The entire world is an open field for us…With the grace of God, we have now returned to the field….Dear Muslim brothers everywhere, today we must target the Jewish and the American interests everywhere.”[1]

Until November 2003, when adverse publicity compelled them to take it down, the Islamic Affairs Department (IAD) of the Saudi Arabian embassy in Washington carried this statement of Islamic supremacism and belligerency on its website: “The Muslims are required to raise the banner of Jihad in order to make the Word of Allah supreme in this world, to remove all forms of injustice and oppression, and to defend the Muslims. If Muslims do not take up the sword, the evil tyrants of this earth will be able to continue oppressing the weak and [the] helpless…”[2]

In other words, if a country is perceived to be hindering the spread of Islam, Muslims are obliged to wage war against it. The spread of Islam must continue at all costs. There can be no half-measures or peaceful coexistence with unbelievers as equals on an indefinite basis. As the Egyptian jihad theorist Sayyid Qutb (1906-1966), whose works are still widely influential among Muslims worldwide, put it in his jihad manifesto Milestones (Ma’alim ‘ala Al-Tariq), which has circulated throughout the world and been published in well over a thousand editions: “Islam cannot accept any mixing with Jahiliyyah [the society of unbelievers]….Either Islam will remain, or Jahiliyyah: Islam cannot accept or agree to a situation which is half-Islam and half-Jahiliyyah….Command belongs to God, or otherwise to Jahiliyyah; God’s Shari’ah [Islamic law] will prevail, or else people’s desires. ‘And judge between them according to what God has revealed, and do not follow their opinions, and beware of them lest they confuse you in matters which God has revealed’ (Qur’an 5:50)…‘And if they do not respond to you, then know that they are following their own opinions; and who can be more misguided than one who follows his own opinion against the guidance from God? Indeed, God does not guide the wicked people.’ (Qur’an 28:50)….The foremost duty of Islam in this world is to depose Jahiliyyah from the leadership of man, and to take the leadership into its own hands and enforce the particular way of life which is its permanent feature.”[3]

The jihadist website Khilafah.com puts it succinctly: “Islam makes it a duty upon all Muslims to work to change their countries from Dar al-Kufr [the land of unbelief] to Dar al-Islam [the land of Islam]…” It exhorts Muslims to “carry Islam to the world through invitation and jihad.”

Andrew Sullivan, while sounding the alarm about Christian theocrats, concedes that Christian Reconstructionists are “marginal, extremists, and largely disowned by the fundamentalist mainstream.” Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of the Islamic jihadists, who are active in numerous countries around the world, and whose version of Islam is not being effectively combated by any significant movement of peaceful Muslims anywhere.

Should we turn our attention away from a real threat to an imagined one? That is what Chris Hedges and the other anti-theocracy writers are asking us to do. While fiction has always competed with reality in the public discourse about the Islamic jihad, the Christian theocracy scare books represent projection on a massive scale. Unfortunately, while Chris Hedges leads the hunt for Christian theocrats under our bed, real theocrats continue to advance a violent supremacist agenda worldwide. We ignore or dismiss that at our own risk.

Notes:

[1] “A Video Speech from Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri Regarding the Events in Lebanon and Gaza – 7/27/2006,” SITE Institute, July 27, 2006.

[2] Steven Stalinsky, “The ‘Islamic Affairs Department’ of the Saudi Embassy in Washington, D.C.,” Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) Special Report - No. 23, November 26, 2003.

[3] Sayyid Qutb, Milestones, The Mother Mosque Foundation, n.d., pp. 130-131.

Posted by Robert at February 27, 2007 5:49 AM

Source: http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/015427.php

A CHRISTIAN JIHAD?

A Christian jihad?

Many in the west fear the threat posed by political Islam. But there is a more ominous menace closer to home.

Khaled Diab

Khaled Diab

July 14, 2007 9:00 AM

After every terror attack by Islamists, fears are raised in conservative circles about "Islamisation" of our culture with the presence of hundreds of thousands of Muslims in the UK and millions across Europe.

Despite what the selective reading of some surveys might suggest, most western Muslims share the same liberal values as the rest of society and radical Islam appeals only to a small minority. Political Islam can and does pose a threat to secular values - but in Muslim countries, not here. In Europe, we need to look west for our religious menaces.

As the creationism debate clearly demonstrates, the USA is home to a well-organised and motivated movement with intelligent designs on power. It is becoming increasingly difficult to write off Christian fundamentalism and other conservative Christian groups - aka the Christian right - as some kind of loony fringe as its agenda "Christianises" the mainstream. It is no accident that just about every single presidential hopeful in the US has asked God to endorse his or her campaign.

The vision of marrying church and state and constructing a "Christian nation" - every bit as contrary to modern secular values as Islamism - may still seem remote, partly thanks to the tough constitutional protections against such an eventuality, but it is surprisingly enduring.

"We have a Biblical duty, we are called by God to conquer this country," thundered Randall Terry, religious activist and founder of the anti-abortion group Operation Rescue. "We must have a Christian nation built on God's law, on the Ten Commandments, no apologies."

And what would a "Christian nation" be like to its citizens?

Well, it wouldn't be very friendly to atheists, homosexuals, secularists, women and non-Christians. "No, I don't think that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God," George Bush Snr once remarked.

"Aids is not just God's punishment for homosexuality; it is God's punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuality," concluded the late televangelist Jerry Falwell. "This vile and satanic system will one day be utterly annihilated and there'll be a celebration in heaven." This is also the man who saw the creation of Israel in 1948 as the greatest "single sign indicating the imminent return of Jesus Christ". The ongoing violence in the Middle East - stoked by the US invasion of Iraq - was also seen by him as part of God's apocalyptic designs.

And how about those foreign "heathens"?

According to Ann Coulter, writing after the September 11 attacks: "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity." She added for good measure that: "Congress could pass a law tomorrow requiring that all aliens from Arabic [sic] countries leave."

It would be folly to dismiss these voices as a lunatic fringe, particularly given the string of victories Christian fundamentalists have scored over the last quarter of a century or so. After all, the current US president famously claimed that he was told by God to fight al-Qaida and invade Iraq.

Even as late in the day as 1979, few saw Iran's Islamic revolution coming and Iran was wrongly viewed as a stable and secular society by many in the west. Could we similarly be ignoring telltale and worrying signs from across the Atlantic?

Interestingly, while the world's attention was drawn to Tehran, a quieter religious revolution was set in motion in the United States.

Televangelist Pat Robertson boasted during the 1980 election that: "We have enough votes to run this country." A Gallup poll at the time seemed to give some credence to his view: a third of American adults described themselves as "born again" and half believed the Bible was inerrant, ie perfect or above question.

If these trends continue and the US succumbs increasingly to its Christian right while Europe secularises, what kind of rift could that create in transatlantic relations? Even if it does not directly affect official policy, how about at the grassroots: could we start seeing a more aggressive transatlantic alliance between American Christian extremists and the European far right?

Of course, there is always the classic argument to dismiss worries about to Christian fundamentalism: they may be mad, but they're not bad - at least, they don't go around killing people.

That is true only up to a point. Christian fundamentalists do their violence abroad by proxy and, in America, they are not persecuted, unlike many of their equivalents in Muslim countries.

In the Muslim world, it took one disgruntled intellectual, Sayyid Qutb, and one book, which he produced while in political detention being tortured, to transform the benign grassroots movement of the Muslim Brotherhood as conceived by Hassan al-Banna into the deadly ideology of takfir in which all Muslim societies were declared heathen and worthy of violence.

Could this happen in Christianity?

Well, the idea that mainstream society is hedonistic and ungodly is a common refrain among Christian fundamentalists in America. Their earlier response, as in the 1950s, was usually to withdraw from society. The civil rights movement and sexual liberties of the 1960s brought them out of hibernation. And the subsequent liberalisation and secularisation of society has terrified them. Some, such as anti-abortion activists, have taken the law into their own hands.

Pro-lifer Paul Hill of the Army of God murdered an abortion doctor in 2003 and was executed for his crime. "I expect a great reward in heaven ... I look forward to glory," he said on the way to his death.

Could the Army of God be a precursor of worse to come on other contentious issues as we throw off the shackles of tradition, science takes us into uncharted frontiers, the religious become more embattled and the world appears to become a more dangerous place? It is hard to say. But it raises the important point that our obsession with Islamism in the west is distracting us for other worrying trends, mainly because it is dressed in a familiar skin.

We should not stigmatise or further marginalise religious extremists, as the strident atheists seem to be encouraging, but we should dialogue with them and show them that their fears are exaggerated and misplaced.

"It is important that we understand the dread and anxiety that lie at the heart of the fundamentalist vision," Karen Armstrong writes in The Battle for God, "because only then will we begin to comprehend its passionate rage, its frantic desire to fill the void with certainty, and its conviction of ever-encroaching evil."


Source: http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/khaled_diab/2007/07/a_christian_jihad.html

Wednesday, September 12, 2007

CLING TO THE ROCK



Cling To The Rock
By: Rachel Jessop

Grit your teeth and hang on,
Through the storms - pounding and merciless;
Through the darkness - thick and inhabited;
Through the shadow of death - fear creeps round your heart.
You may feel alone,
But He is very near to you.
Set your face,
Cling to the Rock,
Ride it out:
Jesus will see you through.

Source: http://www.christianpoetry.org/newpoem.php?aid=21158

AMERICAN ECONOMY: R.I.P.

American economy: R.I.P.

Published on Tuesday, September 11, 2007.


Source: Online Journal - Paul Craig Roberts
The US economy continues its slow death before our eyes, but economists, policymakers, and most of the public are blind to the tottering fabled land of opportunity.

In August, jobs in goods-producing industries declined by 64,000. The US economy lost 4,000 jobs overall. The private sector created a mere 24,000 jobs, all of which could be attributed to the 24,100 new jobs for waitresses and bartenders, and the government sector lost 28,000 jobs.

In the 21st century, the US economy has ceased to create jobs in export industries and in industries that compete with imports. US job growth has been confined to domestic services, principally to food services and drinking places (waitresses and bartenders), private education and health services (ambulatory health care and hospital orderlies), and construction (which now has tanked). The lack of job growth in higher-productivity, higher-paid occupations associated with the American middle and upper middle classes will eventually kill the US consumer market.

The unemployment rate held steady, but that is because 340,000 Americans unable to find jobs dropped out of the labor force in August. The US measures unemployment only among the active work force, which includes those seeking jobs. Those who are discouraged and have given up are not counted as unemployed.
With goods producing industries in long-term decline as more and more production of US firms is moved offshore, the engineering professions are in decline. Managerial jobs are primarily confined to retail trade and financial services.

Franchises and chains have curtailed opportunities for independent family businesses, and the US government?s open borders policy denies unskilled jobs to the displaced members of the middle class.

When US companies offshore their production for US markets, the consequences for the US economy are highly detrimental. One consequence is that foreign labor is substituted for US labor, resulting in a shriveling of career opportunities and income growth in the US. Another is that US Gross Domestic Product is turned into imports. By turning US brand names into imports, offshoring has a double whammy on the US trade deficit. Simultaneously, imports rise by the amount of offshored production, and the supply of exportable manufactured goods declines by the same amount.

The US now has a trade deficit with every part of the world. In 2006 (the latest annual data), the US had a trade deficit totaling $838,271,000,000.

The US trade deficit with Europe was $142,538,000,000. With Canada the deficit was $75,085,000,000. With Latin America it was $112,579,000,000 (of which $67,303,000,000 was with Mexico). The deficit with Asia and Pacific was $409,765,000,000 (of which $233,087,000,000 was with China and $90,966,000,000 was with Japan). With the Middle East the deficit was $36,112,000,000, and with Africa the US trade deficit was $62,192,000,000.

Public worry for three decades about the US oil deficit has created a false impression among Americans that a self-sufficient America is impaired only by dependence on Middle East oil. The fact of the matter is that the total US deficit with OPEC, an organization that includes as many countries outside the Middle East as within it, is $106,260,000,000, or about one-eighth of the annual US trade deficit.

Moreover, the US gets most of its oil from outside the Middle East, and the US trade deficit reflects this fact. The US deficit with Nigeria, Mexico, and Venezuela is 3.3 times larger than the US trade deficit with the Middle East despite the fact that the US sells more to Venezuela and 18 times more to Mexico than it does to Saudi Arabia.

What is striking about US dependency on imports is that it is practically across the board. Americans are dependent on imports of foreign foods, feeds, and beverages in the amount of $8,975,000,000.

Americans are dependent on imports of foreign Industrial supplies and materials in the amount of $326,459,000,000 -- more than three times US dependency on OPEC.

Americans can no longer provide their own transportation. They are dependent on imports of automotive vehicles, parts, and engines in the amount of $149,499,000,000, or 1.5 times greater than the US dependency on OPEC.

In addition to the automobile dependency, Americans are 3.4 times more dependent on imports of manufactured consumer durable and nondurable goods than they are on OPEC. Americans no longer can produce their own clothes, shoes, or household appliances and have a trade deficit in consumer manufactured goods in the amount of $336,118,000,000.

The US ?superpower? even has a deficit in capital goods, including machinery, electric generating machinery, machine tools, computers, and telecommunications equipment.

What does it mean that the US has a $800 billion trade deficit?

It means that Americans are consuming $800 billion more than they are producing.

How do Americans pay for it?

They pay for it by giving up ownership of existing assets -- stocks, bonds, companies, real estate, commodities. America used to be a creditor nation. Now America is a debtor nation. Foreigners own $2.5 trillion more of American assets than Americans own of foreign assets. When foreigners acquire ownership of US assets, they also acquire ownership of the future income streams that the assets produce. More income shifts away from Americans.

How long can Americans consume more than they can produce?

American over-consumption can continue for as long as Americans can find ways to go deeper in personal debt in order to finance their consumption and for as long as the US dollar can remain the world reserve currency.

The 21st century has brought Americans (with the exception of CEOs, hedge fund managers and investment bankers) no growth in real median household income. Americans have increased their consumption by dropping their saving rate to the depression level of 1933 when there was massive unemployment and by spending their home equity and running up credit card bills. The ability of a population, severely impacted by the loss of good jobs to foreigners as a result of offshoring and H-1B work visas and by the bursting of the housing bubble, to continue to accumulate more personal debt is limited to say the least.

Foreigners accept US dollars in exchange for their real goods and services, because dollars can be used to settle every country?s international accounts. By running a trade deficit, the US insures the financing of its government budget deficit as the surplus dollars in foreign hands are invested in US Treasuries and other dollar-denominated assets.

The ability of the US dollar to retain its reserve currency status is eroding due to the continuous increases in US budget and trade deficits. Today the world is literally flooded with dollars. In attempts to reduce the rate at which they are accumulating dollars, foreign governments and investors are diversifying into other traded currencies. As a result, the dollar prices of the Euro, UK pound, Canadian dollar, Thai baht, and other currencies have been bid up. In the 21st century, the US dollar has declined about 33 percent against other currencies. The US dollar remains the reserve currency primarily due to habit and the lack of a clear alternative.

The data used in this article is freely available. It can be found at two official US government sites: Bureau of Economic Analysis: U.S. International Transactions Accounts Dataand Bureau of Labor Statistics. Employees on nonfarm payrolls by industry sector and selected industry detail.

The jobs data and the absence of growth in real income for most of the population are inconsistent with reports of US GDP and productivity growth. Economists take for granted that the work force is paid in keeping with its productivity. A rise in productivity thus translates into a rise in real incomes of workers. Yet, we have had years of reported strong productivity growth but stagnant or declining household incomes. And somehow the GDP is rising, but not the incomes of the work force.

Something is wrong here. Either the data indicating productivity and GDP growth are wrong or Karl Marx was right that capitalism works to concentrate income in the hands of the few capitalists. A case can be made for both explanations.

Recently an economist, Susan Houseman, discovered that the reliability of some US economics statistics has been impaired by offshoring. Houseman found that cost reductions achieved by US firms shifting production offshore are being miscounted as GDP growth in the US and that productivity gains achieved by US firms when they move design, research, and development offshore are showing up as increases in US productivity. Obviously, production and productivity that occur abroad are not part of the US domestic economy.

Houseman?s discovery rated a Business Week cover story last June 18, [The Real Cost Of Offshoring, by Michael Mandel] but her important discovery seems already to have gone down the memory hole. The economics profession has over-committeditself to the ?benefits? of offshoring, globalism, and the non-existent ?New Economy.? Houseman?s discovery is too much of a threat to economists? human capital, corporate research grants, and free market ideology.

The media has likewise let the story go, because in the 1990s the Clinton administration and Congress overturned US policy in favor of a diverse and independent media and permitted a few mega-corporations to concentrate in their hands the ownership of the US media, which reports in keeping with corporate and government interests.

The case for Marx is that offshoring has boosted corporate earnings by lowering labor costs, thereby concentrating income growth in the hands of the owners and managers of capital.

According to Forbes magazine, the top 20 earners among private equity and hedge fund managers are earning average yearly compensation of $657,500,000, with four actually earning more than $1 billion annually. The otherwise excessive $36,400,000 average annual pay of the 20 top earners among CEOs of publicly-held companies looks paltry by comparison.

The careers and financial prospects of many Americans were destroyed to achieve these lofty earnings for the few.

Hubris prevents realization that Americans are losing their economic future along with their civil liberties and are on the verge of enserfment.


Source: http://www.blacklistednews.com/view.asp?ID=4226

US IRAQ WAR SURGE SPLURGE


US Iraq War Surge Splurge: Congress, President Candidates Debate

Written by:
Elaine McKewon



After concluding two days of hearings into the progress of the US troop surge in Iraq, several prominent members of the US Congress have slammed the surge as a failure and a distraction from the growing threat of global terrorism.


General David Petraeus testified that there have been “significant” decreases in violence in Iraq since the surge commenced mid- year and that the level of security incidents are now “the lowest since June 2006.” He recommended that the US maintain current troop levels until at least next summer, when he said it may be possible to begin the withdrawal of 30,000 troops. In the longer term, he envisions a US military presence in Iraq for another decade.


Opponents of the war responded that the US needs to start winding down its presence sooner to pressure the Iraqi government to meet political reconciliation benchmarks, which are necessary to quell the sectarian violence. The Iraqis have failed to meet 15 out of 18 agreed benchmarks since the troop surge commenced, according to a recent report of the US Government Accountability Office.


At the first joint hearing on Monday, Rep. Tom Lantos (D-Calif.), chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, said the surge had been a strategic failure: “The current escalation in our military presence in Iraq may have produced some tactical successes, but strategically, the escalation has failed. It was intended to buy time for Prime Minister Maliki and the other Iraqi political leaders to find ways to move toward the one thing that may end this terrible civil conflict – and that, of course, is a political settlement. As best we can see, that time has been utterly squandered.”


He added, “As long as American troops are doing the heavy lifting in Iraq, there is no reason – none at all – for the Iraqis themselves to step up. Military progress without political progress is meaningless.”


This is a view shared by Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a presidential candidate. He told the NewsHour on Tuesday that the Bush administration knows it can’t succeed in Iraq militarily and appears to be using the surge to buy time to pass the unpopular war onto the next US President. “I think there’s no potential for success,” he said. “We should be overseeing … We should not be in the midst of this civil war.”


Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, the committee’s ranking Republican, also doubts that the troop surge can succeed in the absence of political reform. “I think, in fairness, what we heard is that the national government is way, way off in the future,” he said. “The odds for a good result coming out of the surge are still not very good.”


Sen. Biden insisted that the surge could not be credited with the US military’s much-touted success in Anbar province, as claimed by Gen. Petraeus. “He was trying to conflate the notion that, because the Sunnis decided that they had enough of al Qaeda, that somehow that meant that the central purpose of the surge, to give the sectarian warring parties breathing room so that they could come up with a political accommodation for all of Iraq had worked,” said Sen. Biden.


Presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) also rejected the claim that the surge had achieved a meaningful reduction in violence: “We have now set the bar so low that modest improvement in what was a completely chaotic situation, to the point where now we just have the levels of intolerable violence that existed in June of 2006, is considered success. And it’s not. This continues to be a disastrous foreign policy mistake.”


After hearing the testimony of Gen. Petraeus and US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker, Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York, another Democratic presidential candidate, said, “I believe that you, and certainly the very capable people working with both of you, were dealt a very hard hand. And it’s a hand that is unlikely to improve, in my view.” She also told Gen. Petraeus that she thought he had become a “de facto spokesman for a failed policy”.


Meanwhile, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, a Republican presidential candidate, declared his full support for the surge. “Make no mistake, the consequences of American defeat in Iraq will be terrible and long-lasting,” he said. “Some senators would like to withdraw our troops from Iraq, so we can get back to fighting what they believe to be the real war on terror, which is taking place somewhere else. This is inaccurate. Iraq has become the central front in the global war on terror and failure there would turn Iraq into a terrorist sanctuary in the heart of the Middle East, a host for jihadists planning attacks on America.”


Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney also said that Iraq remains a central front in the war on terror. “The importance of a successful conclusion to Iraq must be weighed in light of the global threat of violent jihad and terror. America must continue its commitment to the strategy Gen. Petraeus is executing.”


However, other Republicans and Democrats argued that staying the course in Iraq will weaken the ability of the US to effectively deal with the threat of terrorism. Gen. Petraeus was asked repeatedly if the war in Iraq had made the US any safer, to which he responded that he did not know, because he was focused on his mission.


A clearly frustrated Senator Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.) countered, “With all due respect, these two critical leaders here in our government are not willing to seriously comment about how this relates to the larger global fight against terrorism, the allocation of resources. This is a classic example of myopia. This is the myopia of Iraq that is affecting our ability to look at this as the global challenge it is.”


Sen. Clinton said she found it unacceptable that the Bush administration continues to spend billions in Iraq while Osama bin Laden remains free to taunt Americans and al Qaeda expands its recruiting and training operations in Pakistan and Afghanistan.


Rep. Lantos accused the Bush administration of “wrecking” the US military at the expense of counterterrorism, and bequeathing the onerous debt to the next generation of Americans: “We are wrecking our military and the enormous financial cost of this war is limiting our ability to address our global security needs. The cost of this war in Iraq will be passed along to our grandchildren and beyond.”


Sen. Lugar noted the advice of top military advisors that the war was now taking a toll that will undermine the US military’s strength for years to come. “The United States has other obligations in the world. Furthermore, some of our military people are pointing out that we have overstretched these troops and we’re lowering the qualities that we need for the recruits that are coming in. In short, this is a nation that has some potential military difficulties.”


Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), who has long opposed the war in Iraq and recently announced his retirement from politics, asked: “Are we going to continue to invest American blood and treasure at the same rate we’re doing now? For what? The president said, ‘Let’s buy time.’ Buy time? For what? Every report I’ve seen, there’s been really very little, if any, political progress and that is the ultimate core issue – political reconciliation in Iraq.”


President Bush is expected to discuss his plans for the war in Iraq in a nationally televised speech on Thursday.


Source: http://www.bayoubuzz.com/News/World/Iraq/US/US_Iraq_War_Surge_Splurge_Congress_President_Candidates_Debate__4641.asp

GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR

The Global War of Terror

imc-uk-features 08.02.2007 10:51 Terror War

The so-called 'war on terror' is nothing new; it has its precedents in operations like Gladio; can be seen as the "strategy of tension" gone global and a logical extension of the US-UK imperial policy post 1945; it is the latest justification for the actions of a genocidal Empire which has caused between 20 and 30 million deaths since World War II. According to Youssef Aschkar, the 'war on terror' did not start on September 11, 2001: "between 1996 and September 11, 2001, the culture of hate and fear was spread to the United States by the publication of thousands of books and articles on the subject of terrorism. From that time onward, 'Islamic terrorism' became the new Evil Empire". The Power of Nightmares, a BBC documentary, even starts from earlier. It "explores the origins in the 1940's and 50s of Islamic Fundamentalism in the Middle East, Neoconservatism in America and the parallels between these movements." Now, with the neocon's 'war on terror', legality and morality gone out of the window, torture [12], detention without trial [123], rendition, secret prisons, dawn raids, death squads [1], profiling, fabricated terror plots, executions and Orwellian Big Brother surveillance are the new norm as muslims are demonised in order to justify the "clash of civilisations" and the military industrial complex's perpetual global war.

Campaigns: Campaign Against Criminalising Communities Scotland Against Criminalising Communities National Guantanamo Coalition Cage Prisoners
Blogs: Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed Craig Murray
Radio: Taking Aim Guns and Butter



Source: http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/02/361770.html

GLOBAL WARMING SCARE TACTICS




"Think Globally, Act Locally".


NEW AGE MANTRA
Eating less meat could slow climate change, experts say

Wednesday, September 12, 2007

LONDON - Eating less meat could help slow global warming by reducing the number of livestock and thereby decreasing the amount of methane flatulence from the animals, scientists said on Thursday.

In a special energy and health series of the medical journal The Lancet, experts said people should eat fewer steaks and hamburgers. Reducing global red meat consumption by 10 percent, they said, would cut the gases emitted by cows, sheep and goats that contribute to global warming.

"We are at a significant tipping point," said Geri Brewster, a nutritionist at Northern Westchester Hospital in New York, who was not connected to the study.

"If people knew that they were threatening the environment by eating more meat, they might think twice before ordering a burger," Brewster said.

Other ways of reducing greenhouse gases from farming practices, like feeding animals higher-quality grains, would only have a limited impact on cutting emissions. Gases from animals destined for dinner plates account for nearly a quarter of all emissions worldwide.

"That leaves reducing demand for meat as the only real option," said Dr. John Powles, a public health expert at Cambridge University, one of the study's authors.

The amount of meat eaten varies considerably worldwide. In developed countries, people typically eat about 224 grams per day. But in Africa, most people only get about 31 grams a day.

With demand for meat increasing worldwide, experts worry that this increased livestock production will mean more gases like methane and nitrous oxide heating up the atmosphere. In China, for instance, people are eating double the amount of meat they used to a decade ago.

Powles said that if the global average were 90 grams per day, that would prevent the levels of gases from speeding up climate change.

Eating less red meat would also improve health in general. Powles and his co-authors estimate that reducing meat consumption would reduce the numbers of people with heart disease and cancer. One study has estimated that the risk of colorectal cancer drops by about a third for every 100 grams of red meat that is cut out of your diet.

"As a society, we are overconsuming protein," Brewster said. "If we ate less red meat, it would also help stop the obesity epidemic."

Experts said that it would probably take decades to wane the public off of its meat-eating tendency. "We need to better understand the implications of our diet," said Dr. Maria Neira, director of director of the World Health Organization's department of public health and the environment.

"It is an interesting theory that needs to be further examined," she said. "But eating less meat could definitely be one way to reduce gas emissions and climate change."

Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.



Source: http://home.peoplepc.com/psp/newsstory.asp?cat=TopStories&referrer=welcome&id=20070912/46e76440_3421_1334520070912-1719662957

STAY THE COURSE!

george bush sr. and gw dummy act
STAY THE COURSE, STAY THE COURSE,
STAY THE COURSE!

Tuesday, September 11, 2007

RON PAUL "NEWFLASH"

RON PAUL PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE

WILL VISIT FORT LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA
ON MONDAY, SEPTEMBER, 17, 2007.

HE WILL APPEAR AT THE PERFORMING ARTS CENTER
ON RIVERWALK IN FT. LAUDERDALE AT 6 P.M.

INFORMATION ANNOUNCED today ON
THE POWER HOUR WITH JOYCE RILEY AND DAVE VON KLEIST
at Genesis Communications (GCN) Radio Program
@ http//:www.gcnlive.com

THE PERFECT TERRORIST PLAN...



The Perfect Terrorist Plan
To Level The Twin Towers
Created In 1976

By Greg Szymanski
Exclusive to American Free Press
3-19-5

Our own U.S. Army devised a plan commissioned by Congress to bring down the WTC using commercial airliners and box cutters as weapons.
The laundry list of terrorist warnings handed to the Bush administration prior to 9/11 makes the President and others look like "bumbling idiots or a bunch of conniving criminals" responsible for the mass murders at the Twin Towers and in Afghanistan and Iraq.
These are the harsh words of Timothy McNiven, an outspoken critic of the President's handling of 9/11 and a 29-year U.S. Defense Department operative still under contract with the government.
He says not only did the Bush administration purposely ignore Al Q'aida in the months preceding the WTC attacks, but the situation is even more disturbing, considering his military unit way back in 1976 devised a mock terrorist attack of the Twin Towers exactly like what occurred on 9/11.
McNiven, who first went public in an affidavit included in a 9/11-related federal conspiracy (RICO) lawsuit filed against Bush and others in 2004, claims his unit was ordered to create the "perfect terrorist plan" using commercial airliners as weapons and the Twin Towers as their target.
The publicized version of the study, commissioned by Congress, was to identify security lapses and submit corrective measures to lawmakers. However, McNiven claims the real purpose of the study was to brainstorm how to pull off the perfect terrorist attack using the exact same 9/11 scenario.
The study, commissioned to C-Battery 2/81st Field Artillery, U.S. Army, stationed in Strassburg, Germany in 1976, specifically devised the scenario of the Twin Towers being leveled by Middle Eastern terrorists using commercial airliners and even plastic box cutters to bypass security.
To silence critics, McNiven has successfully passed a credible lie detector test regarding his participation in the study as well as other specific orders given to him by his superiors in case of a real attack on the Twin Towers.
The head of the 1976 mock terrorist plan was Lt. Michael Teague of Long Island, who McNiven says was given specific orders by higher-ups in the military to use the Twin Towers as the terrorist target.
McNiven said he has been unable to contact Lt. Teague, but was interested in his opinion now that "the 9/11 attacks happened the way we planned them in 1976."
"I remember Lt. Teague changed the scenario of the supposed study from a 100 story building to the Twin Towers," recalled McNiven, emphasizing that Lt. Teague was acting on specific orders from unknown superiors.
"He then said he thought it was very strange to be asked to devise a plan to blow up your own home town. But as I watched the Twin Towers really collapse on the morning of September 11th, I realized I was watching the very same thing we devised in the 1976."
Since that ominous realization, McNiven has devoted his entire life to alerting the American public about the similarities between 9/11 and the 1976 study without much success, his story basically being ignored by politicians and the mainstream media.
"Why am I doing this? Why have I spent every waking hour trying to bring this story to the American people?" asked McNiven, claiming he still is following a strange direct military order given to him more than 25 years ago.
"During the course of the terrorist plan we were devising, I made the statement to Lt. Teague that if the WTC was ever attacked like we planned, I'd go public. I was then physically assaulted and told never to reveal anything we were doing regarding the Twin Towers."
However, about a week later a strange turn of events occurred. For no apparent reason, McNiven claims his superiors completely changed their minds.
"I was given the direct order that if the Twin Towers were ever attacked the way we discussed in the 1976 study, I was to do everything in my power to bring the similarities to the attention of the American people.
"I have no idea why they changed their minds, but I was then emphatically told that this order was never to be rescinded - never - because those who would rescind it, would be the very same people who turned against the American people."
Besides taking a lie detector to verify his story, McNiven has made public a detailed list of about 40 names of those individuals who took part in the mock terrorist plan, including Col. Robert Morrison, Maj. Joe Dipiero, Sgt. Middleton, Sgt. Arroyo and many others.
"There were also people from the Defense Department and the CIA who were monitoring the study, but I wasn't able to get their names," he added.
Some of McNiven's most recent assignments with the Defense Department include work on the Northwest Drug Task Force and various other drug smuggling and weapons trafficking cases.
March 9, 2005

"If the people knew what we had done, they would chase us down the street and lynch us." (George H.W. "Poppy" Bush)

Support American Free Press

Source: http://www.rense.com/general63/TWIN.HTM

SOME MEMBERS OF 9-11 COMMISSION ARE CFR



Several members of the 9-11 Commission are CFR members

Dstacey/APFN
April 08, 2004

Few people realize the role in our government that the Council on Foreign Relations plays. This secret organization has over 4000 members who have infiltrated almost all important organizations in our country at the highest levels. For instance, 3 Supreme Court justices are CFR. The reason so little is known about CFR is that many key members of the media are members of this secret organization. They can't tell !

Click here to read Myron Fagan's excellent article on The Illuminati and the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) ]

The late Admiral Chester Ward, who resigned from the CFR in disgust after being a member for 16 years, was not exaggerating when he charged that the group's agenda is to promote "disarmament and submergence of U.S. sovereignty and national independence into an all-powerful one-world government." The leadership of the group, he said, "is composed of the one-world-global-government ideologists - more respectfully referred to as the organized internationalists."

Admiral Ward's harsh assessment is more than justified.

The CFR has cut a sordid path through American history. But its dreadful record has not stopped it from gaining unprecedented power and influence. Author/journalist Richard Rovere (CFR) has aptly described the Council as "a sort of Presidium for that part of the Establishment that guides our destiny as a nation." It controls both major parties and has had a virtual lock-hold on the executive branch of the federal government since World War II.

In his 1979 memoir, With No Apologies, Senator Barry Goldwater noted: "When a new President comes on board, there is a great turnover in personnel but no change in policy. Example: During the Nixon years Henry Kissinger, CFR member and Nelson Rockefeller's protégé, was in charge of foreign policy. When Jimmy Carter was elected, Kissinger was replaced by Zbigniew Brzezinski, CFR member and David Rockefeller's protégé."

That pattern has continued. The Clinton administration was loaded with over 400 CFR members; the Bush team, it appears will match that. Top Bush picks such as Cheney, Powell, Rumsfeld, Rice, Zoellick, and Chao are all Pratt House veterans. One of the first persons Colin Powell officially received as Secretary of State was Frank Carlucci, who recently chaired the CFR's panel on restructuring the State Department. The party labels may have changed, but don't expect a substantive change in policies.

Bush & the Council for Revolution by William Jasper (The New American - Mar 12, 2001)

It is no surprise that the 911 Commission is loaded with CFR members:

9-11 Commission Members

Thomas H. Kean Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) member
Chair

Lee H. Hamilton CFR member / Trilateral Commission (TC) member
Vice Chair

Richard Ben-Veniste
Fred F. Fielding
Jamie S. Gorelick CFR member
Slade Gorton
Bob Kerrey CFR member
John F. Lehman CFR member
Timothy J. Roemer
James R. Thompson

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Commission Staff
Philip D. Zelikow CFR member
Executive Director

Chris Kojm
Deputy Executive Director

Daniel Marcus
General Counsel

________________________________________

Note: Dr. Condoleezza Rice, President Bush's National Security Adviser, is also a CFR member, as are:

Vice President Dick Cheney (formerly: a CFR director, member of the Trilateral Commission, and former chairman,
president and CEO of Halliburton Co.)

Colin Powell, Secretary of State

Paul Wolfowitz, senior Bush administration official involved with Iraq War

(also has been member of the Trilateral Commission)

(also: former President George H.W. Bush was both a CFR director and a member of the Trilateral Commission)


Note: Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and many other executive, congressional, and judiciary offcials, including THREE US Supreme Court Justices (O'Connor appointed by Reagan, and Breyer and Ginsburg appointed by Clinton, are CFR members. Conclusion: There's not a dime's bit of difference in the end-game agenda of BOTH the national Democrat and the Republican Parties, because BOTH national parties are controlled by the same CFR/TC/Bilderberg/Masonic/ Skull & Bones/Bohemian Grove Establishment NWO global elites: the Illuminati.


See a concise overview article about the CFR that follows. Showing the growth of CFR, the membership was 3,100 in 95 and now is over 4,000.




ANOTHER 9/11 MEMORIAL, MORE QUESTIONS.

the 9/11 Stand Down

9/11 Timelines: the key to understanding why the Trillion Dollar Air Force did not defend its headquarters

"The power to see to it that regular government operations don't occur is one of the greatest controls over power you can wield in a government."
-- Colonel Fletcher Prouty, Pentagon liaison to CIA

interview with Joseph Spieler, (archived on the CD-ROM available from prouty.org)

Why there was NOT a "stand down" order:
explaining the "failure" of the Trillion Dollar Air Force to defend its headquarters

One of the first anomalies that many people noticed immediately after 9/11 was the inexplicable non-reaction of the military air defense system to the hijackings.

It has been standard operating procedures for decades to immediately intercept off course planes that do not respond to communications from air traffic controllers. When the Air Force "scrambles" a fighter plane to intercept, they usually reach the plane in question in minutes. The Air Force plane will then fly next to the non-responsive plane, and rock their wings -- a way to say "follow me" to a nearby airport (if the plane merely has lost its radio equipment). If the intercepted plane refuses to respond, there is a graduated series of actions the Air Force can use -- firing tracer bullets in front of the plane, even shooting it down if it is a threat. This is analogous to police pulling motorists over for having their lights out - every driver in the US knows that when a police car behind them turns on their siren, they are supposed to pull over, just like every pilot knows that when an Air Force fighter plane pulls beside them, they are supposed to follow their orders, too. If the light bulb has merely burned out, the motorist will get a warning, but the police have a graduated series of responses they can employ if the driver is not merely having a mechanical problem (ie. they have just robbed a bank and are driving with the lights off to avoid being seen).

The airspace over the northeastern US is among the busiest on the planet. It is home to the nation's political, military and financial headquarters, the largest population concentrations, and key strategic facilities. A jumbo jet in this area suddenly changing direction and altitude, and refusing to respond to air traffic controllers would be as dangerous as a truck on a busy rush-hour freeway driving the wrong way at full speed. When planes go off course in this busy environment, instant reactions make the difference between life and death -- which is why NORAD (North American Air Defense) practices these kinds of scenarios, and instantly scrambles fighters when there is any hint of a problem.

For critics of the official story of 9/11, the smokiest of the smoking guns is the "failure" of NORAD to intercept the planes. Even if one ignores the abundant evidence that allied intelligence services in other countries provided warnings that the attacks were about to happen, the information from the "insider trading " just before 9/11 that indicated which airline companies would be used, and other clues that clearly show complete official foreknowledge -- there is still enormous evidence that does not fit the official paradigm of "incompetence responding to a surprise attack."

The "timeline" of 9/11 was the first, and most important indicator of a massive discrepancy with the official story. NORAD's fighter interceptors can travel at supersonic speed, yet even the most basic calculations suggested that they had to fly far below even normal subsonic flight speeds to avoid reaching their destination (New York and Washington) in time. (See the "timeline" information lower on this webpage). Apologists for the Bush regime state that since they were not expecting the 9/11 scenario, and thought that the hijacking would be a "traditional" type hijack, but this avoids the question of why the off-course planes were not intercepted (a procedure that does not require Presidential authorization, unlike the order to shoot down the plane).

Even if one is willing to grant exceptional deference to the Bush / Cheney administration, and pretend that they had no idea 9/11 was about to happen, there is no excuse for this ignorance at 9:03 am, when the second (South) tower was hit. At that point, the entire military's air defense system had no doubt that the hijackings were intentional, multiple attacks, and that additional hijacked planes would be used as weapons. This is the time when "President" Bush was content to continue to read to second graders, instead of assuming his duties as Commander-in-Chief.

When the second tower was struck, Flight 77 was near the Ohio - West Virginia border. Around this time, that plane made an unscheduled 180 degree turn, and stopped communicating with air traffic control -- a big clue that this was also one of the hijacked planes. Nevertheless, no serious efforts were made to intercept this plane between 9:03 am and 9:38 am, when it hit the west side of the Pentagon. Planes were scrambled from an air base in the Norfolk, Virginia area during this time, but inexplicably were sent east over the ocean, instead of northwest toward the Washington area. (The weather that morning was perfectly clear, and there is no innocent explanation for why these interceptor planes were sent over the water, away from DC, instead of toward the National Capitol Area.)

Ultimately, Flight 93 was shot down around 10:06 am near Shanksville, Pennsylvania, although this was kept concealed from the public. It's probable that most citizens would have accepted the "need" to keep this plane from reaching the DC area (assuming that is where it was headed), a loss of life that would have ensured that a worse disaster was prevented. However, acknowledging this action might inspire further questions about 9/11 -- such as why the plane that hit the Pentagon also was not shot down, especially since most of the time it was hijacked it was flying over sparsely populated forest in West Virginia and western Virginia. There are a variety of theories why Flight 93 was probably shot down, but perhaps a key issue is the fact the plane left Newark (NJ) airport almost an hour late, and therefore it had to be stopped since enough havoc had already been created, and an additional attack, another half-hour after the Pentagon crash, would have been even harder to explain as "incompetence." It is possible, too, that the "heroic passengers" story was always part of the script, but that is, of course, speculation.

In the three years since 9/11, many writers have suggested that the Air Force was on "stand down orders" that morning, directed not to "scramble" planes and let the events happen. More recent analysis suggests a different explanation that explains why it appeared there was a stand down.

If 9/11 was indeed an "inside job," either allowed to happen, run by the Bush cabal, or some scenario in-between, relying on "stand down" orders would be incredibly risky for the perpetrators. September Eleven initiated a series of events that have transformed the world, with many trillions of dollars being shifted in response. Would Dick Cheney and his cohorts really assume that the Air Force fighter jocks would obey orders not to intercept planes, even after the World Trade Center towers had been hit? If any of these pilots had the keys to their planes, they might decide to ignore orders and fly their planes and seek to protect the capitol from further havoc.

An analogy that clarifies this logic:

Imagine if a Chief of a City's fire department was seeking to profit from the burning of a building (perhaps by being part of an insurance scam). Would a logical way to ensure the success of the arson be to order the rest of the firefighters not to respond to the distress calls that would come into the fire station? How would the Fire Chief guarantee that the fire fighters would obey the "stand down" orders, especially since they are trained to automatically respond, and would be especially attentive to the screams for help from people trapped in the building.

If the Fire Chief sent in a series of false alarms at the exact same moment that the building was set on fire, it would be more difficult for the fire crews to determine which building was really on fire. And if the City also conducted a "Fire Drill" to evacuate the City's main center for controlling surveillance cameras around the city (that could locate the smoke and determine where the fire is), it would be even more difficult for the honest City employees to be able to respond appropriately.

On 9/11, the multiple "war games" scheduled at the same time as the attacks resulted in numerous false alarms that temporarily confused the air defense system, making it more difficult to respond effectively. One of these "war games" was essentially a "fire drill" type exercise at the National Reconnaissance Office headquarters near Dulles Airport, Virginia, which simulated the emergency response procedures needed if a plane hit their compound while on the landing approach at Dulles. (This exercise ensured the evacuation of most of the people in the NRO at the same time that 9/11 began -- which probably made it more difficult for them to use the spy satellites to track the hijackings.)




Source: http://www.oilempire.us/standdown.html

Monday, September 10, 2007

HURRICANE FELIX CLAIMS 5 ADVENTISTS

Nicaragua: Hurricane Felix Claims Five Adventist Lives, Church Assesses Damage

September 10, 2007 Managua, NIcaragua .... [Libna Stevens/IAD/ANN]

A house in Puerto Cabezas, Nicaragua, damaged by Hurricane Felix last week. The category 5 storm hit the northern Atlantic region of Nicaragua September 4, leaving thousands homeless. [photos: courtesy ADRA Nicaragua]

An ADRA emergency rescue worker assists a boy in Puerto Cabezas, where hundreds sought shelter in the city's Adventist school during the hurricane.

Seventh-day Adventist leaders in Nicaragua are concerned for the thousands of church members affected by Hurricane Felix, the Category 5 storm that hit the Central American country early on September 4.

Felix swept away entire communities in Nicaragua's northern region some 370 miles from the capital city of Managua with its high winds and torrential rain where more than 5,000 members reside.

The death toll is surpassing 100, and so far five church members are reported dead. However, some members are still unaccounted for in the Miskito Keys, which suffered Felix's fiercest winds, clocked at 160 mph.

"We still haven't been able to ensure the condition of our members who have survived the hurricane," said Juan Angel Guevara, president of the church in Nicaragua. "The total infrastructure of the church has been affected in the north Atlantic region."

Guevara, who has only been able to communicate through radio with a few of the communities in the affected regions, said two churches supported by wooden stilts were destroyed and another 45 churches were damaged in areas where rivers regularly overflow each year.

Guevara said he has not been able to contact a church-operated radio station and clinic located near the country's eastern border with Honduras.

The Adventist elementary and secondary school in Puerto Cabezas, where over 700 people from the area sought shelter, lost the roofs on each of its classrooms.

The Adventist Development and Relief Agency in Nicaragua and its Emergency and Rescue response team have delivered more than 1,000 pounds of first aid kits to the areas first surveyed by Nicaragua's Civil Defense Army, according to ADRA officials in the country. In addition, food and tarps are being delivered.

"Our greatest challenge is that we are working as fast as we can while depending on the limited number of choppers available for delivering supplies in the flooded tropical jungle-ridden region," said Plinio Vergara, ADRA Nicaragua director.

Wally Amundson, ADRA director for the church's Inter-America region, said funds have already been released to help hurricane victims.

Church leaders and members throughout the unaffected areas of Nicaragua are actively collecting donations in their local churches to assist hurricane victims, according to Guevara. In the capital city of Managua, the church has organized a donation center at the church headquarters office through appeals to the public via radio, and has teamed up with the Red Cross where dozens of have participated in a blood drive.

More than 87,000 Adventists live in Nicaragua and attend 186 organized churches.

Source: http://news.adventist.org/data/2007/08/1189458048/index.html.en

THE CONSPICUOUS CROSS

The Conspicuous Cross
Recently I have noticed a 'surge' in the presence of these so-called Pattee Crosses, Celtic, also known as 'The Iron Cross'; They resemble 'The Templar Cross'. Well, I first noticed them recently on a 'West Coast Choppers' Bumper Sticker. Ever since then, I have become aware of how popular these crosses have become.
I first wondered if it were just a fashion statement, like surfing or skateboard fashion clothing? Something that distinguishes a person's inclination or hobby. I thought, maybe it's like an identifying sign amongst a segment of society?
+
When I was young I remember going to the novelty stores and looking at knives and gadgets. I saw a few crosses that reminded me of the German 'Iron Cross' which were worn by some of the Nazi officers. I also discovered that in those stores there were also German WWII Helmets. There were cigarette lighters that resembled the German Lugger Automatic Pistols. It was like the whole store was full of Nazi WWII memorabilia, that bikers, and other people liked. I would just go there to look at the 'Blades', and kill time while visiting the down-town area.
+
Fast forward to the Twenty-First Century: These crosses are like 'white on rice'. I knew that back when I was younger, some juvenile deliquents, and mortor cycle Gang members, sported German trinkets. As if those emblems made them tough or hip? But now, it's as if these 'Crosses' have become an identifier of certain racial exclusive individuals. Since I only see the skin headed guys use them. I pondered on what these people considered themselves? Were they a gang? A Secret Society? Then, it occured to me that these are 'Crosses' that Aryans (as they call themselves) display! I've seen people with these crosses tatooed on their bodies. It must be the latest fashion statement? It's like saying: "Look at me, I'm white and proud"! These are used by "Christian Identity' members, and 'Aryan Heritage' sympathizer. How quaint? I knew there was something about those Crosses! These guys aren't surfers! Not what surfers used to be, or the ones I knew.

A more benign Cross?

Then there's the popular cross

The one

That first caught my attention:

It's commercial, it's family oriented, and everyone has seen them. It's like the Harley Davidson Motor Cycles, all you need is a bandana, leather vest, and your're one of the guys. Like Harley Davidson and The Marlboro Man.

Things are not what they seem, not then, not now!