Report Terrorists:

Please see the link in the email below from the Free Muslims Coalition to anonymously report Muslim extremists:

From: Free Muslims Coalition <admin@freemuslims.org>
Subject: We are back, unsubscribing, and more
Date: Nov 30, 2007 2:49 PM

Dear Friend,

If you value our newsletter, please tell your friends and family about the Free Muslims and have them sign up to receive our newsletter via our Web site. (Non-muslims are encouraged to sign up, too, since it increases the awareness of people that not all muslims are terrorists).

CONFRONT TERRORISM AND ISLAMIC EXTREMISM WITH US
We can't win our war on terrorism alone. Here are several ways you can help us defeat terrorism and extremism around the world:

1) Report instances of extremism or support for terrorism: submit an anonymous report, telling us about any individuals or groups advocating Muslim extremist ideology, engage in apologetic support for terrorist organizations or advocates "Jihad." Visit www.freemuslims.org/support/reportextremism.php

2) Start a local Free Muslims chapter in your area: We currently have 12 chapters worldwide, and are looking for more activists to lead the cause in their state, city, territory, or country. Visit www.freemuslims.org/support/startchapter.php

3) Make a tax deductible contribution to the Free Muslims:

Online at www.freemuslims.org/support/donate.php or
By mail to:  1050 17th St. NW, Suite 1000, Washington DC 20036. (make checks out to Free Muslim Coalition Against Terrorism)

We thank you for supporting us through the years and look forward to your continued support.

Very truly yours,
Kamal Nawash
President
Free Muslims Coailition


No Terror Attacks Are No Accident 
By: Ronald Kessler
December 31, 2007

As we finish another year without a terrorist attack, it’s a good time to think about why. The media and liberal politicians will tell you it’s an accident or a matter of luck. They are dead wrong.

The reason we have not been attacked in the more than six years after 9/11 is the hard work of the FBI, the CIA, and our military, and the sweeping changes that have taken place in the intelligence community under George W. Bush.

Bush’s proclamation that any country harboring a terrorist will be considered a terrorist country has meant that Arab countries began cooperating in the war on terror, turning over thousands of terrorists and leads.

Bush made the FBI become more prevention-oriented. While the FBI always wanted to stop terrorist plots and did so in many cases, when it got the bad guys, as it did in the first World Trade Center bombing, it usually closed the case. Now every case becomes the basis for developing new sources who may be run out for years to infiltrate terrorist groups.

As Art Cummings, who heads the FBI’s international counterterrorism operations, told me for my book ”The Terrorist Watch: Inside the Desperate Race to Stop the Next Attack,” “Pre-9/11, the first consideration was, I got an indictment in my pocket ... Slap it down on the table, pick the guy up, you throw him on an airplane. You bring him home, you put him in jail, and you go, ‘Okay, I’ve done a great job today.’”

If that were to happen today, Cummings says, “I would have told my agents they basically just put Americans more in jeopardy rather than less in jeopardy. It’s a completely different approach and bears little resemblance to the previous one.”

Now when an agent wants to make an arrest, Cummings tells the agent, “Your objective is not to make the arrest. Your objective is to make that suspect our collection platform. That guy now is going to tell us just how big and broad the threat might be. He now becomes a means to collection, instead of the target of collection. I want you to understand his entire universe.”

According to the media, the FBI and CIA still don’t talk to each other. But in 2005, Bush established the National Counterterrorism Center in McLean, Va., where 200 analysts from the CIA and FBI sit side-by-side analyzing threats 24 hours a day. A secure video conference takes place three times a day with all members of the intelligence community and the White House to analyze threats and parcel out leads.

The USA Patriot Act has torn down the so-called wall imposed by Attorney General Janet Reno, a wall that prevented FBI agents from sharing information with each other and with the CIA. The much-maligned Patriot Act has allowed the FBI to wiretap a terrorist regardless of what phone he uses, an authority the FBI already had in organized crime cases. The National Security Agency (NSA) intercepts ordered by Bush opened for the FBI a window on terrorist activity within the U.S.

Since 9/11, the FBI, CIA, and the military have rolled up some 5,000 terrorists worldwide — a headline you will never see in the Washington Post or New York Times. Thus, many plots are never hatched, because terrorists have been killed, arrested, or sent back to their own countries and imprisoned.

Instead of hailing the efforts to connect the dots, the media demonize those who are trying to protect us and portray the tools that uncover clues to plots as “spying on innocent Americans.” When a plot is successfully rolled up, the media minimize it.

When the FBI foiled a plot to blow up John F. Kennedy International Airport in June 2007, the New York Times buried the story on page A37 of its final edition. In the dream world of the editors of the New York Times, such threats to America are far less important than the fact that 75-year-old Andrea Mosconi has a job of playing violins in a museum in Italy to keep them in shape, a feature which the Times played on page one the same day.

The media have even managed to portray Saddam Hussein as relatively benign. But as revealed in “The Terrorist Watch,” in seven months of secret debriefings, Saddam admitted to FBI agent George Piro that he planned to resume his weapons of mass destruction program — including developing nuclear weapons — within a year.

Many in the media could not bear to hear that Bush might have been at least partially right about Saddam, and few newspapers reported the story.

When the media and politicians run out of ways to deny credit to Bush for making us safer, they will claim that al-Qaida has chosen to space out its attacks. But al-Qaida’s attempt to blow up nine American airliners crossing the Atlantic in 2006 and the alleged role of an al-Qaida affiliate in the assassination of Benazir Bhutto are reminders that al-Qaida is constantly on the attack.

While the media underplay the threats, distort descriptions of the measures needed to uncover the next plot, and mischaracterize the progress in the war on terror, they also undermine it by revealing secrets of how the FBI and CIA are trying to stop the next attack. If the media revealed real abuses, they would be justified in exposing them, but that has not been the case. Since 9/11, the courts and Congress have allowed all of the Bush programs for uncovering terrorists to continue.

Calling the media disclosures “devastating,” Fran Townsend, who leaves this week as chief of the White House counterterrorism efforts, told me, “It’s not just a question of you’re putting individuals at risk. The real risk is to the lives of Americans who may suffer an attack because we couldn’t stop it, because the source was taken out.”

Without a reliable way to get information about this secret war, Americans are at the mercy of the media’s slanted portrayal.

Referring to President Bush, Chris Matthews said to Rudy Giuliani recently on MSNBC, “When he was in New York at Ground Zero in his most memorable statement ever, he said we`re going to get the people who knock down these buildings ... How many years do you think the American people should wait for our president to make good on his promise to get the guys who killed 3,000 Americans? This guy [Osama bin Laden] is apparently in Pakistan, and we haven’t done it. Are you satisfied with this?”

In fact, with the exception of bin Laden and his deputy Ayman al-Zawahri, who are isolated, nearly all the al-Qaida operatives responsible for the 9/11 attack have been killed or captured.

Contrary to Matthews’ insinuation and to the New York Times’ Dec. 31 editorial assertion that Bush’s policies “have not made any of us safer,” the war on terror has been an astounding success. But that success has led many Americans to become complacent.

As a result, in the 2008 presidential election, we face a critical choice: Given that al-Qaida is intent on wiping out the U.S. with nuclear weapons, as FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III has told me, do we continue on the offensive, dealing with threats before they materialize, or do we return to the pre-9/11 approach?

Back then, because of politically correct rules imposed by the Clinton administration, FBI agents were not allowed to follow suspects into mosques that are open to the public. CIA officers had to get special permission to recruit sources with so-called human rights violations. FBI agents could not look at public online chat rooms to develop leads on people who might be recruiting terrorists or distributing information on making explosives.

If NSA intercepted a call from bin Laden to an operative in New York about detonating a nuclear device the next day, the FBI was not allowed to see a transcript of the call because no warrant had been obtained in advance.

Already, politicians are trying to roll back the clock and take away tools necessary not only to connect the dots, but to find them in the first place. In fact, presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama last August voted against revising the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to allow NSA to continue to monitor calls by foreign terrorists without a warrant even if all parties are situated overseas.

In an example of that same short-sightedness, Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards claimed that the war on terror is not a strategy to make America safer. Rather, it’s a political slogan or “bumper sticker” used by the Bush administration to cover up its mistakes.

“Remember that old Edmund Burke quote,” Republican candidate Mitt Romney responded. “‘The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.’ And that, I am afraid, is the boiled-down version of what John Edwards said—that good men should do nothing. Put their head in the sand and hope it all goes away.”

“When you go so far as to suggest that the global war on terror is a bumper sticker or slogan, it kind of makes the point that I’ve been making over and over again that the Democrats or at least some of them are in denial…” Giuliani said.

Contrary to John Edwards’ take, the lesson of the 1990s when terrorists first attacked the World Trade Center and attacked American embassies in Africa and the USS Cole is, “We just didn’t take it seriously enough,” Senator Joe Lieberman, also a Democrat, has told me.

Asked how he feels about attacks by Democrats on measures like the Patriot Act and programs like the NSA intercepts to help track and apprehend terrorists, Lieberman says he is “disappointed” because “my colleagues for various reasons — some ideological, some political — are missing this threat to us.”

Those on the front lines of the war on terror know exactly what is at stake.

“You make a mistake, there are dead people,” Art Cummings says.

When I interviewed Bush with other journalists in September, the president made it clear that he will never back down.

As we enter a new year, the question for all of us is: Will we?


*** Important ***
"Islam, The Religion of Peace"
THE NATURE OF THE ENEMY
By Dave Huntwork
May 23, 2004
NewsWithViews.com
http://www.newswithviews.com/public_comm/public_commentary10.htm

The praise of Allah for all Muslims with his support and the humiliating of those who attempt to defeat Islam and who attack it and who entice the unbelievers with their cunning… He has ordered the prophet - peace b e upon him - and he is master the merciful are with the slitting of the necks of some prisoners and their slow killing. And for us it is an example and a good example… we tell you to know that the coffins will arrive to you one coffin after another, as your people are slaughtered in this way… Then you kill the polytheists (Christians) where you find them and you take them and count them and place them where they can be seen…Allah is the greatest and the honor to Allah and to its messenger and to the militants. And our last claim is that the praise of Allah is the Lord of the Worlds…. And you see the slaughter your fighting brothers suspend the head of this unbeliever on one of Baghdad bridges so that they teach a lesson to others from the infidels and serves as a witness to the honor of the Muslims. -- Statement read just moments before the video taped murder and beheading of Nick Berg.

Americans have yet to realize that they are now embroiled in a decade’s long war with vicious Islamofascists who hail from dozens of countries and nationalities. Al-Zarqawi, the terrorist leader behind the savage deaths of hundreds of Shiite civilians and Iraqi police, the attempted Ricin attacks in the UK and chemical attacks in Jordan, and the beheading of American civilian contractor Nick Berg, spoke just months ago of "gathering the sheep" for slaughter. Nick Berg was just the first victim in the plan of a series of dramatic public atrocities that will unfold in the months to come.

Watching the beheading of this idealistic young American and listening to his screams as he was butchered was revolting, sickening and maddening and yet it should be mandatory viewing. To truly understand the nature of this enemy we must digest their viciousness and use it to fuel the avenging fire that was initially kindled on September 11th 2001. War is not pretty, fun or nice but sometimes it is not only necessary but desirable when dealing with an enemy of such diabolical methods and goals.

The commitment to victory can only be solidified by free and just peoples when faced with such recent outrages as the enemy hacking and displaying bodies in Fallujah, the point blank shooting of a pregnant women and her four young daughters in Gaza, militants parading through the streets with the bloody remains of slain Israeli soldiers and the butchery of one slightly lost 26 year old American civilian.

Some commentators have made the observation that Islam has shown itself to be less of a religion than a bloody ideology similar to Nazism, Maoism, or the pesky militant Japanese cult of the Emperor that caused so much trouble a few decades ago. Where is the outrage in reaction to such crime from the good peaceful Moslems we are told are the vast majority of Islam? The silence is deafening and the followers of Mohammad bear a portion of responsibility and blame due to their failure to condemn such actions and for the continued support, shelter and protection of such terror artists offered by their clerics, mosques and communities not only here in the United States but all over the world.

One of my friends put it this way.

“Never forget that many of us saw, way back on Sept. 11, 2001, that the enemy of the Americans was the same enemy that was fighting Israel, and India, and Russia, and Indonesia and the Philippines, and infiltrating Europe, and advocating in America, and throwing acid in the face of unveiled women across the world, and preaching fanaticism in Saudi Arabia, and blowing up statues in Afghanistan, and manning the madrasses in Pakistan, and pushing propaganda on al-Jazeera, and blowing up schoolchildren in Tel-Aviv, and now beheading Jewish young men from Philadelphia.”

Truer words have never been spoken. The mindset of Islamofascism is one of genocidal mania; the celebration of death and butchery, and revelry in the slaughter of innocents. Americans and civilized people the world over have been shocked by such sub-human behavior but they should not be. That is the character of the enemy that they face. It is the nature of a religious ideology that seeks the death or subjugation of all infidels and the extermination of the Jew. Al-Queda is just the latest manifestation of 7th century barbarism that has waged an endless shadow war on Western Civilization and has finally provoked the world war of ideology and religion that it has so eagerly sought.

American politicians in particular insist that this is not a war of religion or clash of civilizations. It is an endless spewing of “religion of peace” quotes, diatribes on “a nation of immigrants” and complaints about ethnic profiling at airports. I wish that someone would tell that to the enemy, for that is exactly the war that they are waging.

Whether it is the Muslim Brotherhood, Al-Queda, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Hamas, Al-Tawhid, Abu Sayyaf, the Taliban, Al-Ansar Islam, Al-Sadr’s militia, Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan (SSP), Beyyiat el-Imam, Jund al-Shams or the dozens of other militant terrorist groups infesting the globe, their methodology, goals, tactics, cruelty, tenacity and victims are often eerily the same. It is a strange world of martyrdom, jihad, cries of Allah Akbar and fantasies of a heavenly reward of 72 virgins. They may differ by sect, creed or nationality but each wages war on the innocent, the Christian and the Jew, the concepts of Liberty and Justice, and Western Civilization itself.

The ideology of militant Islam is not some small isolated group of malcontents as they are so often portrayed. Millions of Moslems are adherents to the ideology and religious fervor that wages war on the West. The cries of jihad echo in the bloody guerilla warfare of Algeria. It is the ideology of the Arab slavers waging war on Christians in Sudan. It is the call from hundreds of minerets in Saudi Arabia and the gospel of the mullahs of Iran. It is the creed of the border tribes of Pakistan and was the heart and soul of the Taliban. It flourishes in the jungles of the Philippines and the slums of Indonesia. It sallies forth from the green valleys of Lebanon and preaches its hate in the mosques of Europe.

There will be no easy victory and the legions of the deluded zealots who vent their rage in the blood of the vulnerable, innocent and helpless will not be quickly defeated. Civilized peoples across the globe must learn to steel themselves against the coming barbarity and prepare for the long struggle against those who would slice your throat and murder your children in their beds if given half a chance. Their fanaticism cannot be underestimated and the righteousness of the cause of those who fight against them cannot be doubted. The world must answer terrorism and those who fancy themselves the warriors of Allah with a resolve for utter and total victory.

© 2004 Dave Huntwork - All Rights Reserved

Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts

David Huntwork is a conservative activist and freelance columnist in Northern Colorado where he lives with his wife and three young daughters. He strongly believes in the importance of Faith, Family, and Freedom as the formula of success for a good life and a healthy nation.

Feel free to contact him with any comments or questions at DaveHuntwork@juno.com
---


Allah or Jesus?
by Rick Mathes
http://www.learn-usa.com/of_relevance/Allah_or_Jesus.htm

Last month I attended my annual training session that's required for maintaining my state prison security clearance.  During the training session there was a presentation by three speakers representing the Roman Catholic, Protestant and Muslim faiths, who explained each of their belief systems.  I was particularly interested in what the Islamic Imam had to say.  The Imam gave a great presentation of the basics of Islam, complete with a video.  After the presentations, time was provided for questions and answers.  When it was my turn, I directed my question to the Imam and asked:

"Please, correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand that most Imams and clerics of Islam have declared a holy jihad [Holy war] against the infidels of the world.  And, that by killing an infidel, which is a command to all Muslims, they are assured of a place in heaven.  If that's the case, can you give me the definition of an infidel?"

There was no disagreement with my statements and, without hesitation, he replied, "Non-believers!"

I responded, "So, let me make sure I have this straight.  All followers of Allah have been commanded to kill everyone who is not of your faith so they can go to Heaven.  Is that correct?"

The expression on his face changed from one of authority and command to that of a little boy who had just gotten caught with his hand in the cookie jar.

He sheepishly replied, "Yes."

I then stated, "Well, sir, I have a real problem trying to imagine Pope John Paul commanding all Catholics to kill those of your faith or Dr. Stanley ordering Protestants to do the same in order to go to Heaven!"

The Imam was speechless.

I continued, "I also have problem with being your friend when you and your brother clerics are telling your followers to kill me.  Let me ask you a question.  Would you rather have your Allah who tells you to kill me in order to go to Heaven or my Jesus who tells me to love you because I am going to Heaven and He wants you to be with me?"

You could have heard a pin drop as the Imam hung his head in shame.

This is a true story and the author, Rick Mathes, is a well known leader in prison ministry. Needless to say, the organizers and/or promoters of the 'Diversification' training seminar were not happy with Rick's way of dealing with the Islamic Imam and exposing the truth about the Muslim's beliefs.

I think everyone in the US should be required to read this, but with the liberal justice system, liberal media, and the ACLU, there is no way this will be widely publicized. Please pass this on to all your email contacts.  


DON'T WE ALL FEEL SAFER NOW?
By Lynn Stuter
March 24, 2005
NewsWithViews.com

Following the tragic events of September 11, 2001 the Department of Homeland Security was established and the Transportation Safety Administration (TSA) took over the screening of passengers and luggage at airport terminals. The Patriot Act was passed, a highly intrusive and unconstitutional piece of legislation. The Patriot Act II followed. Now legislation is being pushed at the federal level to establish a National ID card. All of this in the name of safeguarding America against terrorism.

But are we safer? If we listen to the main stream media, we are. After all, every time the issue comes up there’s a constant parade of people before the camera spouting “it’s for our safety” on the television screen.

But are we really safer?

While we don’t hear much, in the mainstream media, about the illegal aliens pouring across the border from Mexico into the United States, the e-waves keep us up to date on what the mainstream media chooses to ignore. Pray tell, how is America safer when our borders are open to any and all who wish to cross illegally into our country, no questions asked and no measures taken to staunch the flow?

The problems plaguing the TSA have, in some instances, made a blip on the radar screen of the main-stream media with stories about luggage rifled for prescription medications and other items of value. In one instance a family returning from a fishing trip in Alaska discovered their catch to be lighter by several pounds after going through security at the Spokane International Airport. The culprit didn’t think the people would miss a few pounds of their prize catch!!! Other stories emanating from the world of the airport security screeners are just as outrageous yet these people are supposed to have survived a rigorous background check.

Early in March 2005 a pilot appeared before the microphones and cameras to say that security at airports is no better now than before September 11, 2001, aside from the reinforced cockpit doors and passenger screening measures which, in too many instances, have fallen far short of common sense but have proven inconvenient to the American traveler not to mention being privacy invasive and, in too many cases, personally humiliating. The story went on to enumerate on the training airport security screeners are supposed to receive and what they actually receive.

So, with all this staring us in the face, are we really safer? Doesn’t look like it. So what good are all these measures — the Department of Homeland Security, the Patriot Acts, the airport security screeners, the National ID card — if we aren’t safer?

As one gentleman so aptly put it, all of these measures are not aimed at making America and Americans safer, these measures are aimed at the rights of the American people afforded them under the Constitution and Bill of Rights. And they have been all along.

Of the Athenians, Edward Gibbon has stated, “In the end, more than they wanted freedom, they wanted security. They wanted a comfortable life, and they lost it all — security, comfort and freedom. When the Athenians finally wanted not to give to society but for society to give to them, when the freedom they wished for most was freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free.”

In Nazi Germany, Hitler told the people that registering firearms was for their safety. Then he confiscated the firearms leaving the people defenseless against the heinous brutality of his goons.

In America today, it is one “crisis” after the next, and people are rushing to give up their rights for security.

He who refuses to learn the lessons of the past are doomed to repeat them.


IN PERSPECTIVE
By Lynn Stuter
July 3, 2007
NewsWithViews.com

Last week Americans rejoiced as the Bush/Kennedy/McCain/Kyl amnesty-for-illegal-aliens bill went down to defeat. Senator Ted Kennedy eulogized the bill as though it were his child, and soundly chastised those who opposed it as anti-American and a “small minority.” His parting shot was that the bill would be back “tomorrow.” We who rejoice at this victory for America and legal Americans, both those born here (naturalized) and those who have come here and become residents legally, should raise our voice in thanks to God above for this victory; but we should not let down our guard or believe for one instant that evil men are not, at this moment, plotting to get their amnesty through by other means. We’ve watched this happen before and it will happen this time also.

The amnesty-for-illegal-aliens bill is but a symptom of what ails America. At the hands of people who should not have had and should not now have a seat in our government, were not and are not statesmen by any stretch of the imagination, our country has been led down a path focused on dissolving our borders in the pursuit of regional and global government. Democrat and Republican alike, the goal has been the same. That goal is becoming more and more apparent to Americans by the day.

It the last six years, it has become painfully obvious to all but the wittingly ignorant that the events of September 11, 2001 were not the result of acts of foreign terrorists but were orchestrated from within our own government. People are becoming aware...

that through contacts, the CIA paid Mohammad Atta, the supposed ringleader of September 11, 2001, $100,000 in August 2001.
of the relationship between the CIA and the supposed hi-jackers, most of whom couldn’t pilot a Cessna let alone a Boeing 757 or 767.
that the CIA visited Osama bin Laden in an American hospital in Dubai in August 2001.
that following his swearing in as president in January 2001, President Bush ordered all investigations of the family of Osama bin Laden, living in the United States, called off.
Osama bin Laden was and is a CIA trained operative.
Although all air traffic was ordered grounded following the events of the morning of September 11, 2001, a plane carrying family members of Osama bin Laden was allowed to leave the United States.
The release two weeks ago of the simulation by Purdue University was obviously intended to insinuate the jets brought the twin towers down. So much evidence exists to the contrary, however, that such a claim at this point in time is ludicrous at best and idiotic at the least.
Another of those little known facts concerning the events of September 11, 2001, are pictures that exist of a near ground level explosion almost simultaneous with the striking of WTC 2 (North Tower) by the second plane. That explosion came from WTC 6, a six story building. Two distinct holes, starting at near ground level and exploding up, resulting in minimal debris in the bottom of the holes, are apparent in pictures taken of WTC 6. It is apparent that the holes are not the result of falling debris from WTC 2.

Americans are rapidly coming to the realization that organizations, supposedly established for the well-being of American citizens, are not what they purport to be. One of those organizations is the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), referred to in many quarters as the greatest terrorist organization in the world. So much for King George’s “War on Terror.” Former CIA agents are now coming forward and talking about their roles in destabilizing governments at the wishes of presidents. That is called meddling in the affairs of other nations — Cuba, Central America, South America, the Middle East, all in the interests of American imperialist expansionism.

Ron Paul hit the nail on the head when he stated, to the ire of Rudy Giuliani, that you do not do this type of thing to other nations without expecting blowback. To even think that there won’t be blowback is arrogant, indeed. The American taxpayers cannot understand why people of other nations hate America. Maybe the American people need to open their eyes to what their leaders are doing, not in the name of what is best for America and Americans as claimed, but what is best in the name of imperialist expansionism with a specific and treasonous goal in mind — one world government. What is going on inside this country — with outsourcing, companies moving out of the U.S. to other countries, amnesty for illegal aliens, declining wages and loss of jobs resulting in a declining economy, moves to regionalize services, the move to unite the United States, Canada and Mexico into the North American Union — are all part of getting America ready to become part of a one-world government. The activities by leaders of the United States in other countries are intended to lead the world into a one-world government. In that context, one can readily understand the comment by King George that our Constitution is “nothing but a g-d piece of paper!”

Even though I have no respect for his world view, John Perkins laid out very succinctly in his book, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, why the people of other nations hate America. He has just released another book that is supposedly more telling, The Secret History of the American Empire.

Americans who want to know why there is so much strife in the world today need look no further than their elected in Washington DC to know who the culprits are. There has not been a president in office since World War I who has not been controlled by a small but select group of one-world government advocates, within and from outside this country. The mystery of the death of John F Kennedy has been, since his death, called a “conspiracy theory.” The recent revelations of E Howard Hunt, on his death bed, shed light on CIA involvement at the hands of the one-world-order crowd, including but not limited to, Lyndon Baines Johnson. Likewise, the bombing of the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City. Evidence now exists that Timothy McVeigh was but a puppet of CIA handlers; other evidence leads to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the FBI.

Despite the hate-filled invective rant of the likes of Edwin A Sumcad, Most Despised GOP Presidential Aspirant Used By Haters Of America To Air Chips On the Shoulder, the haters of America are not the people trying to stop the likes of King George; they are not the people exposing the truth of September 11, 2001; they are not the unpaid observers watching our borders for illegal invaders; they are not the people fighting and dying in Iraq; they are not the growing number who support Ron Paul; they are not the people who opposed the amnesty-for-illegal-aliens bill; they are not the growing number who oppose the North American Union or the so-called “free trade” agreements; the haters of America are the likes of Ted Kennedy, George H W Bush, George H Bush, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, John McCain, Fred Thompson, and every Senator who voted for cloture of S 1689, the amnesty-for-illegal-alien bill (including my own two senators, Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray who have never seen an anti-American bill they didn’t like).

Americans are waking up to the reality that the American Dream is headed the way of the U.S.S.R. and Hitler Germany. When we have a president who believes himself above the law, breaks the law wittingly, invades other nations in the interests of imperialist expansionism and the one-world-order, and the United States House of Representatives does absolutely nothing, Democrat and Republican alike, the American Dream becomes the pipe dream of yesterday.

The events of September 11, 2001, perpetrated by our own government, was an act of treason. Every individual involved in the planning and carrying out of the events of September 11, 2001, committed an act of treason. Every individual who has acted to cover up and attain benefit (the war in Iraq, the U.S. Patriot Act; the Department of Homeland Security) from the events of September 11, 2001, has committed treason. Every individual who has acted to deceive the American people about the events of September 11, 2001, has committed treason.

It is time that the activities of the Central Intelligence Agency and the Federal Bureau of Investigation be fully disclosed to the American people. No more hiding behind the claim of “national security.” It is time those elected as the servants of the people be bound down from the mischief that has resulted from failure to abide their oaths of office to uphold the United States Constitution. It is time these people be held accountable for the crimes they have committed against the people of this nation and the people of other nations. It is time the ranks of those entrusted by the people to do the business of the people be purged of one-world-government advocates.

It is long past time that the United States of America be returned to the foundations that made this country the greatest nation in the world.


THE ARAB LEGACY OF HATE
By Samuel L. Blumenfeld
NewsWithViews.com

    One of the reasons why it is so difficult for the average American to relate to Arabs and to Palestinians in particular is the level of hatred that they bear against Israel and Jews in general.  Many American Christians see the restoration of Israel as one of the great miracles of the 20th century, a fulfillment of Biblical prophecy, especially since it took place on the heels of the Nazi holocaust in Europe.  And therefore they see the hatred of Israel by Palestinians and Arabs as not only anti-Biblical but anti-Christian. 

    But from a merely psychological viewpoint, such hatred is also pathological and unhealthy.  We all know that people consumed by hatred cannot lead normal lives because they are driven by an emotion that not only creates gut-eating inner stress, but leads to the kind of terrorist acts that took place on September 11th against America and more recently against Israel.

    Arab opposition to Jewish settlement in Palestine goes back quite a ways.  In the years of early immigration before the 1948 war, Jews bought land from Arabs and made it bloom.  Since Palestine was a British mandate at that time, all transfers of land from Arabs to Jews were normal real estate transactions.  Jews were not stealing anybody’s land. Despite the legality of all of this, there were anti-Jewish riots in Palestine that resulted in many Jews being slaughtered.  

    But the Zionist movement gained strength in the 1930s when Hitler took control of Germany and launched his campaign of persecution and terror against Germany’s Jewish citizens.  Many Jews, reading the handwriting on the wall, emigrated to Palestine.  The whole Zionist idea was to provide Jews with a haven from persecution, which they could call their own.  

    During the war against Hitler, the Arabs were pro-Nazi, whereas Jewish settlers formed the Jewish Brigade to help the British fight against the German Afrika Korps in North Africa.  Yet, in an attempt to appease the Arabs, the British put sharp restrictions against any further immigration of Jews to Palestine.  

    After World War II, when the surviving Jews of Europe examined the catastrophe they had lived through, they realized that there was no possibility of returning to the way things were before the war.  Hundreds of Jewish communities had been destroyed.  There was no place for them to return to.  And so, by the thousands they headed to Palestine.  Others headed to North America and elsewhere, but the majority, renewed in their determination to rebuild Jewish life, went to the land that held that promise.  The language of the Jews in Palestine was their ancient language of the Bible, Hebrew.  In fact, the revival of Hebrew was another miracle in the restoration of the Jewish commonwealth.  

    In other words, the survivors did not linger in the refugee camps any longer than they had to.  They were anxious to resume constructive lives in which they could create new families and raise new children.  

    Meanwhile, in Palestine, as the Jewish population increased, so did Arab opposition.  The Arabs had little sympathy with the plight of Jews after the holocaust.  However, it should be acknowledged that many ordinary Arabs worked with Jews from the beginning of settlement to today.  But it was the Islamic religious and political leadership that harbored the greatest hatred against the Jews.

    When in 1948 the United Nations voted in favor of a partition plan to divide Palestine into separate Jewish and Arab states, Arab leaders rejected it.  And so, when the British finally departed from Palestine, leaders of the Jewish community declared the restoration of Israel as a sovereign state, thus fulfilling a dream two thousand years old.  Christians around the world realized that what they were witnessing in their lifetime was a fulfillment of Biblical prophecy.

    No sooner was the State of Israel founded, than Arab armies from Egypt, Transjordan, Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq invaded the infant state in the determination to crush it and drive the Jews into the sea. But another miracle took place, and Israel was able to defeat the Arab armies and add more territory to their small state.  Jordan held on to East Jerusalem and most of the West Bank, which was mainly populated by Arabs, and Egypt annexed the Gaza Strip.  

    The Arabs who fled Palestine during the war were settled in refugee camps awaiting some future event that would permit them to return to their homes.  The event they were told to wait for was the destruction of Israel in which the Jews would either be exterminated or forced out of the land to somewhere else.  And they led their children to believe that their lives could not be improved until Arabs were victorious over the Jews.

    Meanwhile, despite the Arab boycott and nonrecognition, the Jewish state grew in population and industry.  Several million Jews migrated to Israel, mainly from Arab countries where they were persecuted.  Also, when Russian Jews were permitted to leave the communist paradise, many of them headed to Israel.

    In the Six Day War in 1967, Israel again defeated the armies of Egypt, Syria and Jordan, reoccupied the Gaza Strip, and conquered the Sinai Peninsula, the Golan Heights, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem.  For the first time in 2000 years, the Jews had complete control of their ancient capital and the ancient provinces of Samaria and Judea. 

    In 1973, Egypt launched a surprise attack against Israel on Yom Kippur in an attempt to regain the Sinai.  Although Israel was able to fend off the attack, the war led to peace negotiations between Egypt’s Anwar Sadat and Israel’s Menachem Begin, and the return of the Sinai to Egypt.  

    Meanwhile, during all of those years, Israel was regularly attacked by Palestinian terrorists whose goal it was to destroy the Jewish state.  The chief organizer of this terrorism was none other than Yasser Arafat, who organized the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) with the help of the Soviet Union.  As of today, the goal of the PLO is still the destruction of Israel, and their chosen method of combat is terrorism.

    During all of this time, the movement to destroy Israel has been fueled by a force of hatred maintained at the highest level by unrelenting propaganda and incitement.  Just as  the previous attacks against Israel have failed, the present attack will also fail.  But the hatred will hardly go away.  The Arab Islamic leadership will sustain it because hatred and perpetual war have become their way of life.

    It is time for American leadership to realize that Israel must be permitted to do to Palestinian terrorists what the U.S. is now doing to their Taliban brothers in Afghanistan.  There can be no Palestinian autonomous entity as long as it harbors the kind of terrorists who are committing murder and mayhem against innocent Israeli men, women and children on buses, in restaurants, in shopping malls, and on the highways.  No nation should be expected to tolerate such a high level of bloody murder of its people.  And no nation can escape its duty to protect its citizens by the only means that works: a war to the finish against Palestinian terrorists.


PALESTINIAN JUSTICE: LYNCHING
By Samuel L. Blumenfeld
May 24, 2002
NewsWithViews.com

While Palestinians are calling for an investigation of the fictitious massacre in Jenin, no one will be investigating the wanton execution of three Palestinians in Hebron without hearings or trials for suspected collaboration with Israel.  That is known as lynching, defined in the dictionary as “murdering an accused person by mob action and without lawful trial.”  But that is routine Palestinian justice, and that is not the first time that such lynchings have taken place.

According to the Boston Globe (4/24/02) “The three Palestinian men were rousted from their beds yesterday morning, hands trussed behind their backs and gags shoved in their mouths.  Then they were shoved and yanked over to Salam Street, where they were shot dead as a mob of their compatriots cheered and jeered. … Even telling a Jew the name of the street on which you stand is a betrayal of the people, one of the masked gunmen told onlookers at the execution scene. … During the heavy fighting of the first three weeks of April, militias summarily executed dozens of suspected informants, some simply for having had business dealings with Israelis.”

The Palestinian Authority has done nothing to curb this form of mob justice.  It reminds us of what happened early in the intifada when two Israeli reservists happened to mistakenly drive into Palestinian territory and were brutally murdered by a frenzied mob.  That “incident” has been forgotten by the media and the UN.

Yet, the Palestinians are demanding that their gunmen holed up in the Church of the Nativity should be handed over to the Palestinian Authority for trial in Gaza, where no doubt they will be acquitted as patriots.  Israel is anxious to arrest about 30 of the gunmen, wanted for deadly attacks on Israelis, but apparently about 13 of them will be exiled to Italy.  And who knows what will happen to them once they get to Italy, that’s if Italy will take them.

We don’t expect the UN, or Europeans, or Palestinian sympathizers to be concerned with Palestinian justice as practiced against other Palestinians.  Their only concern is what Israel does in its own defense against the barbarism of their Arab neighbors.

During the standoff, three Armenian Orthodox priests managed to escape from the church with the help of Israeli troops when they hung a sign from a window away from the gunmen which read, “Please help us.”  After they escaped they reported that the militants smashed crucifixes, urinated on relics, and destroyed furniture and glass.  The priests themselves, dehydrated and starved, were treated in a rough, threatening manner by the gunmen.  But once the historic church is evacuated, we shall have a chance to see what actually took place inside.

It is becoming more and more obvious that the only way that Palestinians and Israelis can ever become reconciled is if a new leadership develops among the Palestinians.  The present leadership represents the self-destructive, barbaric policies of Yasser Arafat and his terrorist minions.  There can be no peace as long as Arafat remains the leader of the Palestinians.  Obviously, there are many rational Palestinians who would like to make peace with the Israelis, but they don’t dare say a word or make a move while the lynch mobs rule the territory.

We have been told over and over again by the Palestinians that there can be no peace as long as Israeli settlements remain in the West Bank and Gaza.  A million Arabs live in Israel, so why can’t 200,000 Jews live in the West Bank and Gaza?  Why must Arab Palestine be Judenrein?  The settlements were built on unoccupied land and did not displace any Arab towns or villages.  With Israel being as small as it is, the settlements are little more than suburbs of Jerusalem or Tel Aviv.  Besides, both Samaria and Judea are just as much part of the Promised Land as the rest of Israel.  Jews have as much right to live there as the Arabs.

But since Arafat has done everything in his power to whip up the most bitter and murderous hatred of Jews among Palestinians, the likelihood of peace in the near future seems quite remote.  Meanwhile, another suicide bomber has killed at least 15 young Israelis in a gaming hall and wounded about 60 others, and Prime Minister Sharon has cut short his visit to the U.S. and returned to Israel.  It is obvious that the military incursion in the West Bank did not completely wipe out the terrorist network.  Which means that Israel may have to reoccupy the entire West Bank in order to assure security for its own people.  The Palestinian Authority failed to become a viable, democratic government worthy of running a sovereign state.  There can be no statehood as long as its future leaders are terrorists.


HOW TO STOP SUICIDE BOMBERS
By Samuel L. Blumenfeld
May 26, 2002
NewsWithViews.com

One sure way to stop the suicide bombers in Israel is to hold the parents responsible for their child’s crime.  Today, Palestinian parents willingly and proudly send off their kids to become suicide bombers and commit mass murder inside Israel.  In exchange for sacrificing their child, they receive from Saddam Hussein or Saudi Arabia a cash payment of $35,000.

The Israeli Knesset should pass a law making it a capital crime to offer a child to become a sacrificial suicide bomber.  After all, such sacrifice is tantamount to murdering one’s own child.  The $35,000 the parents receive should be confiscated and their house appropriated or destroyed.  If the suicide bomber knew that he was also condemning his parents to death, he might not be so eager to carry out his mission.

The most recent attacks against civilian buses in Jerusalem packed with school children and commuters indicate that strong preventive measures are necessary to end these massacres.  It is doubtful that Palestinian parents, knowing that they will be held responsible for their child’s crime, will approve of having their child used as a suicide bomber.

At present the parents who abet and encourage the suicide bombings suffer no consequences for their actions.  They receive their $35,000 and can purchase new apartments or cars or whatever.  Since they so proudly proclaim their child’s crime of murdering Israelis, they should be made to pay the price of their child’s crime.

The Israelis should make an example of at least one such Palestinian family, by confiscating their reward, imprisoning them, trying them for the crime of contributing to the murder of their own child, and if found guilty, executing them.

Putting such parents on trial would show the world what kind of demented individuals these parents are.  It would reveal the depth of their hatred of Jews to the point that they are willing to turn their children into suicidal bombers.  This kind of demented hatred and demonic motivation would show the world what Israel is up against.  Just as the Germans under the Nazis became sadistic barbarians, likewise the Palestinians under Arafat have become equally barbaric, lacking the very basic principles of normal behavior that make civilization possible.  And they are doing all of this in the name of Allah! 

In a previous article we urged the Israeli government to create a new settlement for every attack by a suicide bomber.  Apparently, the government didn’t care for that idea.  What they are doing now is reoccupying territory once under Palestinian control.  But will that stop the suicide-bombers?

No.  But executing the parents will.


THE NAZI CONNECTION TO ISLAMIC TERRORISM
By Samuel Blumenfeld
April 15, 2004
NewsWithViews.com

Chuck Morse’s latest book, The Nazi Connection to Islamic Terrorism, Adolf Hitler and Haj Amin al-Husseini, provides the clearest, most incisive history of how Islamo-fascism and Jihad terrorism have become the dominant political philosophy in the Arab world. It is the untold story of how Nazism took root in the Islamic world through the untiring efforts of the Mufti of Jerusalem whose aim it was to destroy the Jews in Palestine. Morse writes:

The Nazi Holocaust appears to have kicked into high gear on November 25, 1941 during a Berlin meeting between the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini (1895-1974) and the Nazi Fuhrer of Germany, Adolf Hitler. At that well-documented meeting, Hitler promised al-Husseini, the Palestinian pan-Arab leader, that after securing a dominant military position in Europe, he would send the Wehrmacht, the Nazi war machine, on a blitzkrieg across the Caucasus and into the Arab world under the guise of liberating the Arabs from British occupation.

It should be noted that merely two months after the Hitler-Husseini meeting, the famous Wansee Conference took place in which the Nazis produced their plan to exterminate the Jews of Europe.

Although Husseini spent the war in Germany, he managed to flee the advancing Allied forces and made his way to Cairo. While the captured Nazi leaders were tried at Nuremberg, Husseini escaped judgment and became the major force in transferring Hitler’s program of genocide to the Arab world. During the war, he had recruited Bosnian Muslims to serve in Nazi-Muslim SS Hanshar brigades who slaughtered Jews and Christian Serbs in Nazi-occupied Yugoslavia. Memory of that slaughter was one of the reasons why the Serbs went after the Bosnian Muslims fifty years later.

After the war, Husseini established working links between Nazis and Arabs in the Muslim world. He also got rid of anyone who stood in his way. That is why moderate Arabs are so rare. Husseini killed most of them. He began his public career after World War I, when moderate Arab leader Emir Feisal signed an agreement with Chaim Weizmann recognizing the Balfour Declaration, which facilitated the development of a Jewish homeland in Palestine.

Feisal believed that a Jewish Palestine would help the newly liberated Arab world develop into modern states with prosperous economies. But Husseini refused to accept a Jewish Palestine, and he instigated pogroms to force the Jewish settlers out. The first pogrom took place in 1920. Morse writes:

In 1921, shortly after the launching of the 1920 pogrom and for reasons that will forever remain shrouded in mystery, Sir Herbert Samuel, a British Jew who had been appointed as British High Commissioner of the Palestine Mandate that same year, appointed al-Husseini as Grand Mufti of Jerusalem.

Despite vigorous opposition to this appointment, Husseini proceeded to instigate violence against the Jews in Palestine and spread hatred of Jews throughout the Arab world, brutally purging any Arab who opposed him. In 1937, Husseini met with Adolf Eichmann in Palestine and became a full-fledged paid Nazi agent. In 1941, Husseini moved on to Baghdad where he helped organize the pro-Nazi Rachid Ali officers’ coup against the British government in Iraq. When the coup failed, Husseini fled to Rome and then to the Third Reich.

One of the Iraqi coup plotters was General Tufah Khariallah, uncle, guardian, mentor and future father-in-law of Saddam Hussein. The Mufti was also a mentor to Yasir Arafat who is believed to be Husseini’s nephew.

Overlooked in the history books is the fact that about 100,000 European Muslims fought on the Nazi side in World War II. They included two Bosnian Muslim Waffen SS Divisions, an Albanian Waffen SS Division in Kosovo and Western Macedonia, the Waffengruppe der-SS Krim, formations consisting of Chechen Muslims from Chechnya, and other Muslim formations in Bosnia-Hercegovina. Bosnian Muslims who were in the Croatian pro-Nazi Ustasha were especially brutal toward the Christian Serbs. In 1943, a report on Ustasha activities stated:

The Ustasha terror began in Mostar. The Ustashi, the majority of them local Mohammedans, are arresting, looking, and shipping off Serbs or killing them and throwing the bodies in the Neretva River. They are throwing Serbs alive into chasms and are burning whole families in their homes. Outside of Zagreb the strongest Ustasha hotbed is Sarajevo. The Muslims committed unbelievable barbarities for they murdered women and children even with scissors.

After reading this book you will have no trouble understanding the origin of Islamo-fascism and Jihad terrorism. The author has packed the book with detailed documentation as well as photographs showing Husseini inspecting his Nazi-Muslim troops. Morse shows how Husseini’s legacy of hate and murder and his aim to destroy Israel have been carried forth by Arafat and his murderous Palestinian terrorists right to the present. The book is available through Amazon.com.


IN DEFENSE OF OUR PERSONNEL AT ABU GHRAIB
By Samuel Blumenfeld
April 27, 2004
NewsWithViews.com

The swift court martial of Specialist Jeremy Sivits, who pled guilty to the charges of abusing prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison, gave the distinct impression that what had taken place at the prison was unauthorized and illegal. But if that was the case, why did the guards take all those incriminating photos with their own faces in them?

According to the Boston Globe (5/20/04):

Asked by Judge James Pohl why the soldiers had abused the prisoners that night, Sivits said they had followed the directions of the military intelligence officers who oversaw the prison's interrogation functions. The accused soldier "said that they were told by intelligence to keep doing what they were doing to the inmates because it was working. They were talking," Sivits said, "I guess they mean they were talking when they were interrogated."

If the abuse of the prisoners had not been authorized or permitted, the guards would not have taken the pictures. Nor would Sivits have participated. He is the kind of soldier who would never, ever do anything that would lead to a court martial. He was the perfect obedient soldier. Nor would his fellow soldiers do anything to jeopardize their military careers. They were asked to do a distasteful job, and they did it.

And this is confirmed by a report in USA Today, 5/13/04: "Lawyers for two of the soldiers at the center of the Iraq prisoner-abuse scandal said Wednesday that military intelligence personnel ordered the photographs taken of the soldiers with bound and naked prisoners….Military intelligence soldiers worked behind the scenes to tell military police how to pose Iraqis in humiliating positions."

Why this treatment of the prisoners? Obviously they were not there for jaywalking. They were considered dangerous terrorists who had been psychologically conditioned by their Islamic trainers to kill Americans, foreigners, and Iraqis in the name of Allah. The latest victim of these robotic killers was the head of the Iraqi Governing Council, Izzadine Saleem, killed by a car bomb, which also killed six others, on 5/17/04.

The detainees at Abu Ghraib are for the most part from the same group of dedicated killers. The guards at the prison had been told by the intelligence people to soften them up for in-depth interrogation. That meant using psychological techniques to undo the conditioning the terrorists had undergone to become robot killers for Allah.

Behavioral psychologists have devised a whole battery of treatments that can make these killers maleable to interrogation: humiliation, being dominated by women, hooding, nudity, the threat of perverse sexual practices, sleep deprivation, loud noise, photo taking, etc. Since these detainees had not been captured as soldiers in uniform, they were not protected by the Geneva convention. They were robot killers, operating internationally under a different set of circumstances, and thus not protected by the Geneva convention.

In other words, the kind of "abuse" they were subjected to by American guards was limited to those forms that aided the interrogation process. We don't know if there was a manual that described how all of this was to be done. We are sure that Israelis has used a variety of techniques to extract information from captured terrorists. Do the Israelis have a manual prescribing these techniques?

Virtually every police department in the world uses a variety of techniques to extract information from terrorists. The guards at Abu Ghraib seem to have been following some basic rules. They were not a bunch of GIs inventing new techniques. But they seemed to enjoy what they were doing. After all, abusing a robot killer totally under your control is a lot better than being beheaded by one of them. And the abuse, for the most part, was pretty mild compared to what other governments do to their prisoners. But when a woman is shown holding a naked prisoner on a leash, as in one of the supposedly horrendous photos, we are all supposed to be shocked and horrified as was Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker. But the woman's role is vitally important in breaking down the mindset of the Islamic terrorist.

It's important to look at what was done at Abu Ghraib in the proper perspective. The detainees were being abused for a reason: to confuse the minds of these sadistic killers. These terrorists show no mercy or conscience when they kill innocent people. They have been turned into murderous robots by their trainers. Behavioral psychologists have spent years developing techniques that can turn these robots into normal human beings with consciences. The abuse is an important part of the process. Does it work? We don't know why the behavioral psychologists haven't stepped forward and explained to the public why they consider these techniques to be necessary.

The Israelis are probably the world's experts on trying to turn terrorist robots into normal human beings. But apparently it isn't easy, and we wonder what their success rate has been. That's what we should be thinking about instead of flaying ourselves with guilt and apologizing for what we are trying to do in bringing normalcy to Iraq.

Throughout history torture has been used by inquisitions of all sorts to extract information and confessions from people. But modern behavioral psychology has provided us with better, more humane tools to do the same thing. No more racks or physical torture, just some varieties of abuse that may turn a terrorist into a harmless human being.

None of the American guards at Abu Ghraib should be prosecuted for what they did. They were engaged in activities calculated to save American and Iraqi lives. Although Time magazine, to its indignant shock and horror, called the abuse "scandalous, abhorrent, sadistic," they and their fellow liberals have not provided any alternative, civilized means of defanging the terrorists, many of whom are still out there killing our soldiers and innocent Iraqis. For our loyal soldiers at the prison to be punished for doing a thankless job is a terrible show of ingratitude on the part of the American people. If anyone is owed an apology, it is they.


HOW BARNEY FRANK HELPED THE 9/11 HIJACKERS
By Samuel Blumenfeld
September 22, 2004
NewsWithViews.com

I have just finished reading the 500-page 9/11 Commission Report, and what becomes quite apparent is that the weakest link in our antiterrorism defense system prior to 9/11 was the Immigration and Naturalization Service. It was so weak that it became a revolving door for al Qaeda sleeper terrorists who were issued visas that permitted them to come and go as they pleased. And the one man responsible for creating this revolving door was Congressman Barney Frank of Massachusetts, whose 1989 Frank Amendment to INS procedures paved the way for the 19 hijackers to freely enter this country, take flying lessons, and quietly prepare for their deadly attack with no notice from our intelligence agencies.

Gerald Posner, in his highly informative book, Why America Slept, writes (p. 16):

From the 1983 bombing of the marine barracks in Lebanon that killed 241 soldiers to the 1985 hijackings of TWA Flight 847 and the cruise liner Achille Lauro, Middle Eastern terror was now on the White House's priority agenda. Some CIA officers complained to the president's national security team about their frustration with the FBI and warned that America was vulnerable to Islamic terrorists entering on legal visas and setting up sleeper cells. Reagan responded in September 1986 by forming an interagency task force, the Alien Border Control Committee (ABCC), whose purpose was to block entry of suspected terrorists and to deport militants who either had come into the country illegally or had overstayed their visas. The CIA and FBI joined the ABCC effort.

Six months after its formation, the ABCC had its first notable success. The CIA tipped off the FBI to a group of suspected Palestinian terrorists in Los Angeles. The Bureau arrested eight men. But instead of being lauded, the Bureau and the Agency came under harsh attack from civil liberties groups who argued that the ABCC should be banned from using any information the CIA gained from the government's routine processing of visa requests. Congressman Barney Frank, the Massachusetts Democrat who was a strong advocate of protecting civil liberties, led a successful effort to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act so that membership in a terrorist group was no longer sufficient to deny a visa. Under Frank's amendment, which seems unthinkable post-9/11, a visa could only be denied if the government could prove that the applicant had committed an act of terrorism. Rendered toothless by the Frank amendment, the Reagan administration had virtually no way to block entry visas even when there was information linking the individuals to terrorist groups.

And that is why the 9/11 hijackers were able to carry out their devastating attack without any notice by our intelligence agencies. The Clinton administration had also set up a "wall" between the CIA and the FBI so that sharing intelligence between them became illegal.

The 19 hijackers were made up of two working groups, the four pilots who would take over the cockpits and fly the planes into the buildings and the fourteen enforcers who would kill the airline pilots and control the passengers.

The hijacker pilots included:

Mohamed Atta, leader of the hijackers, who landed in Newark, New Jersey, from Prague on a visitor's visa issued in Berlin on June 3, 1999. He crashed American Airlines Flight 11 into the South Tower of the World Trade Center;

Ziad al-Jarrah, the hijacker pilot of United Airlines Flight 93, which crashed in Pennsylvania. He received his pilot's license in Hamburg, Germany, and entered the U.S. on June 27 at Newark;

Marwan al Shehhi, the hijacker pilot of United Airlines Flight 175 which crashed into the North Tower. He arrived in the U.S. at Newark on May 29, 2000 on a tourist visa issued in the United Arab Emirates and cleared customs in less than a half-hour;

and Hani Honjour, hijacker pilot of American Airlines Flight 77 which crashed into the Pentagon. He first entered the U.S. on a student visa in 1996, returned to Saudi Arabia, then traveled from the United Arab Emirates back to the U.S. in December 2000 on a student visa.

The fourteen enforcers had little trouble getting tourist visas to the U.S. Even though they knew no English, exhibited none of the behavior of middle-class tourists, these unmarried young men received their visas without a hitch. The well-oiled revolving door was working just fine.

The 9/11Commission Report states (p. 237):

The muscle hijackers began arriving in the United States in late April 2001. In most cases they traveled in pairs on tourist visas and entered the United States in Orlando or Miami, Florida; Washington D.C.; or New York. Those arriving in Florida were assisted by Atta and Shehhi, while Hazmi and Hanjour took care of the rest. By the end of June, 14 of the 15 muscle hijackers had crossed the Atlantic.

Thanks to Barney Frank, there was no way that the U.S. government could keep these sleeper members of al Qaeda out. Nor could they be tracked after arrival. They came with a lot of money, rented cars and apartments, took flying lessons, worked out at gyms, and took transcontinental flights to familiarize themselves with the interiors of the planes they would be hijacking and the routines of the pilots and cabin attendants.

Of course, 9/11 changed all that. The country had finally decided that the only way to fight terrorism was to find the terrorists and kill them before they could kill us. The result is that visas to the U.S. are no longer given to individuals suspected of being terrorists. But it took the lives of 3,000 innocent victims before the Frank Amendment could be abolished.


WHY JEWS SHOULD VOTE FOR BUSH
By Samuel Blumenfeld
October 30, 2004
NewsWithViews.com

If you are an American Jew and are inclined to vote for Senator Kerry, you will be doing what al-Qaida and all of Israel's enemies want you to do: get rid of George Bush.

While many Muslims voted for Bush in 2000, this year they are going to vote for Kerry. Why? Because Kerry is against the war in Iraq and may not "stay the course," as we know that Bush will.

Israel's enemies want Kerry to win, and that includes Yasser Arafat, plus the former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahatir Mohamad who said that "Jews rule the world by proxy." Iran, the new Socialist Spanish government, and the Vietnamese Reds want Kerry to win. Also, polls show that most Frenchmen and Germans want Kerry to win. The Communist Party USA also wants the Massachusetts senator to win.

Bush has turned out to be the best friend Israel has had in the White House for a very long time. Clinton was willing to pressure Israel into giving in to virtually all of Arafat's demands. But despite this, Arafat rejected Israel's concessions and launched the latest Intifada, which is now in its fourth year and has resulted in thousands of deaths.

After 9/11, it became obvious to President Bush that the war against terror had to include the terrorist regime of Arafat, whom he no longer considered to be a legitimate partner for peace. As a result, he has set aside decades of liberal policies supported by previous presidents, the pro-Arab State Department, the pro-Palestinian European Union, the United Nations and the Arab League. He has rejected his own father's view that the Jewish settlements were an obstacle to peace. In fact, the present President Bush recognizes Israel's right to retain some key West Bank settlements as part of any peace plan with the Palestinians.

The President has also said that he would recognize a Palestinian state only if it renounced terrorism, is democratic, and willing to live in peace with Israel. This is the best support that any American president has ever provided Israel.

And why is he doing this? Because as a student of the Bible, Bush is convinced that Israel is special nation in the international scheme of things and that America's relationship with Israel is providential. He clearly understands that the return of the Jews to the Holy Land and the creation of the Jewish state is one of the great miracles of the 20th century. Just as George Washington believed that the creation of the United States was providential, so there are millions of Christians in America who believe the same of the creation of the State of Israel in 1948.

The Democratic candidate, Senator Kerry, does not see history in the same way. He is politically motivated and wants to be president because he thinks he ought to be president. And when it comes to the problems of the Middle East we shall simply see a return to the failed policies of the pro-Arab State Department.

The invasion of Iraq got rid of a tyrant who was sending $25,000 to the parents of suicide bombers in Palestine. That was the same tyrant, Saddam Hussein, who lobbed Scud missiles into Israel during the first Gulf War. Israel-as well as America-is safer because we have gotten rid of Saddam Hussein. He had the power to arm al-Qaida with lethal weapons of mass destruction. And so it was imperative to destroy his regime. In fact, the destruction of Saddam's regime has caused Libya's leader, Col. Gadhafi, to give up his own weapons of mass destruction.

Thus, three of Israel's hardcore enemies, the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, Saddam's regime in Iraq, and Gadhafi's regime in Libya are no longer a threat to Israel or the United States. And all of this has been achieved in an incredibly short time. Meanwhile, in Iraq we see the true cruelty and barbarism of the insurgents. We must help the Iraqis establish a democratic government that can provide peace and security for themselves, and a friendly partner for peace in the Middle East.

Russia, South Korea, The Philippines, and Japan want Bush to win. It would be tragic if the Jews of America would vote against the embattled Israelis who want Bush to win. The people in Israel instinctively know that Bush is on their side and they need his steady, unwavering support in the next four years. Their message to the Jews of America is simple: please be on our side when you vote. Don't help our enemies win.


AN ALTERNATIVE TO "TORTURE"
By Samuel Blumenfeld
January 17, 2005
NewsWithViews.com

Much is being written and talked about these days of our alleged torturing of the terrorists in our custody, especially at the Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad. Some human-rights advocates have complained vociferously of our treatment of the Al-Qaida prisoners at Guantanamo. We've seen these TV images of orange-clad, shackled detainees shuffling to interrogations. But it is obvious that our military has a problem: how do we get information out of these terrorists who consider themselves martyrs for Allah, have nothing else to live for, and therefore cannot be persuaded to provide information that would help us in our struggle against them?

To an Islamic terrorist, martyrdom is their highest aspiration. That is their sole purpose for living. It is part and parcel of their adherence to a religion that calls for such self-sacrifice in the name of Allah. They are like living mummies, wrapped from head to foot, embalmed in the cloth of a religion that requires total submission to the will of Allah.

Of course, different Muslims may have different interpretations of Allah's will, but the terrorists consider it to be a holy call for human self-sacrifice. For their suicidal action that kills their enemies as well as themselves, they are rewarded in Paradise with a large number of Virgins recruited for their pleasure by Allah. Whose sisters are these virgins, and don't too have human rights? And once they are no longer virgins, what happens to them?

The only alternative treatment for these fanatical prisoners is to try to wean them away from their religion, in short, to convert them to Christianity. Is that against their human rights? We have provided every Muslim prisoner at Guantanamo with a copy of the Koran. Why give them the book that keeps them enslaved to Allah? How about also giving them a copy of the Christian Bible translated into Arabic? How about having them listen to lectures given by Muslim converts to Christianity? Would the human rights advocates consider that a form of cruel and unusual punishment?

When American prisoners were held by the communists, the latter tried to brainwash them into becoming communists. But their methods backfired. It simply made their prisoners more patriotic Americans, despite their real brutal and painful torture.

But, as Christians, we would be trying to liberate these Muslim prisoners from their enslavement by a malevolent religion that calls for their death as martyrs. I have no idea whether or not giving them a Bible to read would have much of an affect on these men, who are so completely committed to their religion. But it would be worth a try. Perhaps the religion of love might begin to separate them from their religion of death. All we would have to do is simply put doubt in their minds over the rightness of their religion.

Of course, they would be under great pressure from other prisoners not to read the Bible and refuse to attend lectures. Perhaps they have been so deeply brainwashed by Osama bin Laden, that conversion is an impossibility. That would teach us something about the fanatical psychology of these terrorists, and why they should be locked up for life. Should they be given their freedom while they are still wedded to their religion of death, they would no doubt seek a means of exercising their martyrdom by killing as many of us as they can.

Many Muslims have become Christians, and we should consult such persons who might help us design a program that would have an impact on these prisoners. What led them to convert to Christianity? How can we put doubt in the minds of Islamic true believers? Do they have an Achilles heel? Would they not rather live than die? How about showing them Mel Gibson's film, The Passion of the Christ?

So let us not think about torture, even the very benign kind used at Abu Ghraib, when we are unwilling to try something else. It makes no sense to give these prisoners copies of the Koran so that they can keep being the terrorists they've become. Let's take back the Korans and give them something else to read.


IS ARIEL SHARON THE CHARLES deGAULLE OF ISRAEL?
By Samuel Blumenfeld
July 17, 2005
NewsWithViews.com

Anyone who remembers the horrors that de Gaulle inflicted on French Algeria when he handed over that territory to the Algerian terrorists in 1962 will find remarkable similarities between what was done then by the French leader and what is being done now in Gaza by Sharon.

In the case of French Algeria, a million Europeans—Christians and Jews—were forced to abandon their farms, vineyards, businesses, schools, churches and synagogues and take to the boats for Metropolitan France. It was a surrender of Christian civilization to the Muslims and set the stage for the slow takeover of France itself by Islam.

De Gaulle had been brought to power in 1958 to defend French Algeria and its million of French citizens, which included many loyal Muslims. In Algiers he made a powerful speech in which he told these citizens, “Je vous ai compris,” “I have understood you.” And then he proceeded to betray them in a brutal and arrogant way, destroying the most patriotic men in his army and replacing them with traitors. Of course, he had the backing of the communists and the left. As for the French in Algeria, they were labeled “right wing extremists.”

The same situation now exists in Israel, where Sharon has had to rely on the support of the left to carry out his plan to evacuate the Jews from Gaza. He is willing to destroy their homes, farms, schools, and industries for the same reason that de Gaulle destroyed French Algeria: he didn’t think it was worth the effort to save it. The result has been an unhindered march of several million Muslims into Europe.

Thus de Gaulle destroyed the work of over a hundred years to make Algeria a part of the French Republic, and bring its people under the protection of an enlightened Christian civilization. France had invaded North Africa in the 1840s to put a stop to the piracy and kidnappings of the Barbary Arabs. And after that was done, Europeans from France, Italy, and Spain settled there and built a thriving economy. And when oil was discovered, it made French Algeria all the more valuable. But when Algerian terrorists launched their campaign of “national liberation,” they did it with the help of the Soviet Union and the entire communist world, including the French communist party. De Gaulle, whom we suspect was sympathetic to socialism, surrendered it all to the Reds.

Patriotic Frenchmen saw it all as a great betrayal. That is why there were attempts by former army officers to assassinate de Gaulle. But they never succeeded because the majority of the French people either approved of the betrayal or simply shut their mouths and accepted what had become inevitable.

In Israel, polls are taken almost daily to show that the majority of Israelis approve of Sharon’s plan to destroy the Jewish settlements in Gaza. But there is growing resistance to the plan, even among army men, because it looks like an abject surrender to Arab terrorists without any gain or benefit to Israel’s security. In fact, some Israelis see it as the beginning of the dismantling of the Jewish state itself, which seems to have lost its Zionist zeal, its Biblical mission.

Meanwhile, de Gaulle’s legacy has become the Islamization of France. Brigitte Bardot, the famous French film star, wrote a book in 2002, “A Scream in the Silence,” about the Muslim takeover of France. She wrote: “I am against the Islamization of France….For centuries our forefathers, the ancients, our grandfathers, our fathers gave their lives to chase all successive invaders from France.” But today the French government acquiesces to its growing Islamic population, tolerating growing anti-Semitism in order not to offend its Muslim citizens. The will to survive as Christian France no longer exists.

The Jewish settlers in Gaza represent a Jewish will not only to survive, but to overcome tremendous obstacles to their success. To destroy them is to replace the will to survive with the will to surrender. The great tragedy of their destruction is just beginning, yet some of the Jewish farmers in Gaza are already planting the seeds for their next harvest, oblivious to what Sharon intends to do to them.

The horrible memories of what de Gaulle did to French Algeria are virtually unknown to the people of Israel. Thus, its hard lessons have not been learned. But as the philosopher Santayana once remarked, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”


WHY THE LEADERS OF HAMAS ARE "DEMOCRATS"
By Samuel Blumenfeld
February 26, 2006
NewsWithViews.com

When Robert Welch coined the phrase, “This is a republic, not a democracy, let’s keep it that way,” he made an important contribution to American political debate and understanding.

The Founding Fathers loathed democracy. The idea of unfettered majority vote was anathema to them. And that is why they constructed a Constitution that broke up government power into three separate branches—Executive, Legislative, and Judicial—and put strong restrictions on what the majority could do to the minority, and what the minority could do to the majority. The result was a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy.

In a pure democracy, the majority has the power to destroy a minority. That’s what happened in Germany in 1933 when Hitler’s National Socialist Party was voted in by the majority. Hitler then consolidated his power into the Nazi dictatorship with its deranged racism and plans for world domination. All of this was stated by Hitler in his own book, Mein Kampf, which any German could have read. At first German Jews assumed that Hitler would not last long. The Nazi movement was so much against basic German traditions of cultural and religious tolerance. But they were wrong.

And now among Palestinians, sixty years after Hitler, we have the same situation. A political party, Hamas, determined to wipe Israel off the map, has acquired political power through the democratic vote. This is pure democracy, unfettered by any constitutional limitations. Hamas has stated its plans in its Covenant of 1988: the total destruction of Israel.

It is uncanny how similar are the events that recently took place among the Palestinians and what happened in Germany in 1933. The Germans had Mein Kampf, and the Palestinians have the Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement, popularly known as Hamas. In the case of Germany, it led to a world war and total ruin. What it will lead to in the case of Hamas is still an open question. But if they do not renounce their plans, it could lead to the total ruin of the Palestinians.

The Covenant states:

Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.

Our struggle against the Jews is very great and very serious…. The Movement is but one squadron that should be supported by more and more squadrons from this vast Arab and Islamic world, until the enemy is vanquished and Allah’s victory is realized…. The Movement’s programme is Islam…and the Koran is its constitution. Its extent in place is anywhere that there are Muslims who embrace Islam as their way of life everywhere in the globe.

[Hamas] is one of the links in the chain of the struggle against the Zionist invaders. It goes back to 1939, to the emergence of the martyr Izz al-Din al Kissam and his brethren the fighters, members of Muslim Brotherhood….[T]he Islamic Resistance Movement aspires to the realisation of Allah’s promise, no matter how long that should take….

The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Muslim generations until Judgment Day…. Nationalism, from the point of view of the Islamic Resistance Movement, is part of the religious creed…. Since this is the case, liberation of Palestine is then an individual duty for every Muslim wherever he may be.

Hamas sees its movement as part of the Muslim Brotherhood engaged in the centuries-long struggle against the Christian Crusades and the later ideological invasions by missionaries and secular orientalists who affected Arab education. The Covenant states:

This, in its turn, paved the way for the imperialistic invasion that made [Gen.] Allenby declare on entering Jerusalem: “Only now have the Crusades ended.” General Guru stood at Salah el-Din’s grave and said: “We have returned, O Salah el-Din.”

To Hamas the liberation of Palestine is part of the greater struggle of Islam against the Christian West, and particularly against Western ideology. “Jihad is its path and death for the sake of Allah is the loftiest of its wishes.” For this reason Hamas seeks a revitalization of pure Islamic education for Muslim men and women who will be willing to die for the cause. The Covenant states:

Side by side with this, a comprehensive study of the enemy, his human and financial capabilities, learning about his points of weakness and strength, and getting to know the forces supporting and helping him, should also be included.

Thus, it was possible for the 9/11 hijackers to live in America and enjoy its freedoms without being converted or seduced from Islam. Their hatred of the infidel provided the motivation to kill more Americans in a few hours than would have otherwise been possible. The Covenant states further:

[Hamas] believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Muslim generations until Judgment Day…. This Waqf remains as long as earth and heaven remain. Any procedure in contradiction to Islamic Sharia, where Palestine is concerned, is null and void.

There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors….

Since this is the case, liberation of Palestine is then an individual duty for every Muslim wherever he may be…. This should be realized by every Muslim.

In other words, genocide is the religious duty of every Muslim.

It is important that basic changes be made in the school curriculum, to cleanse it of the traces of ideological invasion that affected it as a result of the orientalists and missionaries who infiltrated the region following the defeat of the Crusaders at the hands of Salah el-Din (Saladin)…. It is necessary to instill in the minds of the Muslim generations that the Palestinian problem is a religious problem, and should be dealt with on this basis.

Hamas, like Hitler, also believes that Jews are engaged in a worldwide conspiracy to control the world:

They were behind the French Revolution, the Communist Revolution and most of the revolutions we heard and hear about, here and there. With their money they formed secret societies, such as Freemasons, Rotary Clubs, the Lions and others in different part of the world for the purpose of sabotaging societies and achieving Zionist interests….

They obtained the Balfour Declaration, formed the League of Nations through which they could rule the world. They were behind World War II, through which they made huge financial gains by trading in armaments, and paved the way for the establishment of their state. It was they who instigated the replacement of the League of Nations with the United Nations and the Security Council to enable them to rule the world through them. There is no war going on anywhere, without having their finger in it….

After Palestine, the Zionists aspire to expand from the Nile to the Euphrates…. Their plan is embodied in the “Protocol of the Elders of Zion,” and their present conduct is the best proof of what we are saying…. The present Zionist onslaught has also been preceded by Crusading raids from the West and other Tatar raids from the East.

Obviously, Hamas has a view of history that has become part of the fantasy world Palestinians believe in. Also, the Waqf concept must serve as a warning to Europe, which is in the process of being invaded and taken over by Muslims. The Covenant states that when the leaders of the Islamic armies conquered Syria and Iraq, “it was decided that the land should be left with its owners who would benefit from its fruits. As for the real ownership of the land and the land itself, it should be consecrated for Muslim generations till Judgment Day.”

In twenty to fifty years, Western Europe, with its declining native populations, may be dominated by Muslims who will claim it as a Waqf.

The Covenant makes it plain that Hamas cannot compromise on its basic program without destroying its reason for being. And if Hamas links up with the Iranians who share the same views, we shall be facing a new World War against Islamic Jihad—armed with nuclear weapons.


THE LESSONS OF UNITED 93
By Samuel Blumenfeld
May 14, 2006
NewsWithViews.com

I have just seen United 93, and it is obvious that many Americans have not only forgotten what happened on 9/11 but don’t want to be reminded of it. The film is a powerful and disturbing experience. But what rivets the audience is the realization that this is a true story, not a work of fiction, not make-believe. It happened, and there is no reason to believe that it can’t happen again.

Fanatical Islam is on the march and it aims to destroy everyone and everything that does not bow down and submit to Allah, the pagan Muslim deity. Considering what happens every day in Iraq, where Islamic fanatics kill other Muslims, who can doubt that Islam is a satanic religion that celebrates murder and mayhem. If we are to restore order to the world, we shall have to defeat this Islamic fanaticism.

But how can it be defeated? Even Democrats now realize that pulling out of Iraq before peace and order are established in that blighted country would be catastrophic not only for Iraqis but also for the West. Europeans already cower in fear of the large Muslim immigrant population that has settled among them. Thus, demographically, Europe is doomed to be dominated by Islam in thirty to fifty years.

And even some American publications have been afraid to print the Danish cartoons for fear of incurring Islamic wrath. These are the same publications that think nothing of revealing the secret methods our government is using to capture and interrogate Islamic fanatics and disrupting their plans.

But simply because the United States has not suffered any major Islamic attack on our shores since 9/11, too many Americans have become complacent about the continued threat. Bush is criticized for the manner in which the Iraq war has been conducted. But after our stunning success in Afghanistan and the initial invasion of Iraq, who could have predicted the ferocity and barbarism of the insurgency in which restaurants, markets, mosques, police stations are bombed every day. And for what purpose? To create the kind of chaos that would discourage us and cause a premature departure of coalition forces from Iraq.

What now seems quite imperative is that we must indeed stay the course. With the Iranian president Ahmadinejad’s threats to destroy Israel, we must remain in the Middle East to counter that madman’s ambitions. There are critics who like to claim that Israel’s interests formulate American foreign policy. But what would the world be like if we stood by and let Israel be destroyed and were then faced by an unstoppable Islamic force, delirious with triumph and armed with nuclear weapons aimed against us? Does anyone believe that these suicidal fanatics would not use these weapons if they had them?

The lesson of United 93 is a reminder of what was done to America on one day in which 3,000 innocent American lives were obliterated. The film bluntly reveals the confusion that reigned among our government officials as they witnessed in total disbelief what was happening before their very eyes. Disbelief is what made America so vulnerable. In fact, the terrorists were able to bring to a halt America’s entire aviation transport system. Nobody had told American officialdom what Islamic fanatics were capable of doing. So we learned the hard way at the cost of 3,000 lives.

We are told that the vast majority of Americans are dissatisfied with the way the President is conducting the war. The Democrats, so far, have not offered any alternative strategy. Some of them say that we must set a date certain for our departure, no matter the situation on the ground. That would definitely elate the spirits of the terrorists. They would like nothing better than to know when the Americans would give up the struggle and get out.

United 93 demonstrated what ordinary Americans are capable of doing when faced with terror. They decided to fight back even though they lost the battle. We honor their bravery, and the least we the living can do is make sure that no other Americans are ever put in the position the passengers on United 93 were put in.

Which makes us wonder why The New York Times and Washington Post decided to reveal some of the secret methods our government is using to counter terrorist activities. Do we honor those who died on 9/11 by not punishing these traitors?

On September 11th, there were Americans who had to decide whether to jump from the towers in Manhattan or burn to death, or whether to try to subdue the terrorists on United 93 or let them crash the plane into the U.S. Capitol. These are the kinds of decisions Americans should not be forced to make. But make them they did.

At the end of the movie, the audience filed out of the theater in stunned silence. There was nothing to be said, but everything to be felt.


The Original American Foreign Policy
by Ron Paul

"It is our true policy to steer clear of entangling alliances with any portion of the foreign world." --  George Washington

I have written before about the critical need for Congress to reassert its authority over foreign policy, and for the American people to recognize that the Constitution makes no distinction between domestic and foreign matters. Policy is policy, and it must be made by the legislature and not the executive.

But what policy is best? How should we deal with the rest of the world in a way that best advances proper national interests, while not threatening our freedoms at home?

I believe our founding fathers had it right when they argued for peace and commerce between nations, and against entangling political and military alliances. In other words, noninterventionism.

Noninterventionism is not isolationism. Nonintervention simply means America does not interfere militarily, financially, or covertly in the internal affairs of other nations. It does not mean that we isolate ourselves; on the contrary, our founders advocated open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations.

Thomas Jefferson summed up the noninterventionist foreign policy position perfectly in his 1801 inaugural address: "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations — entangling alliances with none." Washington similarly urged that we must, "Act for ourselves and not for others," by forming an "American character wholly free of foreign attachments."

Yet how many times have we all heard these wise words without taking them to heart? How many claim to admire Jefferson and Washington, but conveniently ignore both when it comes to American foreign policy? Since so many apparently now believe Washington and Jefferson were wrong on the critical matter of foreign policy, they should at least have the intellectual honesty to admit it.

Of course we frequently hear the offensive cliché that, "times have changed," and thus we cannot follow quaint admonitions from the 1700s. The obvious question, then, is what other principles from our founding era should we discard for convenience? Should we give up the First amendment because times have changed and free speech causes too much offense in our modern society? Should we give up the Second amendment, and trust that today's government is benign and not to be feared by its citizens? How about the rest of the Bill of Rights?

It's hypocritical and childish to dismiss certain founding principles simply because a convenient rationale is needed to justify interventionist policies today. The principles enshrined in the Constitution do not change. If anything, today's more complex world cries out for the moral clarity provided by a noninterventionist foreign policy.

It is time for Americans to rethink the interventionist foreign policy that is accepted without question in Washington. It is time to understand the obvious harm that results from our being dragged time and time again into intractable and endless Middle East conflicts, whether in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, or Palestine. It is definitely time to ask ourselves whether further American lives and tax dollars should be lost trying to remake the Middle East in our image.


A Foreign Policy for Peace, Prosperity, and Liberty
Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives
September 5, 2002

Introduction

Mr. Speaker:

Thomas Jefferson spoke for the founders and all our early presidents when he stated:  "peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none..."  which is, "one of the essential principles of our government". The question is: Whatever happened to this principle and should it be restored?

We find the 20th Century was wracked with war, peace was turned asunder, and our liberties were steadily eroded. Foreign alliances and meddling in the internal affairs of other nations became commonplace. On many occasions, involvement in military action occurred through UN resolutions or a presidential executive order, despite the fact that the war power was explicitly placed in the hands of Congress.

Since World War II, nearly 100,000 deaths and over a quarter million wounded (not counting the many thousands that have been affected by Agent Orange and the Persian Gulf War Syndrome) have all occurred without a declaration of war and without a clear-cut victory. The entire 20th century was indeed costly, with over 600,000 killed in battle and an additional million wounded.

If liberty had been truly enhanced during that time, less could be said about the imperfections of the policy. The evidence, however, is clear that we as a people are less free, and the prosperity we still enjoy may be more illusionary than many realize. The innocent victims who have suffered at the hands of our militarism abroad are rarely considered by our government. Yet they may well be a major factor in the hatred now being directed toward America. It is not currently popular to question corporate and banking influence over a foreign policy that replaced the wisdom of Washington and Jefferson. Questioning foreign government influence on our policies, although known about for years, is not acceptable in the politically correct environment in which we live.

There's little doubt that our role in the world dramatically changed in the 20th century, inexorably evolving from that of strict non-interventionism to that of sole superpower, with the assumption that we were destined to be the world policeman. By the end of the 20th century, in fact, this occurred. We have totally forgotten that for well over a hundred years we followed the advice of the founders by meticulously avoiding overseas conflicts. Instead we now find ourselves in charge of an American hegemony spread to the four corners of the earth.

Now we have entered the 21st century, and there is not a country in the world that does not either depend on the U.S. for protection, or fear her wrath if they refuse to do her bidding. As the 20th century progressed, American taxpayers were required to finance, with great sacrifices to their pocketbooks and their liberty, the buying of loyalty through foreign aid and intimidation of those countries that did not cooperate.

The question remains, however: Has this change been beneficial to freedom and prosperity here at home, and has it promoted peace and trade throughout the world? Those who justify our interventionist policies abroad argue that the violation of the rule of law is not a problem, considering the benefits we receive for maintaining the American empire. But has this really taken into consideration the cost in lives lost, the damage to long-term prosperity, as well as the dollar cost and freedoms we have lost? And what about the future? Has this policy of foreign intervention set the stage for radically changing America- and the world- in ways not yet seen? Were the founders completely off track because they lived in different times, or was the foreign policy they advised based on an essential principle of lasting value? Choosing the wrong answer to this question could very well be deadly to the grand experiment in liberty begun in 1776.

The Slippery Road to World Policeman

The transition from non-interventionism to our current role as world arbiter in all conflicts was insidious and fortuitous. In the early part of the 20th century, the collapse of the British Empire left a vacuum, which was steadily filled by a US presence. In the latter part of the century, the results of World War II and the collapse of the Soviet system propelled us into our current role. Throughout most of the 20th century, it was our competition with the Soviets that prompted our ever-expanded presence around the world. We are where we are today almost by default. But does that justify interventionism or prove it is in our best interest?

Disregarding for the moment the moral and constitutional arguments against foreign intervention, a strong case can be made against it for other reasons. It is clear that one intervention begets another. The first problem is rarely solved, and new ones are created. Indeed, in foreign affairs a slippery slope exists. In recent years, we too often slipped into war through the back door, with the purpose rarely defined or understood and the need for victory ignored.

A restrained effort of intervention frequently explodes into something that we did not foresee. Policies end up doing the opposite of their intended purpose- with unintended consequences. The result is that the action taken turns out to actually be detrimental to our national security interests. Yet no effort is made to challenge the fundamental principle behind our foreign policy. It is this failure to adhere to a set of principles that has allowed us to slip into this role, and if unchallenged, could well undo the liberties we all cherish.

Throughout history, there has always been a great temptation for rulers to spread their influence and pursue empire over liberty. Few resist this temptation to power. There always seems to be a natural inclination to yield to this historic human passion. Could it be that progress and civilization and promoting freedom require ignoring this impulse to control others, as the founders of this great nation advised?

Historically, the driving force behind world domination is usually an effort to control wealth. The Europeans were searching for gold when they came to the Americas. Now it's our turn to seek control over the black gold which drives much of what we do today in foreign affairs. Competing with the Soviet Union prompted our involvement in areas of the world where the struggle for the balance of power was the sole motivating force.

The foreign policy of the 20th century replaced the policy endorsed by all the early presidents. This permitted our steadily growing involvement overseas in an effort to control the world's commercial interests, with a special emphasis on oil.

Our influence in the Middle East evolved out of concern for the newly created state of Israel in 1947, and our desire to secure control over the flow of oil in that region. Israel's needs and Arab oil have influenced our foreign policy for more than a half a century.

In the 1950s, the CIA installed the Shah in Iran. It was not until the hostage crisis of the late 1970s that the unintended consequences of this became apparent. This generated Iranian hatred of America and led to the takeover by the reactionary Khoumini and the Islamic fundamentalists. It caused greater regional instability than we anticipated. Our meddling in the internal affairs of Iran was of no benefit to us and set the stage for our failed policy in dealing with Iraq.

We allied ourselves in the 1980s with Iraq in its war with Iran, and assisted Saddam Hussein in his rise to power. As recent reports reconfirm, we did nothing to stop Hussein's development of chemical and biological weapons and at least indirectly assisted in their development. Now, as a consequence of that needless intervention, we're planning a risky war to remove him from power. And as usual, the probable result of such an effort will be something our government does not anticipate- like a takeover by someone much worse. As bad as Hussein is, he's an enemy of the Al Qaeda, and someone new may well be a close ally of the Islamic radicals.

Although our puppet dictatorship in Saudi Arabia has lasted for many decades, it's becoming shakier every day. The Saudi people are not exactly friendly toward us, and our military presence on their holy soil is greatly resented. This contributes to the radical fundamentalist hatred directed toward us. Another unfavorable consequence to America, such as a regime change not to our liking, could soon occur in Saudi Arabia. It is not merely a coincidence that 15 of the 9/11 terrorists are Saudis.

The Persian Gulf War, fought without a declaration of war, is in reality still going on. It looks now like 9/11 may well have been a battle in that war, perpetrated by fanatical guerillas. It indicates how seriously flawed our foreign policy is. In the 1980s, we got involved in the Soviet/Afghan war and actually sided with the forces of Osama bin Laden, helping him gain power. This obviously was an alliance of no benefit to the United States, and it has now come back to haunt us. Our policy for years was to encourage Saudi Arabia to oppose communism by financing and promoting Islamic fundamentalism. Surely the shortcomings of that policy are now evident to everyone.

Clinton's bombing of Sudan and Afghanistan on the eve of his indictment over Monica Lewinsky shattered a Taliban plan to expel Osama bin Laden from Afghanistan. Clinton's bombing of Baghdad on the eve of his impeachment hardly won any converts to our cause or reassured Muslim people in the Middle East of a balanced American policy.

The continued bombing of Iraq over these past 12 years, along with the deadly sanctions resulting in hundreds of thousands of needless Iraqi civilian deaths, has not been beneficial to our security. And it has been used as one of the excuses for recruiting fanatics ready to sacrifice their lives in demonstrating their hatred toward us.

Essentially all Muslims see our policy in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as being openly favorable toward Israel and in opposition to the Palestinians. It is for this reason they hold us responsible for Palestinian deaths, since all the Israeli weapons are from the United States. Since the Palestinians don't even have an army and must live in refugee camps, one should understand why the animosity builds, even if our pro-Israeli position can be explained.

There is no end in sight. Since 9/11, our involvement in the Middle East and Saudi Arabia has grown significantly. Though we can badger those countries- whose leaders depend upon us to keep them in power- to stay loyal to the United States, the common people of the region become more alienated. Our cozy relationship with the Russians may not be as long-lasting as our current administration hopes, considering the $40 billion trade deal recently made between Russia and Saddam Hussein. It's more than a bit ironic that we find the Russians now promoting free trade as a solution to a difficult situation while we're promoting war.

This continuous escalation of our involvement overseas has been widespread. We've been in Korea for more than 50 years. We have promised to never back away from the China-Taiwan conflict over territorial disputes. Fifty-seven years after World War II, we still find our military spread throughout Europe and Asia.

And now, the debate rages over whether our national security requires that we, for the first time, escalate this policy of intervention to include "anticipatory self-defense and preemptive war."  If our interventions of the 20th century led to needless deaths, unwinnable wars, and continuous unintended consequences, imagine what this new doctrine is about to unleash on the world.

Our policy has prompted us to announce that our CIA will assassinate Saddam Hussein whenever it gets the chance and that the government of Iraq is to be replaced. Evidence now has surfaced that the United Nations inspection teams in the 1990s definitely included American CIA agents who were collecting information on how to undermine the Iraqi government and continue with the routine bombing missions. Why should there be a question of why Saddam Hussein might not readily accept UN inspectors without some type of assurances? Does anybody doubt that control of Iraqi oil supplies, second only to Saudi Arabia, is the reason U.S. policy is belligerent toward Saddam Hussein? If our goal is honestly to remove dictators around the world, then this is the beginning of an endless task.

In the transition from the original American foreign policy of peace, trade, and neutrality to that of world policeman, we have sacrificed our sovereignty to world government organizations, such as the UN, the IMF, the World Bank, and the WTO. To further confuse and undermine our position, we currently have embarked on a policy of unilateralism within these world organizations. This means we accept the principle of globalized government when it pleases us, but when it doesn't, we ignore it for the sake of our own interests.

Acting in our own interest is to be applauded, but what we're getting is not a good alternative to a one-world government. We don't get our sovereignty back, yet we continue to subject ourselves to a great potential financial burden and loss of liberty as we shift from a national government, with constitutional protection of our rights, to an international government, where our citizens' rights are threatened by treaties we haven't ratified, like the Kyoto and International Criminal Court treaties. We cannot depend on controlling the world government at some later date, even if we seem to be able to do that now.

The unilateralist approach of dominating world leaders and arbitrarily ignoring certain mandates- something we can do with impunity because of our intimidating power- serves only to further undermine our prestige and acceptability throughout the world. And this includes the Muslim countries as well as our European friends. This merely sets the stage for both our enemies and current friends to act in concert against our interests when the time comes. This is especially true if we become financially strapped and our dollar is sharply weakened and we are in a much more vulnerable bargaining position.

Unilateralism within a globalist approach to government is the worst of all choices. It ignores national sovereignty, dignifies one-world government, and places us in the position of demanding dictatorial powers over the world community. Demanding the right to set all policy and exclude ourselves from jurisdictional restraints sows the seeds of future discontent and hostility.

The downside is we get all the bills, risk the lives of our people without cause, and make ourselves the target for every event that goes badly. We get blamed for the unintended, unforeseen consequences and become the target of terrorists that evolve from the radicalized fringes.

Long-term, foreign interventionism does not serve our interests. Tinkering on the edges of our current policy will not help. An announced policy of support for globalist government, assuming the financial and military role of world policeman, maintaining an American world empire, while flaunting unilateralism, is a recipe for disaster. US unilateralism is a far cry from the non-intervention that the founders advised.

The Principle Behind Foreign Policy

The term "foreign policy" does not exist in the Constitution. All members of the federal government have sworn to uphold the Constitution, and should do only those things that are clearly authorized. Careful reading of the Constitution reveals Congress has a lot more responsibility than the President in dealing with foreign affairs. The President is the Commander-in-Chief, but can't declare war or finance military action without explicit congressional approval. A good starting point would be for Congress to assume the responsibility given it and to make sure the executive branch does not usurp any authority explicitly granted to Congress.

A proper foreign policy of non-intervention is built on friendship with other nations, free trade, and open travel, maximizing the exchanges of goods and services and ideas. Nations that trade with each other are definitely less likely to fight against each other. Unnecessary bellicosity and jingoism is detrimental to peace and prosperity, and incites unnecessary confrontation. And yet, today, that's about all we hear coming from the politicians and the media pundits who are so anxious for this war against Iraq.

We should avoid entangling alliances and stop meddling in the internal affairs of other nations- no matter how many special interests demand otherwise. The entangling alliances that we should avoid include the complex alliances in the UN, the IMF, the World Bank, and the WTO. One-world government goals are anathema to non-intervention and free trade. The temptation to settle disputes and install better governments abroad is fraught with great danger and many uncertainties.

Protecting our national sovereignty and guaranteeing constitutional protection of our citizens' rights are crucial. Respecting the sovereignty of other nations, even when we're in disagreement with some of their policies, is also necessary. Changing others then becomes a job of persuasion and example- not force and intimidation- just as it is in trying to improve personal moral behavior of our fellow citizens here at home.

Defending our country from outside attack is legitimate and is of the highest priority. Protecting individual liberty should be our goal. This does not mean, however, that our troops should follow our citizens or their investments throughout the world. While foreign visitors should be welcomed, no tax-supported services should be provided. Citizenship should be given with caution, and not automatically by merely stepping over a national boundary for the purpose of giving birth.

A successful and prosperous society comes from such policies and is impossible without a sound free-market economy, one not controlled by a central bank. Avoiding trade wars, devaluations, inflations, deflations, and disruption of free trade with protectionist legislation is impossible under a system of international trade dependent on fluctuating fiat currencies controlled by world central banks and influenced by powerful financial interests. Instability in trade is one of the prime causes of creating conditions that lead to war.

The basic moral principle underpinning a non-interventionist foreign policy is that of rejecting the initiation of force against others. It is based on non-violence and friendship unless attacked, self-determination, and self-defense while avoiding confrontation, even when we disagree with the way other countries run their affairs. It simply means that we should mind our own business and not be influenced by special interests that have an ax to grind or benefits to gain by controlling our foreign policy. Manipulating our country into conflicts that are none of our business and unrelated to national security provides no benefits to us, while exposing us to great risks financially and militarily.

What Would a Foreign Policy For Peace Look Like?

Our troops would be brought home, systematically but soon. Being in Europe and Japan for over 50 years is long enough. The failure in Vietnam resulted in no occupation and a more westernized country now doing business with the United States. There's no evidence that the military approach in Vietnam was superior to that of trade and friendship. The lack of trade and the imposition of sanctions have not served us well in Cuba or in the Middle East. The mission for our Coast Guard would change if our foreign policy became non-interventionist. They, too, would come home, protect our coast, and stop being the enforcers of bureaucratic laws that either should not exist or should be a state function.

All foreign aid would be discontinued. Most evidence shows that this money rarely helps the poor, but instead solidifies power in the hands of dictators. There's no moral argument that can justify taxing poor people in this country to help rich people in poor countries. Much of the foreign aid, when spent, is channeled back to weapons manufacturers and other special interests in the United States who are the strong promoters of these foreign-aid expenditures. Yet it's all done in the name of humanitarian causes.

A foreign policy of freedom and peace would prompt us to give ample notice before permanently withdrawing from international organizations that have entangled us for over a half a century. US membership in world government was hardly what the founders envisioned when writing the Constitution. The principle of Marque and Reprisal would be revived and specific problems such as terrorist threats would be dealt with on a contract basis incorporating private resources to more accurately target our enemies and reduce the chances of needless and endless war. This would help prevent a continual expansion of conflicts into areas not relating to any immediate threat. By narrowing the target, there's less opportunity for special interests to manipulate our foreign policy to serve the financial needs of the oil and military-weapon industries.

The Logan Act would be repealed, thus allowing maximum freedom of our citizens to volunteer to support their war of choice. This would help diminish the enthusiasm for wars the proponents have used to justify our world policies and diminish the perceived need for a military draft.

If we followed a constitutional policy of non-intervention, we would never have to entertain the aggressive notion of preemptive war based on speculation of what a country might do at some future date. Political pressure by other countries to alter our foreign policy for their benefit would never be a consideration. Commercial interests and our citizens investing overseas could not expect our armies to follow them and protect their profits. A non-interventionist foreign policy would not condone subsidies to our corporations through programs like the Export/Import Bank and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation. These programs guarantee against losses, while the risk takers want our military to protect their investments from political threats. This current flawed policy removes the tough decisions of when to invest in foreign countries and diminishes the pressure on those particular countries to clean up their political acts in order to entice foreign capital to move into their country. Today's foreign policy encourages bad investments. Ironically this is all done in the name of free trade and capitalism, but it does more to export jobs and businesses than promote free trade. And yet when it fails, capitalism and freedom are blamed.

A non-interventionist foreign policy would go a long way toward preventing 9/11 type attacks. The Department of Homeland Security would be unnecessary, and the military, along with less bureaucracy in our intelligence-gathering agencies, could instead provide the security the new department is supposed to provide. A renewed respect for gun ownership and responsibility for defending one's property would provide additional protection against potential terrorists.

Conclusion

There are many reasons why a policy of peace is superior to a policy of war. The principle that we do not have the moral authority to forcibly change governments in foreign lands just because we don't approve of their shortcomings should be our strongest argument- but rarely today is a moral argument in politics worth much.

The practical argument against intervention, because of its record of failure, should certainly prompt all thoughtful people to reconsider what we have been doing for the past many decades.

We should all be aware that war is a failure of relationship between foreign powers. Since this is such a serious matter, our American tradition as established by the founders made certain that the executive is subservient to the more democratically responsive legislative branch on the issue of war. Therefore, no war is ever to be the prerogative of a president through his unconstitutional use of executive orders, nor should it ever be something where the legal authority comes from an international body such as NATO or the United Nations. Up until 50 years ago, this had been the American tradition.

Non-intervention prevents the unexpected and unintended consequences that inevitably result from well-intended meddling in the affairs of others.

Countries like Switzerland and Sweden who promote neutrality and non-intervention have benefited for the most part by remaining secure and free of war over the centuries. Non-intervention consumes a lot less of the nation's wealth- and with less wars, a higher standard of living for all citizens results. But this, of course, is not attractive to the military-industrial complex, which enjoys a higher standard of living at the expense of the taxpayer when a policy of intervention and constant war preparation is carried out.

Wisdom, morality, and the Constitution are very unlikely to invade the minds of the policy makers that control our foreign affairs. We have institutionalized foreign intervention over the past 100 years through the teachings of all our major universities and the propaganda that the media spews out. The powerful influence over our policy, both domestic and foreign, is not soon going to go away.

I'm convinced however, that eventually restraint in our interventions overseas will be guided by a more reasonable constitutional policy. Economic reality will dictate it. Although political pressure in times of severe economic downturn and domestic strife encourage planned distractions overseas, these adventures always cause economic harm due to the economic costs. When the particular country or empire involved overreaches, as we are currently doing, national bankruptcy and a severely weakened currency call the whole process to a halt.

The Soviet system armed with an aggressive plan to spread its empire worldwide collapsed, not because we attacked it militarily, but for financial and economic reasons. They no longer could afford it, and the resources and wealth that it drained finally turned the people against its authoritarian rule.

Maintaining an overseas empire is incompatible with the American tradition of liberty and prosperity. The financial drain and the antagonism that it causes with our enemies, and even our friends, will finally force the American people to reject the policy outright. There will be no choice. Gorbachev just walked away and Yeltsin walked in, with barely a ripple. A non-violent revolution of unbelievable historic magnitude occurred and the Cold War ended. We are not immune from such a similar change.

This Soviet collapse ushered in the age of unparalleled American dominance over the entire world, and along with it allowed the new expanded hot war between the West and the Muslim East. All the hostility directed toward the West built up over the centuries between the two factions is now directed toward the United States. We are now the only power capable of paying for and literally controlling the Middle East and its cherished wealth, and we have not hesitated. Iraq, with its oil and water and agricultural land, is a prime target of our desire to further expand our dominion. The battle is growing more tense with our acceptance and desire to control the Caspian Sea oil riches. But Russia, now licking its wounds and once again accumulating wealth, will not sit idly by and watch the American empire engulf this region. When time runs out for us, we can be sure Russia will once again be ready to fight for control of all those resources in countries adjacent to her borders. And expect the same for China and India. And who knows, maybe one day even Japan will return to the ancient art of using force to occupy the cherished territories in her region of the world.

The most we can hope for will be, once the errors of our ways are acknowledged and we can no longer afford our militarism, we will reestablish the moral principle that underpins the policy of  "peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none."  Our modern-day war hawks do not respect this American principle, nor do they understand how the love of liberty drove the founders in their great battle against tyranny.

We must prepare for the day when our financial bankruptcy and the failure of our effort at world domination are apparent. The solution to such a crisis can be easily found in our Constitution and in our traditions. But ultimately, the love of liberty can only come from a change in the hearts and minds of the people and with an answered prayer for the blessings of divine intervention.


Is America a Police State?
Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives
June 27, 2002

Mr. Speaker:

Most Americans believe we live in dangerous times, and I must agree. Today I want to talk about how I see those dangers and what Congress ought to do about them.

Of course, the Monday-morning quarterbacks are now explaining, with political overtones, what we should have done to prevent the 9/11 tragedy. Unfortunately, in doing so, foreign policy changes are never considered.

I have, for more than two decades, been severely critical of our post-World War II foreign policy. I have perceived it to be not in our best interest and have believed that it presented a serious danger to our security.

For the record, in January of 2000 I stated the following on this floor:

Our commercial interests and foreign policy are no longer separate...as bad as it is that average Americans are forced to subsidize such a system, we additionally are placed in greater danger because of our arrogant policy of bombing nations that do not submit to our wishes. This generates hatred directed toward America ...and exposes us to a greater threat of terrorism, since this is the only vehicle our victims can use to retaliate against a powerful military state...the cost in terms of lost liberties and unnecessary exposure to terrorism is difficult to assess, but in time, it will become apparent to all of us that foreign interventionism is of no benefit to American citizens, but instead is a threat to our liberties.

Again, let me remind you I made these statements on the House floor in January 2000. Unfortunately, my greatest fears and warnings have been borne out.

I believe my concerns are as relevant today as they were then. We should move with caution in this post-9/11 period so we do not make our problems worse overseas while further undermining our liberties at home.

So far our post-9/11 policies have challenged the rule of law here at home, and our efforts against the al Qaeda have essentially come up empty-handed. The best we can tell now, instead of being in one place, the members of the al Qaeda are scattered around the world, with more of them in allied Pakistan than in Afghanistan. Our efforts to find our enemies have put the CIA in 80 different countries. The question that we must answer some day is whether we can catch enemies faster than we make new ones. So far it appears we are losing.

As evidence mounts that we have achieved little in reducing the terrorist threat, more diversionary tactics will be used. The big one will be to blame Saddam Hussein for everything and initiate a major war against Iraq, which will only generate even more hatred toward America from the Muslim world.

But, Mr. Speaker, my subject today is whether America is a police state. I'm sure the large majority of Americans would answer this in the negative. Most would associate military patrols, martial law and summary executions with a police state, something obviously not present in our everyday activities. However, those with knowledge of Ruby Ridge, Mount Carmel and other such incidents may have a different opinion.

The principal tool for sustaining a police state, even the most militant, is always economic control and punishment by denying disobedient citizens such things as jobs or places to live, and by levying fines and imprisonment. The military is more often used in the transition phase to a totalitarian state. Maintenance for long periods is usually accomplished through economic controls on commercial transactions, the use of all property, and political dissent. Peaceful control through these efforts can be achieved without storm troopers on our street corners.

Terror and fear are used to achieve complacency and obedience, especially when citizens are deluded into believing they are still a free people. The changes, they are assured, will be minimal, short-lived, and necessary, such as those that occur in times of a declared war. Under these conditions, most citizens believe that once the war is won, the restrictions on their liberties will be reversed. For the most part, however, after a declared war is over, the return to normalcy is never complete. In an undeclared war, without a precise enemy and therefore no precise ending, returning to normalcy can prove illusory.

We have just concluded a century of wars, declared and undeclared, while at the same time responding to public outcries for more economic equity. The question, as a result of these policies, is: "Are we already living in a police state?" If we are, what are we going to do about it? If we are not, we need to know if there's any danger that we're moving in that direction.

Most police states, surprisingly, come about through the democratic process with majority support. During a crisis, the rights of individuals and the minority are more easily trampled, which is more likely to condition a nation to become a police state than a military coup. Promised benefits initially seem to exceed the cost in dollars or lost freedom. When people face terrorism or great fear- from whatever source- the tendency to demand economic and physical security over liberty and self-reliance proves irresistible. The masses are easily led to believe that security and liberty are mutually exclusive, and demand for security far exceeds that for liberty.

Once it's discovered that the desire for both economic and physical security that prompted the sacrifice of liberty inevitably led to the loss of prosperity and no real safety, it's too late. Reversing the trend from authoritarian rule toward a freer society becomes very difficult, takes a long time, and entails much suffering. Although dissolution of the Soviet empire was relatively non-violent at the end, millions suffered from police suppression and economic deprivation in the decades prior to 1989.

But what about here in the United States? With respect to a police state, where are we and where are we going?

Let me make a few observations:

Our government already keeps close tabs on just about everything we do and requires official permission for nearly all of our activities.

One might take a look at our Capitol for any evidence of a police state. We see: barricades, metal detectors, police, military soldiers at times, dogs, ID badges required for every move, vehicles checked at airports and throughout the Capitol. The people are totally disarmed, except for the police and the criminals. But worse yet, surveillance cameras in Washington are everywhere to ensure our safety.

The terrorist attacks only provided the cover for the do-gooders who have been planning for a long time before last September to monitor us "for our own good." Cameras are used to spy on our drug habits, on our kids at school, on subway travelers, and on visitors to every government building or park. There's not much evidence of an open society in Washington, DC, yet most folks do not complain- anything goes if it's for government-provided safety and security.

If this huge amount of information and technology is placed in the hands of the government to catch the bad guys, one naturally asks, What's the big deal? But it should be a big deal, because it eliminates the enjoyment of privacy that a free society holds dear. The personal information of law-abiding citizens can be used for reasons other than safety- including political reasons. Like gun control, people control hurts law-abiding citizens much more than the law-breakers.

Social Security numbers are used to monitor our daily activities. The numbers are given at birth, and then are needed when we die and for everything in between. This allows government record keeping of monstrous proportions, and accommodates the thugs who would steal others' identities for criminal purposes. This invasion of privacy has been compounded by the technology now available to those in government who enjoy monitoring and directing the activities of others. Loss of personal privacy was a major problem long before 9/11.

Centralized control and regulations are required in a police state. Community and individual state regulations are not as threatening as the monolith of rules and regulations written by Congress and the federal bureaucracy. Law and order has been federalized in many ways and we are moving inexorably in that direction.

Almost all of our economic activities depend upon receiving the proper permits from the federal government. Transactions involving guns, food, medicine, smoking, drinking, hiring, firing, wages, politically correct speech, land use, fishing, hunting, buying a house, business mergers and acquisitions, selling stocks and bonds, and farming all require approval and strict regulation from our federal government. If this is not done properly and in a timely fashion, economic penalties and even imprisonment are likely consequences.

Because government pays for much of our health care, it's conveniently argued that any habits or risk-taking that could harm one's health are the prerogative of the federal government, and are to be regulated by explicit rules to keep medical-care costs down. This same argument is used to require helmets for riding motorcycles and bikes.

Not only do we need a license to drive, but we also need special belts, bags, buzzers, seats and environmentally dictated speed limits- or a policemen will be pulling us over to levy a fine, and he will be toting a gun for sure.

The states do exactly as they're told by the federal government, because they are threatened with the loss of tax dollars being returned to their state- dollars that should have never been sent to DC in the first place, let alone used to extort obedience to a powerful federal government.

Over 80,000 federal bureaucrats now carry guns to make us toe the line and to enforce the thousands of laws and tens of thousands of regulations that no one can possibly understand. We don't see the guns, but we all know they're there, and we all know we can't fight "City Hall," especially if it's "Uncle Sam."

All 18-year-old males must register to be ready for the next undeclared war. If they don't, men with guns will appear and enforce this congressional mandate. "Involuntary servitude" was banned by the 13th Amendment, but courts don't apply this prohibition to the servitude of draftees or those citizens required to follow the dictates of the IRS- especially the employers of the country, who serve as the federal government's chief tax collectors and information gatherers. Fear is the tool used to intimidate most Americans to comply to the tax code by making examples of celebrities. Leona Helmsley and Willie Nelson know how this process works.

Economic threats against business establishments are notorious. Rules and regulations from the EPA, the ADA, the SEC, the LRB, OSHA, etc. terrorize business owners into submission, and those charged accept their own guilt until they can prove themselves innocent. Of course, it turns out it's much more practical to admit guilt and pay the fine. This serves the interest of the authoritarians because it firmly establishes just who is in charge.

Information leaked from a government agency like the FDA can make or break a company within minutes. If information is leaked, even inadvertently, a company can be destroyed, and individuals involved in revealing government-monopolized information can be sent to prison. Even though economic crimes are serious offenses in the United States, violent crimes sometimes evoke more sympathy and fewer penalties. Just look at the O.J. Simpson case as an example.

Efforts to convict Bill Gates and others like him of an economic crime are astounding, considering his contribution to economic progress, while sources used to screen out terrorist elements from our midst are tragically useless. If business people are found guilty of even the suggestion of collusion in the marketplace, huge fines and even imprisonment are likely consequences.

Price fixing is impossible to achieve in a free market. Under today's laws, talking to, or consulting with, competitors can be easily construed as "price fixing" and involve a serious crime, even with proof that the so-called collusion never generated monopoly-controlled prices or was detrimental to consumers.

Lawfully circumventing taxes, even sales taxes, can lead to serious problems if a high-profile person can be made an example.

One of the most onerous controls placed on American citizens is the control of speech through politically correct legislation. Derogatory remarks or off-color jokes are justification for firings, demotions, and the destruction of political careers. The movement toward designating penalties based on the category to which victims belong, rather the nature of the crime itself, has the thought police patrolling the airways and byways. Establishing relative rights and special penalties for subjective motivation is a dangerous trend.

All our financial activities are subject to "legal" searches without warrants and without probable cause. Tax collection, drug usage, and possible terrorist activities "justify" the endless accumulation of information on all Americans.

Government control of medicine has prompted the establishment of the National Medical Data Bank. For efficiency reasons, it is said, the government keeps our medical records for our benefit. This, of course, is done with vague and useless promises that this information will always remain confidential- just like all the FBI information in the past!

Personal privacy, the sine qua non of liberty, no longer exists in the United States. Ruthless and abusive use of all this information accumulated by the government is yet to come. The Patriot Act has given unbelievable power to listen, read, and monitor all our transactions without a search warrant being issued after affirmation of probably cause. "Sneak and peak" and blanket searches are now becoming more frequent every day. What have we allowed to happen to the 4th amendment?

It may be true that the average American does not feel intimidated by the encroachment of the police state. I'm sure our citizens are more tolerant of what they see as mere nuisances because they have been deluded into believing all this government supervision is necessary and helpful- and besides they are living quite comfortably, material wise. However the reaction will be different once all this new legislation we're passing comes into full force, and the material comforts that soften our concerns for government regulations are decreased. This attitude then will change dramatically, but the trend toward the authoritarian state will be difficult to reverse.

What government gives with one hand- as it attempts to provide safety and security- it must, at the same time, take away with two others. When the majority recognizes that the monetary cost and the results of our war against terrorism and personal freedoms are a lot less than promised, it may be too late.

I'm sure all my concerns are unconvincing to the vast majority of Americans, who not only are seeking but also are demanding they be made safe from any possible attack from anybody, ever. I grant you this is a reasonable request.

The point is, however, there may be a much better way of doing it. We must remember, we don't sit around and worry that some Canadian citizen is about to walk into New York City and set off a nuclear weapon. We must come to understand the real reason is that there's a difference between the Canadians and all our many friends and the Islamic radicals. And believe me, we're not the target because we're "free and prosperous".

The argument made for more government controls here at home and expansionism overseas to combat terrorism is simple and goes like this: "If we're not made safe from potential terrorists, property and freedom have no meaning." It is argued that first we must have life and physical and economic security, with continued abundance, then we'll talk about freedom.

It reminds me of the time I was soliciting political support from a voter and was boldly put down: "Ron," she said, "I wish you would lay off this freedom stuff; it's all nonsense. We're looking for a Representative who will know how to bring home the bacon and help our area, and you're not that person." Believe me, I understand that argument; it's just that I don't agree that is what should be motivating us here in the Congress.

That's not the way it works. Freedom does not preclude security. Making security the highest priority can deny prosperity and still fail to provide the safety we all want.

The Congress would never agree that we are a police state. Most members, I'm sure, would argue otherwise. But we are all obligated to decide in which direction we are going. If we're moving toward a system that enhances individual liberty and justice for all, my concerns about a police state should be reduced or totally ignored. Yet, if, by chance, we're moving toward more authoritarian control than is good for us, and moving toward a major war of which we should have no part, we should not ignore the dangers. If current policies are permitting a serious challenge to our institutions that allow for our great abundance, we ignore them at great risk for future generations.

That's why the post-9/11 analysis and subsequent legislation are crucial to the survival of those institutions that made America great. We now are considering a major legislative proposal dealing with this dilemma- the new Department of Homeland Security- and we must decide if it truly serves the interests of America.

Since the new department is now a forgone conclusion, why should anyone bother to record a dissent? Because it's the responsibility of all of us to speak the truth to our best ability, and if there are reservations about what we're doing, we should sound an alarm and warn the people of what is to come.

In times of crisis, nearly unanimous support for government programs is usual and the effects are instantaneous. Discovering the error of our ways and waiting to see the unintended consequences evolve takes time and careful analysis. Reversing the bad effects is slow and tedious and fraught with danger. People would much prefer to hear platitudes than the pessimism of a flawed policy.

Understanding the real reason why we were attacked is crucial to crafting a proper response. I know of no one who does not condemn the attacks of 9/11. Disagreement as to the cause and the proper course of action should be legitimate in a free society such as ours. If not, we're not a free society.

Not only do I condemn the vicious acts of 9/11, but also, out of deep philosophic and moral commitment, I have pledged never to use any form of aggression to bring about social or economic changes.

But I am deeply concerned about what has been done and what we are yet to do in the name of security against the threat of terrorism.

Political propagandizing is used to get all of us to toe the line and be good "patriots," supporting every measure suggested by the administration. We are told that preemptive strikes, torture, military tribunals, suspension of habeas corpus, executive orders to wage war, and sacrificing privacy with a weakened 4th Amendment are the minimum required to save our country from the threat of terrorism.

Who's winning this war anyway?

To get popular support for these serious violations of our traditional rule of law requires that people be kept in a state of fear. The episode of spreading undue concern about the possibility of a dirty bomb being exploded in Washington without any substantiation of an actual threat is a good example of excessive fear being generated by government officials.

To add insult to injury, when he made this outlandish announcement, our Attorney General was in Moscow. Maybe if our FBI spent more time at home, we would get more for the money we pump into this now- discredited organization. Our FBI should be gathering information here at home, and the thousands of agents overseas should return. We don't need these agents competing overseas and confusing the intelligence apparatus of the CIA or the military.

I'm concerned that the excess fear, created by the several hundred al Qaeda functionaries willing to sacrifice their lives for their demented goals, is driving us to do to ourselves what the al Qaeda themselves could never do to us by force.

So far the direction is clear: we are legislating bigger and more intrusive government here at home and are allowing our President to pursue much more military adventurism abroad. These pursuits are overwhelmingly supported by Members of Congress, the media, and the so-called intellectual community, and questioned only by a small number of civil libertarians and anti-imperial, anti-war advocates.

The main reason why so many usually levelheaded critics of bad policy accept this massive increase in government power is clear. They, for various reasons, believe the official explanation of "Why us?" The several hundred al Qaeda members, we were told, hate us because: "We're rich, we're free, we enjoy materialism, and the purveyors of terror are jealous and envious, creating the hatred that drives their cause. They despise our Christian-Judaic values and this, is the sole reason why they are willing to die for their cause." For this to be believed, one must also be convinced that the perpetrators lied to the world about why they attacked us.

The al Qaeda leaders say they hate us because:

-We support Western puppet regimes in Arab countries for commercial reasons and against the wishes of the populace of these countries.

-This partnership allows a military occupation, the most confrontational being in Saudi Arabia, that offends their sense of pride and violates their religious convictions by having a foreign military power on their holy land. We refuse to consider how we might feel if China's navy occupied the Gulf of Mexico for the purpose of protecting "their oil" and had air bases on U.S. territory.

-We show extreme bias in support of one side in the fifty-plus-year war going on in the Middle East.

What if the al Qaeda is telling the truth and we ignore it? If we believe only the official line from the administration and proceed to change our whole system and undermine our constitutional rights, we may one day wake up to find that the attacks have increased, the numbers of those willing to commit suicide for their cause have grown, our freedoms are diminished, and all this has contributed to making our economic problems worse. The dollar cost of this "war" could turn out to be exorbitant, and the efficiency of our markets can be undermined by the compromises placed on our liberties.

Sometimes it almost seems that our policies inadvertently are actually based on a desire to make ourselves "less free and less prosperous"- those conditions that are supposed to have prompted the attacks. I'm convinced we must pay more attention to the real cause of the attacks of last year and challenge the explanations given us.

The question that one day must be answered is this:

What if we had never placed our troops in Saudi Arabia and had involved ourselves in the Middle East war in an even-handed fashion. Would it have been worth it if this would have prevented the events of 9/11?

If we avoid the truth, we will be far less well off than if we recognize that just maybe there is some truth in the statements made by the leaders of those who perpetrated the atrocities. If they speak the truth about the real cause, changing our foreign policy from foreign military interventionism around the globe supporting an American empire would make a lot of sense. It could reduce tensions, save money, preserve liberty and preserve our economic system.

This, for me, is not a reactive position coming out of 9/11, but rather is an argument I've made for decades, claiming that meddling in the affairs of others is dangerous to our security and actually reduces our ability to defend ourselves.

This in no way precludes pursuing those directly responsible for the attacks and dealing with them accordingly- something that we seem to have not yet done. We hear more talk of starting a war in Iraq than in achieving victory against the international outlaws that instigated the attacks on 9/11. Rather than pursuing war against countries that were not directly responsible for the attacks, we should consider the judicious use of Marque and Reprisal.

I'm sure that a more enlightened approach to our foreign policy will prove elusive. Financial interests of our international corporations, oil companies, and banks, along with the military-industrial complex, are sure to remain a deciding influence on our policies.

Besides, even if my assessments prove to be true, any shift away from foreign militarism- like bringing our troops home- would now be construed as yielding to the terrorists. It just won't happen. This is a powerful point and the concern that we might appear to be capitulating is legitimate.

Yet how long should we deny the truth, especially if this denial only makes us more vulnerable? Shouldn't we demand the courage and wisdom of our leaders to do the right thing, in spite of the political shortcomings?

President Kennedy faced an even greater threat in October 1962, and from a much more powerful force. The Soviet/Cuban terrorist threat with nuclear missiles only 90 miles off our shores was wisely defused by Kennedy's capitulating and removing missiles from Turkey on the Soviet border. Kennedy deserved the praise he received for the way he handled the nuclear standoff with the Soviets. This concession most likely prevented a nuclear exchange and proved that taking a step back from a failed policy is beneficial, yet how one does so is crucial. The answer is to do it diplomatically- that's what diplomats are supposed to do.

Maybe there is no real desire to remove the excuse for our worldwide imperialism, especially our current new expansion into central Asia or the domestic violations of our civil liberties. Today's conditions may well be exactly what our world commercial interests want. It's now easy for us to go into the Philippines, Columbia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, or wherever in pursuit of terrorists. No questions are asked by the media or the politicians- only cheers. Put in these terms, who can object? We all despise the tactics of the terrorists, so the nature of the response is not to be questioned!

A growing number of Americans are concluding that the threat we now face comes more as a consequence of our foreign policy than because the bad guys envy our freedoms and prosperity. How many terrorist attacks have been directed toward Switzerland, Australia, Canada, or Sweden? They too are rich and free, and would be easy targets, but the Islamic fundamentalists see no purpose in doing so.

There's no purpose in targeting us unless there's a political agenda, which there surely is. To deny that this political agenda exists jeopardizes the security of this country. Pretending something to be true that is not is dangerous.

It's a definite benefit for so many to recognize that our $40 billion annual investment in intelligence gathering prior to 9/11 was a failure. Now a sincere desire exists to rectify these mistakes. That's good, unless, instead of changing the role for the CIA and the FBI, all the past mistakes are made worse by spending more money and enlarging the bureaucracies to do the very same thing without improving their efficiency or changing their goals. Unfortunately that is what is likely to happen.

One of the major shortcomings that led to the 9/11 tragedies was that the responsibility for protecting commercial airlines was left to the government, the FAA, the FBI, the CIA, and the INS. And they failed. A greater sense of responsibility for the owners to provide security is what was needed. Guns in the cockpit would have most likely prevented most of the deaths that occurred on that fateful day.

But what does our government do? It firmly denies airline pilots the right to defend their planes, and we federalize the security screeners and rely on F16s to shoot down airliners if they are hijacked.

Security screeners, many barely able to speak English, spend endless hours harassing pilots, confiscating dangerous mustache scissors, mauling grandmothers and children, and pestering Al Gore, while doing nothing about the influx of aliens from Middle-Eastern countries who are on designated watch lists.

We pump up the military in India and Pakistan, ignore all the warnings about Saudi Arabia, and plan a secret war against Iraq to make sure no one starts asking where Osama bin Laden is. We think we know where Saddam Hussein lives, so let's go get him instead.

Since our government bureaucracy failed, why not get rid of it instead of adding to it? If we had proper respect and understood how private property owners effectively defend themselves, we could apply those rules to the airlines and achieve something worthwhile.

If our immigration policies have failed us, when will we defy the politically correct fanatics and curtail the immigration of those individuals on the highly suspect lists? Instead of these changes, all we hear is that the major solution will come by establishing a huge new federal department- the Department of Homeland Security.

According to all the pundits, we are expected to champion this big-government approach, and if we don't jolly well like it, we will be tagged "unpatriotic." The fear that permeates our country cries out for something to be done in response to almost daily warnings of the next attack. If it's not a real attack, then it's a theoretical one; one where the bomb could well be only in the mind of a potential terrorist.

Where is all this leading us? Are we moving toward a safer and more secure society? I think not. All the discussions of these proposed plans since 9/11 have been designed to condition the American people to accept major changes in our political system. Some of the changes being made are unnecessary, and others are outright dangerous to our way of life.

There is no need for us to be forced to choose between security and freedom. Giving up freedom does not provide greater security. Preserving and better understanding freedom can. Sadly today, many are anxious to give up freedom in response to real and generated fears..

The plans for a first strike supposedly against a potential foreign government should alarm all Americans. If we do not resist this power the President is assuming, our President, through executive order, can start a war anyplace, anytime, against anyone he chooses, for any reason, without congressional approval. This is a tragic usurpation of the war power by the executive branch from the legislative branch, with Congress being all too accommodating.

Removing the power of the executive branch to wage war, as was done through our revolution and the writing of the Constitution, is now being casually sacrificed on the altar of security. In a free society, and certainly in the constitutional republic we have been given, it should never be assumed that the President alone can take it upon himself to wage war whenever he pleases.

The publicly announced plan to murder Saddam Hussein in the name of our national security draws nary a whimper from Congress. Support is overwhelming, without a thought as to its legality, morality, constitutionality, or its practicality. Murdering Saddam Hussein will surely generate many more fanatics ready to commit their lives to suicide terrorist attacks against us.

Our CIA attempt to assassinate Castro backfired with the subsequent assassination of our president. Killing Saddam Hussein, just for the sake of killing him, obviously will increase the threat against us, not diminish it. It makes no sense. But our warriors argue that someday he may build a bomb, someday he might use it, maybe against us or some yet-unknown target. This policy further radicalizes the Islamic fundamentalists against us, because from their viewpoint, our policy is driven by Israeli, not U.S. security interests.

Planned assassination, a preemptive strike policy without proof of any threat, and a vague definition of terrorism may work for us as long as we're king of the hill, but one must assume every other nation will naturally use our definition of policy as justification for dealing with their neighbors. India can justify a first strike against Pakistan, China against India or Taiwan, as well as many other such examples. This new policy, if carried through, will make the world much less safe.

This new doctrine is based on proving a negative, which is impossible to do, especially when we're dealing with a subjective interpretation of plans buried in someone's head. To those who suggest a more restrained approach on Iraq and killing Saddam Hussein, the war hawks retort, saying: "Prove to me that Saddam Hussein might not do something someday directly harmful to the United States." Since no one can prove this, the warmongers shout: "Let's march on Baghdad."

We all can agree that aggression should be met with force and that providing national security is an ominous responsibility that falls on Congress' shoulders. But avoiding useless and unjustifiable wars that threaten our whole system of government and security seems to be the more prudent thing to do.

Since September 11th, Congress has responded with a massive barrage of legislation not seen since Roosevelt took over in 1933. Where Roosevelt dealt with trying to provide economic security, today's legislation deals with personal security from any and all imaginable threats, at any cost- dollar or freedom-wise. These efforts include:

-The Patriot Act, which undermines the 4th Amendment with the establishment of an overly broad and dangerous definition of terrorism.

- The Financial Anti-Terrorism Act, which expands the government's surveillance of the financial transactions of all American citizens through increased power to FinCen and puts back on track the plans to impose "Know Your Customer" rules on all Americans, which had been sought after for years.

-The airline bailout bill gave $15 billion, rushed through shortly after 9/11.

- The federalization of all airline security employees.

-Military tribunals set up by executive order-undermining the rights of those accused- rights established as far back in history as 1215.

- Unlimited retention of suspects without charges being made, even when a crime has not been committed- a serious precedent that one day may well be abused.

- Relaxation of FBI surveillance guidelines of all political activity.

- Essentially monopolizing vaccines and treatment for infectious diseases, permitting massive quarantines and mandates for vaccinations.

Almost all significant legislation since 9/11 has been rushed through in a tone of urgency with reference to the tragedy, including the $190 billion farm bill as well as fast track.

Guarantees to all insurance companies now are moving quickly through the Congress.
Increasing the billions already flowing into foreign aid is now being planned as our interventions overseas continue to grow and expand.

There's no reason to believe that the massive increase in spending, both domestic and foreign, along with the massive expansion of the size of the federal government, will slow any time soon. The deficit is exploding as the economy weakens. When the government sector drains the resources needed for capital expansion, it contributes to the loss of confidence needed for growth.

Even without evidence that any good has come from this massive expansion of government power, Congress is in the process of establishing a huge new bureaucracy, the Department of Homeland Security, hoping miraculously through centralization to make all these efforts productive and worthwhile.

There is no evidence, however, that government bureaucracy and huge funding can solve our nation's problems. The likelihood is that the unintended consequences of this new proposal will diminish our freedoms and do nothing to enhance our security.

Opposing currently proposed and recently passed legislation does not mean one is complacent about terrorism or homeland security. The truth is that there are alternative solutions to these problems we face, without resorting to expanding the size and scope of government at the expense of liberty.

As tempting as it may seem, a government is incapable of preventing crimes. On occasion, with luck it might succeed. But the failure to tip us off about 9/11, after spending $40 billion annually on intelligence gathering, should have surprised no one. Governments, by nature, are very inefficient institutions. We must accept this as fact.

I'm sure that our intelligence agencies had the information available to head off 9/11, but bureaucratic blundering and turf wars prevented the information from being useful. But, the basic principle is wrong. City policeman can't and should not be expected to try to preempt crimes. That would invite massive intrusions into the everyday activities of every law-abiding citizen.

But that's exactly what our recent legislation is doing. It's a wrong-headed goal, no matter how wonderful it may sound. The policemen in the inner cities patrol their beats, but crime is still rampant. In the rural areas of America, literally millions of our citizens are safe and secure in their homes, though miles from any police protection. They are safe because even the advantage of isolation doesn't entice the burglar to rob a house when he knows a shotgun sits inside the door waiting to be used. But this is a right denied many of our citizens living in the inner cities.

The whole idea of government preventing crime is dangerous. To prevent crimes in our homes or businesses, government would need cameras to spy on our every move; to check for illegal drug use, wife beating, child abuse, or tax evasion. They would need cameras, not only on our streets and in our homes, but our phones, internet, and travels would need to be constantly monitored- just to make sure we are not a terrorist, drug dealer, or tax evader.

This is the assumption now used at our airports, rather than allowing privately owned airlines to profile their passengers to assure the safety for which the airline owners ought to assume responsibility. But, of course, this would mean guns in the cockpit. I am certain that this approach to safety and security would be far superior to the rules that existed prior to 9/11 and now have been made much worse in the past nine months.

This method of providing security emphasizes private-property ownership and responsibility of the owners to protect that property. But the right to bear arms must also be included. The fact that the administration is opposed to guns in the cockpit and the fact that the airline owners are more interested in bailouts and insurance protection mean that we're just digging a bigger hole for ourselves- ignoring liberty and expecting the government to provide something it's not capable of doing.

Because of this, in combination with a foreign policy that generates more hatred toward us and multiplies the number of terrorists that seek vengeance, I am deeply concerned that Washington's efforts so far sadly have only made us more vulnerable. I'm convinced that the newly proposed Department of Homeland Security will do nothing to make us more secure, but it will make us all a lot poorer and less free. If the trend continues, the Department of Homeland Security may well be the vehicle used for a much more ruthless control of the people by some future administration than any of us dreams. Let's pray that this concern will never materialize.

America is not now a ruthless authoritarian police state. But our concerns ought to be whether we have laid the foundation of a more docile police state. The love of liberty has been so diminished that we tolerate intrusions into our privacies today that would have been abhorred just a few years ago. Tolerance of inconvenience to our liberties is not uncommon when both personal and economic fear persists. The sacrifices being made to our liberties will surely usher in a system of government that will please only those who enjoy being in charge of running other people's lives.

Mr. Speaker, what, then, is the answer to the question: "Is America a Police State?" My answer is: "Maybe not yet, but it is fast approaching." The seeds have been sown and many of our basic protections against tyranny have been and are constantly being undermined. The post-9/11 atmosphere here in Congress has provided ample excuse to concentrate on safety at the expense of liberty, failing to recognize that we cannot have one without the other.

When the government keeps detailed records on every move we make and we either need advance permission for everything we do or are penalized for not knowing what the rules are, America will be declared a police state. Personal privacy for law-abiding citizens will be a thing of the past. Enforcement of laws against economic and political crimes will exceed that of violent crimes (just look at what's coming under the new FEC law). War will be the prerogative of the administration. Civil liberties will be suspended for suspects, and their prosecution will not be carried out by an independent judiciary. In a police state, this becomes common practice rather than a rare incident.

Some argue that we already live in a police state, and Congress doesn't have the foggiest notion of what they're dealing with. So forget it and use your energy for your own survival. Some advise that the momentum towards the monolithic state cannot be reversed. Possibly that's true, but I'm optimistic that if we do the right thing and do not capitulate to popular fancy and the incessant war propaganda, the onslaught of statism can be reversed.

To do so, we as a people will once again have to dedicate ourselves to establishing the proper role a government plays in a free society. That does not involve the redistribution of wealth through force. It does not mean that government dictates the moral and religious standards of the people. It does not allow us to police the world by involving ourselves in every conflict as if it's our responsibility to manage a world American empire.

But it does mean government has a proper role in guaranteeing free markets, protecting voluntary and religious choices and guaranteeing private property ownership, while punishing those who violate these rules- whether foreign or domestic.

In a free society, the government's job is simply to protect liberty- the people do the rest. Let's not give up on a grand experiment that has provided so much for so many. Let's reject the police state.


The Case for Defending America
by Congressman Ron Paul, MD

As we begin this new legislative session, we cannot avoid reflecting on this past year. All Americans will remember the moment and place when tragedy hit us on September 11th. We also all know that a good philosophy to follow is to turn adversity into something positive, if at all possible. Although we have suffered for years from a flawed foreign policy and were already in a recession before the attacks, the severity of these events has forced many of us to reassess our foreign and domestic policies. Hopefully, positive changes will come of this.

It is just as well that the economy was already in recession for six months prior to the September attacks. Otherwise, the temptation would have been too great to blame the attacks for the weak economy rather than look for the government policies responsible for the recession. Terrorist attacks alone, no matter how disruptive, could never be the sole source of a significant economic downturn.

A major debate over foreign policy has naturally resulted from this crisis. Dealing with the shortcomings of our policies of the past is essential. We were spending $40 billion a year on intelligence gathering that, we must admit, failed. This tells us a problem exists. There are shortcomings with our $320 billion DOD budget that did not provide the protection Americans expect.

Obviously, a proper response to the terrorists requires sound judgment in order to prevent further suffering of the innocent or foolishly bring about a worldwide conflict.

One of the key responsibilities of the federal government in providing for national defense is protection of liberty here at home. Unwisely responding to the attacks could undermine our national defense while threatening our liberties. What we have done so far since last September is not very reassuring. What we do here in the Congress in the coming months may well determine the survival of our republic. Fear and insecurity must not drive our policies. Sacrificing personal liberty should never be an option.

Involving ourselves in every complex conflict around the globe hardly enhances our national security. The special interests that were already lined up at the public trough should not be permitted to use the ongoing crisis as an opportunity to demand even more benefits. Let us all remember why the U.S. Congress was established, what our responsibilities are and what our oath of office means.

It's been reported that since the 9-11 attacks, big-government answers have gained in popularity, and people, fearful for their security, have looked to the federal government for help. Polls indicate that acceptance of government solutions to our problems is at its highest level in decades. That may be true to some degree, or it may merely reflect the sentiments of the moment, or even the way the questions were asked. Only time will tell. Since the welfare state is no more viable in the long run than a communist or fascist state, most Americans will eventually realize the fallacy of depending on the government for economic security and know that personal liberty should not be sacrificed out of fear.

Even with this massive rush to embrace all the bailouts offered up by Washington, a growing number of Americans are rightfully offended by the enormity of it all and annoyed that powerful and wealthy special interests seem to be getting the bulk of the benefits. In one area, though, a very healthy reaction has occurred. Almost all Americans – especially those still flying commercial airlines – now know that they have a personal responsibility to react to any threat on any flight. Passengers have responded magnificently. Most people recognize that armed citizens best protect our homes, because it is impossible for the police to be everywhere and prevent crimes from happening. A homeowner's ability to defend himself serves as a strong deterrent.

Our government's ridiculous policy regarding airline safety and prohibiting guns on airplanes had indoctrinated us all – pilots, passengers and airline owners – to believe we should never resist hijackers. This set up the perfect conditions for terrorists to take over domestic flights, just as they did on September 11th.

The people of this country now realize, more than ever, their own responsibility for personal self-defense, using guns if necessary. The anti-gun fanatics have been very quiet since 9-11, and more Americans are ready to assume responsibility for their own safety than ever before. This is all good.

But sadly, the Congress went in the opposite direction in providing safety on commercial flights. Pilots are not carrying guns, and security has been socialized – in spite of the fact that security procedures authorized by the FAA prior to 9-11 were not compromised. The problem did not come from failure to follow FAA rules; the problem resulted from precisely following FAA rules. No wonder so many Americans are wisely assuming they'd better be ready to protect themselves when necessary!

This attitude is healthy, practical and legal under the Constitution. Unfortunately, too many people who have come to this conclusion still cling to the notion that economic security is a responsibility of the U.S. government. That's the reason we have a $2 trillion annual budget and a growing $6 trillion national debt.

Another positive result of last year's attacks was the uniting of many Americans in an effort to deal with the problems the country faced. This applies more to the people who reflect true patriotism than it does to some of the politicians and special interests who took advantage of the situation. If this renewed energy and sense of unity could be channeled correctly, much good could come of it. If misdirected, actual harm will result.

I give less credit to the Washington politicians who sing the songs of patriotism, but use the crisis to pursue their endless personal goal to gain more political power. But the greatest condemnation should be directed toward the special-interest lobbyists who finance the politicians in order to secure their power, while using patriotism as a cover and the crisis as a golden opportunity. Indeed, those who are using the crisis to promote their own agenda are many.

There is no doubt, as many have pointed out, our country changed dramatically with the horror that hit us on 9-11. The changes obviously are a result of something other than the tragic loss of over 3,900 people. We kill that many people every month on our government highways. We lost 60,000 young people in the Vietnam War, yet the sense of fear in our country then was not the same as it is today. The major difference is that last year's attacks made us feel vulnerable, because it was clear that our federal government had failed in its responsibility to provide defense against such an assault. And the anthrax scare certainly didn't help to diminish that fear.

Giving up our civil liberties has made us feel even less safe from our own government's intrusion in our lives. The two seem to be in conflict. How can we be safer from outside threats while making ourselves more exposed to our own government's threat to our liberty?

The most significant and dangerous result of last year's attacks has been the bold expansion of the federal police state and our enhanced international role as the world's policeman.

Although most of the legislation pushing the enhanced domestic and international role for our government passed by huge majorities, I'm convinced that the people's support for much of it is less enthusiastic than Washington politicians believe. As time progresses, the full impact of Homeland Security, and the unintended consequences of our growing overseas commitments, will become apparent. And a large majority of Americans will appropriately ask, "Why did the Congress do it?"

Unless we precisely understand the proper role of government in a free society, our problems will not be solved without sacrificing liberty. The wonderful thing is that our problems can be easily solved when protecting individual liberty becomes our goal, rather than the erroneous assumption that solutions must always be in conflict with liberty and that sacrificing some liberty is to be expected during trying times. This is not necessary.

Our Attorney General established a standard for disloyalty to the U.S. government by claiming that those who talk of "lost liberty" serve to "erode our national unity" and "give ammunition to America's enemies" and "only aid terrorists."

The dangerous assumption is that, in the eyes of our top law-enforcement official, perceived disloyalty or even criticism of the government is approximating an act of terrorism. The grand irony is that this criticism is being directed toward those who, heaven forbid, are expressing concern for losing our cherished liberties here at home. This, of course, is what the whole war on terrorism is supposed to be about – protecting liberty, and that includes the right of free expression.

Our government leaders have threatened foreign countries by claiming that if they "are not with us, they are against us," which leaves no room for the neutrality that has been practiced by some nations for centuries. This position could easily result in perpetual conflicts with dozens of nations around the world.

Could it ever come to a point where those who dissent at home against our military operations overseas will be considered too sympathetic to the enemy? The Attorney General's comments suggest just that, and it has happened here in our past. We indeed live in dangerous times. We are unable to guarantee protection from outside threats and may be approaching a time when our own government poses a threat to our liberties.

No matter how sincere and well motivated, the effort to fight terrorism and provide for homeland security, if ill advised, will result neither in vanquishing terrorism nor in preserving our liberties. I am fearful that, here in Washington, there's little understanding of the real cause of the terrorist attacks on us, little remembrance of the grand purpose of the American experiment with liberty, or even how our Constitution was written to strictly limit government officials in all that they do.

The military operation against the Taliban has gone well. The Taliban has been removed from power, and our government, with the help of the UN, is well along the way toward establishing a new Afghan government. We weren't supposed to be in the business of nation building, but I guess 9-11 changed all that. The one problem is that the actual number of al-Qaida members captured or killed is uncertain. Also the number of Taliban officials that had any direct contact or knowledge of the attacks on us is purely speculative. Since this war is carried out in secrecy, we'll probably not know the details of what went on for years to come.

I wonder how many civilians have been killed so far. I know a lot of Members could care less, remembering innocent American civilians who were slaughtered in New York and Washington. But a policy that shows no concern for the innocent will magnify our problems rather than lessen them. The hard part to understand in all of this is that Saudi Arabia probably had more to do with these attacks than did Afghanistan.

But then again, who wants to offend our oil partners?

Our sterile approach to the bombing, with minimal loss of American life is to be commended, but it may generate outrage toward us by this lopsided killing of persons totally unaware of the events of September 11th.

Our President wisely has not been anxious to send in large numbers of occupying forces into Afghanistan. This also guarantees chaos among the warring tribal factions. The odds of a stable Afghan government evolving out of this mess are remote. The odds of our investing large sums of money to buy support for years to come are great.

Unfortunately, it has been seen only as an opportunity for Pakistan and India to resume their warring ways, placing us in a dangerous situation. This could easily get out of control, since China will not allow a clear-cut Indian victory over Pakistan. The danger of a nuclear confrontation is real. Even the British have spoken sympathetically about Pakistan's interests over India. The tragedy is that we have helped both India and Pakistan financially, and, therefore, the American taxpayer has indirectly contributed funds for the weapons on both sides. Our troops in this region are potential targets of either or both countries.

Fortunately, due to the many probable repercussions, a swift attack on Iraq now seems less likely. Our surrogate army, organized by the Iraqi National Congress, is now known to be a charade, prompting our administration to stop all funding of this organization. Relying on the Kurds to help remove Hussein defies logic, as the U.S.-funded Turkish army continues its war on the Kurds. There is just no coalition in the Persian Gulf to take on Iraq, and, fortunately, our Secretary of State knows it.

Our terrorist enemy is vague and elusive. Our plans to expand our current military operations into many other countries are fraught with great risks – risks of making our problems worse. Not dealing with the people actually responsible for the attacks and ignoring the root causes of the terrorism will needlessly perpetuate and expand a war that will do nothing to enhance the security and safety of the American people.

Since Iraq is now less likely to be hit, it looks like another poverty-ridden, rudderless nation, possibly Somalia, will be the next target. No good can come of this process. It will provide more fodder for the radicals' claim that the war is about America against Islam. Somalia poses no threat to the United States, but bombing Somalia as we have Afghanistan – and Iraq for 12 years – will only incite more hatred toward the U.S. and increase the odds of our someday getting hit again by some frustrated, vengeful, radicalized Muslim.

Our presence in the Persian Gulf is not necessary to provide for America's defense. Our presence in the region makes all Americans more vulnerable to attacks and defending America much more difficult.

The real reason for our presence in the Persian Gulf, as well as our eagerness to assist in building a new Afghan government under UN authority, should be apparent to us all.

Stewart Eizenstat, Undersecretary of Economics, Business, and Agricultural Affairs for the previous administration, succinctly stated U.S. policy for Afghanistan, testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations "Trade" Subcommittee on October 13, 1997:

[One of] "Five main foreign policy interests in the Caspian region [is] continued support for U.S. companies" [and] "the least progress has been made in Afghanistan, where gas and oil pipeline proposals designed to carry central Asian energy to world markets have been delayed indefinitely pending establishment of a broad-based multi-ethnic government."

This was a rather blunt acknowledgment of our intentions.

It is apparent that our policy has not changed with this administration. Our new special envoy to Afghanistan, Zalmay Khalilzad, was at one time a lobbyist for the Taliban and worked for Unocal – the American oil company seeking rights to build oil and gas pipelines through northern Afghanistan. During his stint as a lobbyist, he urged approval of the Taliban and defended them in the U.S. press. He now, of course, sings a different tune with respect to the Taliban, but I am sure his views on the pipeline by U.S. companies have not changed.

Born in Afghanistan, Khalilzad is a controversial figure, to say the least, due to his close relationship with the oil industry and previously with the Taliban. His appointment to the National Security Council very conveniently did not require confirmation by the Senate. Khalilzad also is a close ally of the Secretary of Defense, Paul Wolfowitz, in promoting early and swift military action against Iraq.

The point being, of course, that it may be good to have a new Afghan government, but the question is whether that is our responsibility and whether we should be doing it under the constraints of our Constitution. There's a real question of whether it will serve our best interests in the long-term.

CIA support for the Shah of Iran for 25 years led to the long-term serious problems with that nation that persist even to this day. Could oil be the reason we have concentrated on bombing Afghanistan while ignoring Saudi Arabia, even though we have never found Osama bin Laden? Obviously, Saudi Arabia is culpable in these terrorist attacks in the United States, and yet little is done about it.

There are quite a few unintended consequences that might occur if our worldwide commitment to fighting terrorism is unrestrained.

Russia's interests in the Afghan region are much more intense than Putin would have us believe, and Russia's active involvement in a spreading regional conflict should be expected.

An alliance between Iraq and Iran against the U.S. is a more likely possibility now than ever before. Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri is optimistically working on bringing the two nations together in a military alliance. His hope is that this would be activated if we attacked Iraq. The two nations have already exchanged prisoners of war as a step in that direction.

U.S. military planners are making preparations for our troops to stay in Central Asia for a long time. A long time could mean 50 years! We have been in Korea for that long, and have been in Japan and Europe even longer, but the time will come when we will wear out our welcome and have to leave these areas. The Vietnam War met with more resistance, and we left relatively quickly in humiliating defeat. Similarly, episodes of a more minor nature occurred in Somalia and Lebanon.

Why look for more of these kinds of problems when it does not serve our interests? Jeopardizing our security violates the spirit of our Constitution and inevitably costs us more than we can afford.

Our permanent air bases built in Saudi Arabia are totally unessential to our security, contributed to the turmoil in the Middle East, and they continue to do so.

We're building a giant new air base in Kyrgyzstan, a country once part of the Soviet Union and close to Russia. China, also a neighbor, with whom we eagerly seek a close relationship as a trading partner, will not ignore our military buildup in this region.

Islamic fundamentalists may overthrow the current government of Saudi Arabia – a fear that drives her to cooperate openly with the terrorists while flaunting her relationship with the United States. The Wall Street Journal has editorialized that the solution ought to be our forcibly seizing the Saudi Arabian oil fields and replacing the current government with an even more pro-Western government. All along I thought we condemned regimes that took over their neighbors' oil fields!

The editorial, unbelievably explicit, concluded by saying: "Finally, we must be prepared to seize the Saudi oil fields and administer them for the greater good."  The greater good? I just wonder whose greater good?

If the jingoism of the Wall Street Journal prevails, and the warmongers in the Congress and the administration carry the day, we can assume with certainty that these efforts being made will precipitate an uncontrollable breakout of hostilities in the region that could lead to World War III.

How a major publication can actually print an article that openly supports such aggression as a serious proposal is difficult to comprehend! Two countries armed with nuclear weapons, on the verge of war in the region, and we're being urged to dig a deeper hole for ourselves by seizing the Saudi oil fields?

Already the presence of our troops in the Muslim holy land of Saudi Arabia has inflamed the hatred drove the terrorists to carry out their tragic acts of 9-11. Pursuing such an aggressive policy would only further undermine our ability to defend the American people and will compound the economic problems we face.

Something, anything, regardless of its effectiveness, had to be done, since the American people expected it, and Congress and the Administration willed it. An effort to get the terrorists and their supporters is obviously in order, and hopefully that has been achieved. But a never-ending commitment to end all terrorism in the world, whether it is related to the attack on September 11th or not, is neither a legitimate nor wise policy.

HJ RES 64 gives the President authority to pursue only those guilty of the attack on us – not every terrorist in the entire world. Let there be no doubt: for every terrorist identified, others will see only a freedom fighter.

When we aided Osama bin Laden in the 1980s, he was a member of the Mujahidien, and they were the freedom fighters waging a just war against the Soviet Army. A broad definition of terrorism outside the understanding of "those who attack the United States" opens a Pandora's box in our foreign policy commitments.

If we concentrate on searching for all terrorists throughout the world and bombing dozens of countries, but forget to deal with the important contributing factors that drove those who killed our fellow citizens, we will only make ourselves more vulnerable to new attacks.

How can we forever fail to address the provocative nature of U.S. taxpayer money being used to suppress and kill Palestinians and ignore the affront to the Islamic people that our military presence on their holy land of Saudi Arabia causes – not to mention the persistent 12 years of bombing Iraq?

I'm fearful that an unlimited worldwide war against all terrorism will distract from the serious consideration that must be given to our policy of foreign interventionism, driven by the powerful commercial interests and a desire to promote world government. This is done while ignoring our principle responsibility of protecting national security and liberty here at home.

There is a serious problem with a policy that has allowed a successful attack on our homeland. It cannot be written off as a result of irrational yet efficient evildoers who are merely jealous of our success and despise our freedoms.

We've had enemies throughout our history, but never before have we suffered such an attack that has made us feel so vulnerable. The cause of this crisis is much more profound and requires looking inwardly as well as outwardly at our own policies as well as those of others.

The Founders of this country were precise in their beliefs regarding foreign policy. Our Constitution reflects these beliefs, and all of our early presidents endorsed these views. It was not until the 20th Century that our nation went off to far away places looking for dragons to slay. This past century reflects the new and less-traditional American policy of foreign interventionism. Our economic and military power, a result of our domestic freedoms, has permitted us to survive and even thrive while dangerously expanding our worldwide influence.

There's no historic precedent that such a policy can be continued forever. All empires and great nations throughout history have ended when they stretched their commitments overseas too far and abused their financial system at home. The over-commitment of a country's military forces when forced with budgetary constraints can only lead to a lower standard of living for its citizens. That has already started to happen here in the United States. Who today is confident the government and our private retirement systems are sound and the benefits guaranteed?

The unfortunate complicating factor that all great powers suffer is the buildup of animosity toward the nation currently at the top of the heap, which is aggravated by arrogance and domination over the weaker nations. We are beginning to see this, and the Wall Street Journal editorial clearly symbolizes this arrogance.

The traditional American foreign policy of the Founders and our presidents for the first 145 years of our history entailed three points:

Friendship with all nations desiring of such
As much free trade and travel with those countries as possible
Avoiding entangling alliances
This is still good advice. The Framers also understood that the important powers for dealing with other countries and the issue of war were to be placed in the hands of the Congress. This principle has essentially been forgotten.

The executive branch now has much more power than does the Congress. Congress continues to allow its authority to be transferred to the executive branch, as well as to international agencies, such as the UN, NAFTA, IMF, and the WTO. Through executive orders, our presidents routinely use powers once jealously guarded and held by the Congress.

Today, through altering aid and sanctions, we buy and sell our "friendship" with all kinds of threats and bribes in our effort to spread our influence around the world. To most people in Washington, free trade means international managed trade, with subsidies and support for the WTO, where influential corporations can seek sanctions against their competitors. Our alliances, too numerous to count, have committed our dollars and our troops to such an extent that, under today's circumstances, there's not a border war or civil disturbance in the world in which we do not have a stake. And more than likely, we have a stake – foreign aid – in both sides of each military conflict.

After the demise of our nemesis, the Soviet Union, many believed that we could safely withdraw from some of our worldwide commitments. It was hoped we would start minding our own business, save some money, and reduce the threat to our military personnel. But the opposite has happened. Without any international competition for super-power status, our commitments have grown and spread, so that today we provide better military protection to Taiwan and South Korea and Saudi Arabia than we do for our own cities like New York and Washington.

I am certain that national security and defense of our own cities can never be adequately provided unless we reconsider our policy of foreign interventionism.

Conventional wisdom in Washington today is that we have no choice but to play the role of the world's only superpower. Recently, we had to cancel flights of our own Air Force over our cities because of spending constraints, and we rely on foreign AWACS aircraft to patrol our airspace.

The American people are not in sync with the assumption that we must commit ourselves endlessly to being the world's policemen. If we do not wisely step back and reassess our worldwide commitments and our endless entanglements as we march toward world government, economic law will one day force us to do so anyway under undesirable circumstances. In the meantime, we can expect plenty more military confrontations around the world while becoming even more vulnerable to attack by terrorists here at home.


Neo – CONNED !
by Hon. Ron Paul Of Texas (Speech In The House Of Representatives)
July 10, 2003

The modern-day limited-government movement has been co-opted.  The conservatives have failed in their effort to shrink the size of government. There has not been, nor will there soon be, a conservative revolution in Washington. Party control of the federal government has changed, but the inexorable growth in the size and scope of government has continued unabated. The liberal arguments for limited government in personal affairs and foreign military adventurism were never seriously considered as part of this revolution.

Since the change of the political party in charge has not made a difference, who’s really in charge? If the particular party in power makes little difference, whose policy is it that permits expanded government programs, increased spending, huge deficits, nation building and the pervasive invasion of our privacy, with fewer Fourth Amendment protections than ever before?

Someone is responsible, and it’s important that those of us who love liberty, and resent big-brother government, identify the philosophic supporters who have the most to say about the direction our country is going. If they’re wrong—and I believe they are—we need to show it, alert the American people, and offer a more positive approach to government.  However, this depends on whether the American people desire to live in a free society and reject the dangerous notion that we need a strong central government to take care of us from the cradle to the grave. Do the American people really believe it’s the government’s responsibility to make us morally better and economically equal? Do we have a responsibility to police the world, while imposing our vision of good government on everyone else in the world with some form of utopian nation building? If not, and the contemporary enemies of liberty are exposed and rejected, then it behooves us to present an alternative philosophy that is morally superior and economically sound and provides a guide to world affairs to enhance peace and commerce.

One thing is certain: conservatives who worked and voted for less government in the Reagan years and welcomed the takeover of the U.S. Congress and the presidency in the 1990s and early 2000s were deceived. Soon they will realize that the goal of limited government has been dashed and that their views no longer matter.

The so-called conservative revolution of the past two decades has given us massive growth in government size, spending and regulations. Deficits are exploding and the national debt is now rising at greater than a half-trillion dollars per year. Taxes do not go down—even if we vote to lower them. They can’t, as long as spending is increased, since all spending must be paid for one way or another. Both Presidents Reagan and the elder George Bush raised taxes directly. With this administration, so far, direct taxes have been reduced—and they certainly should have been—but it means little if spending increases and deficits rise.

When taxes are not raised to accommodate higher spending, the bills must be paid by either borrowing or “printing” new money. This is one reason why we conveniently have a generous Federal Reserve chairman who is willing to accommodate the Congress. With borrowing and inflating, the “tax” is delayed and distributed in a way that makes it difficult for those paying the tax to identify it. Like future generations and those on fixed incomes who suffer from rising prices, and those who lose jobs they certainly feel the consequences of economic dislocation that this process causes. Government spending is always a “tax” burden on the American people and is never equally or fairly distributed. The poor and low-middle income workers always suffer the most from the deceitful tax of inflation and borrowing.

Many present-day conservatives, who generally argue for less government and supported the Reagan/Gingrich/Bush takeover of the federal government, are now justifiably disillusioned. Although not a monolithic group, they wanted to shrink the size of government.

Early in our history, the advocates of limited, constitutional government recognized two important principles: the rule of law was crucial, and a constitutional government must derive “just powers from the consent of the governed.” It was understood that an explicit transfer of power to government could only occur with power rightfully and naturally endowed to each individual as a God-given right. Therefore, the powers that could be transferred would be limited to the purpose of protecting liberty. Unfortunately, in the last 100 years, the defense of liberty has been fragmented and shared by various groups, with some protecting civil liberties, others economic freedom, and a small diverse group arguing for a foreign policy of nonintervention.

The philosophy of freedom has had a tough go of it, and it was hoped that the renewed interest in limited government of the past two decades would revive an interest in reconstituting the freedom philosophy into something more consistent. Those who worked for the goal of limited government power believed the rhetoric of politicians who promised smaller government. Sometimes it was just plain sloppy thinking on their part, but at other times, they fell victim to a deliberate distortion of a concise limited-government philosophy by politicians who misled many into believing that we would see a rollback on government intrusiveness.

Yes, there was always a remnant who longed for truly limited government and maintained a belief in the rule of law, combined with a deep conviction that free people and a government bound by a Constitution were the most advantageous form of government. They recognized it as the only practical way for prosperity to be spread to the maximum number of people while promoting peace and security.

That remnant—imperfect as it may have been—was heard from in the elections of 1980 and 1994 and then achieved major victories in 2000 and 2002 when professed limited-government proponents took over the White House, the Senate and the House. However, the true believers in limited government are now shunned and laughed at. At the very least, they are ignored—except when they are used by the new leaders of the right, the new conservatives now in charge of the U.S. government.

The remnant’s instincts were correct, and the politicians placated them with talk of free markets, limited government, and a humble, non-nation-building foreign policy. However, little concern for civil liberties was expressed in this recent quest for less government. Yet, for an ultimate victory of achieving freedom, this must change. Interest in personal privacy and choices has generally remained outside the concern of many conservatives—especially with the great harm done by their support of the drug war. Even though some confusion has emerged over our foreign policy since the breakdown of the Soviet empire, it’s been a net benefit in getting some conservatives back on track with a less militaristic, interventionist foreign policy. Unfortunately, after 9-ll, the cause of liberty suffered a setback. As a result, millions of Americans voted for the less-than-perfect conservative revolution because they believed in the promises of the politicians.

Now there’s mounting evidence to indicate exactly what happened to the revolution. Government is bigger than ever, and future commitments are overwhelming. Millions will soon become disenchanted with the new status quo delivered to the American people by the advocates of limited government and will find it to be just more of the old status quo. Victories for limited government have turned out to be hollow indeed.

Since the national debt is increasing at a rate greater than a half-trillion dollars per year, the debt limit was recently increased by an astounding $984 billion dollars. Total U.S. government obligations are $43 trillion, while the total net worth of U.S. households is about $40.6 trillion. The country is broke, but no one in Washington seems to notice or care. The philosophic and political commitment for both guns and butter—and especially the expanding American empire—must be challenged. This is crucial for our survival.

In spite of the floundering economy, Congress and the Administration continue to take on new commitments in foreign aid, education, farming, medicine, multiple efforts at nation building, and preemptive wars around the world. Already we’re entrenched in Iraq and Afghanistan, with plans to soon add new trophies to our conquest. War talk abounds as to when Syria, Iran and North Korea will be attacked.

How did all this transpire? Why did the government do it? Why haven’t the people objected? How long will it go on before something is done? Does anyone care?

Will the euphoria of grand military victories—against non-enemies—ever be mellowed? Someday, we as a legislative body must face the reality of the dire situation in which we have allowed ourselves to become enmeshed. Hopefully, it will be soon!

We got here because ideas do have consequences. Bad ideas have bad consequences, and even the best of intentions have unintended consequences. We need to know exactly what the philosophic ideas were that drove us to this point; then, hopefully, reject them and decide on another set of intellectual parameters.

There is abundant evidence exposing those who drive our foreign policy justifying preemptive war. Those who scheme are proud of the achievements in usurping control over foreign policy. These are the neoconservatives of recent fame. Granted, they are talented and achieved a political victory that all policymakers must admire. But can freedom and the republic survive this takeover? That question should concern us.

Neoconservatives are obviously in positions of influence and are well-placed throughout our government and the media. An apathetic Congress put up little resistance and abdicated its responsibilities over foreign affairs. The electorate was easily influenced to join in the patriotic fervor supporting the military adventurism advocated by the neoconservatives.

The numbers of those who still hope for truly limited government diminished and had their concerns ignored these past 22 months, during the aftermath of 9-11. Members of Congress were easily influenced to publicly support any domestic policy or foreign military adventure that was supposed to help reduce the threat of a terrorist attack. Believers in limited government were harder to find. Political money, as usual, played a role in pressing Congress into supporting almost any proposal suggested by the neocons. This process—where campaign dollars and lobbying efforts affect policy—is hardly the domain of any single political party, and unfortunately, is the way of life in Washington.

There are many reasons why government continues to grow. It would be naïve for anyone to expect otherwise. Since 9-11, protection of privacy, whether medical, personal or financial, has vanished. Free speech and the Fourth Amendment have been under constant attack. Higher welfare expenditures are endorsed by the leadership of both parties. Policing the world and nation-building issues are popular campaign targets, yet they are now standard operating procedures. There’s no sign that these programs will be slowed or reversed until either we are stopped by force overseas (which won’t be soon) or we go broke and can no longer afford these grandiose plans for a world empire (which will probably come sooner than later.)

None of this happened by accident or coincidence. Precise philosophic ideas prompted certain individuals to gain influence to implement these plans. The neoconservatives—a name they gave themselves—diligently worked their way into positions of power and influence. They documented their goals, strategy and moral justification for all they hoped to accomplish. Above all else, they were not and are not conservatives dedicated to limited, constitutional government.

Neo-conservatism has been around for decades and, strangely, has connections to past generations as far back as Machiavelli. Modern-day neo-conservatism was introduced to us in the 1960s. It entails both a detailed strategy as well as a philosophy of government. The ideas of Teddy Roosevelt, and certainly Woodrow Wilson, were quite similar to many of the views of present-day neocons. Neocon spokesman Max Boot brags that what he advocates is “hard Wilsonianism.” In many ways, there’s nothing “neo” about their views, and certainly nothing conservative. Yet they have been able to co-opt the conservative movement by advertising themselves as a new or modern form of conservatism.

More recently, the modern-day neocons have come from the far left, a group historically identified as former Trotskyites. Liberal, Christopher Hitchens, has recently officially joined the neocons, and it has been reported that he has already been to the White House as an ad hoc consultant. Many neocons now in positions of influence in Washington can trace their status back to Professor Leo Strauss of the University of Chicago. One of Strauss’ books was Thoughts on Machiavelli. This book was not a condemnation of Machiavelli’s philosophy. Paul Wolfowitz actually got his PhD under Strauss. Others closely associated with these views are Richard Perle, Eliot Abrams, Robert Kagan, and William Kristol. All are key players in designing our new strategy of preemptive war. Others include: Michael Ledeen of the American Enterprise Institute; former CIA Director James Woolsey; Bill Bennett of Book of Virtues fame; Frank Gaffney; Dick Cheney; and Donald Rumsfeld. There are just too many to mention who are philosophically or politically connected to the neocon philosophy in some varying degree.

The godfather of modern-day neo-conservatism is considered to be Irving Kristol, father of Bill Kristol, who set the stage in 1983 with his publication Reflections of a Neoconservative. In this book, Kristol also defends the traditional liberal position on welfare.

More important than the names of people affiliated with neo-conservatism are the views they adhere to. Here is a brief summary of the general understanding of what neocons believe:

They agree with Trotsky on permanent revolution, violent as well as intellectual.

They are for redrawing the map of the Middle East and are willing to use force to do so.

They believe in preemptive war to achieve desired ends.

They accept the notion that the ends justify the means—that hardball politics is a moral necessity.

They express no opposition to the welfare state.

They are not bashful about an American empire; instead they strongly endorse it.

They believe lying is necessary for the state to survive.

They believe a powerful federal government is a benefit.

They believe pertinent facts about how a society should be run should be held by the elite and withheld from those who do not have the courage to deal with it.

 They believe neutrality in foreign affairs is ill advised.

They hold Leo Strauss in high esteem.

They believe imperialism, if progressive in nature, is appropriate.

Using American might to force American ideals on others is acceptable.  Force should not be limited to the defense of our country.

9-11 resulted from the lack of foreign entanglements, not from too many.

They dislike and despise libertarians (therefore, the same applies to all strict constitutionalists.)

They endorse attacks on civil liberties, such as those found in the Patriot Act, as being necessary.

They unconditionally support Israel and have a close alliance with the Likud Party.

Various organizations and publications over the last 30 years have played a significant role in the rise to power of the neoconservatives. It took plenty of money and commitment to produce the intellectual arguments needed to convince the many participants in the movement of its respectability.

It is no secret—especially after the rash of research and articles written about the neocons since our invasion of Iraq—how they gained influence and what organizations were used to promote their cause. Although for decades, they agitated for their beliefs through publications like The National Review, The Weekly Standard, The Public Interest, The Wall Street Journal, Commentary, and the New York Post, their views only gained momentum in the 1990s following the first Persian Gulf War—which still has not ended even with removal of Saddam Hussein. They became convinced that a much more militant approach to resolving all the conflicts in the Middle East was an absolute necessity, and they were determined to implement that policy.

In addition to publications, multiple think tanks and projects were created to promote their agenda. A product of the Bradley Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) led the neocon charge, but the real push for war came from the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) another organization helped by the Bradley Foundation. This occurred in 1998 and was chaired by Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol. They urged early on for war against Iraq, but were disappointed with the Clinton administration, which never followed through with its periodic bombings.  Obviously, these bombings were motivated more by Clinton’s personal and political problems than a belief in the neocon agenda.

The election of 2000 changed all that.  The Defense Policy Board, chaired by Richard Perle, played no small role in coordinating the various projects and think tanks, all determined to take us into war against Iraq. It wasn’t too long before the dream of empire was brought closer to reality by the election of 2000 with Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld playing key roles in this accomplishment. The plan to promote an “American greatness” imperialistic foreign policy was now a distinct possibility. Iraq offered a great opportunity to prove their long-held theories. This opportunity was a consequence of the 9-11 disaster.

The money and views of Rupert Murdoch also played a key role in promoting the neocon views, as well as rallying support by the general population, through his News Corporation, which owns Fox News Network, the New York Post, and Weekly Standard. This powerful and influential media empire did more to galvanize public support for the Iraqi invasion than one might imagine. This facilitated the Rumsfeld/Cheney policy as their plans to attack Iraq came to fruition. It would have been difficult for the neocons to usurp foreign policy from the restraints of Colin Powell’s State Department without the successful agitation of the Rupert Murdoch empire. Max Boot was satisfied, as he explained: “Neoconservatives believe in using American might to promote American ideals abroad.” This attitude is a far cry from the advice of the Founders, who advocated no entangling alliances and neutrality as the proper goal of American foreign policy.

Let there be no doubt, those in the neocon camp had been anxious to go to war against Iraq for a decade. They justified the use of force to accomplish their goals, even if it required preemptive war. If anyone doubts this assertion, they need only to read of their strategy in “A Clean Break: a New Strategy for Securing the Realm.” Although they felt morally justified in changing the government in Iraq, they knew that public support was important, and justification had to be given to pursue the war. Of course, a threat to us had to exist before the people and the Congress would go along with war. The majority of Americans became convinced of this threat, which, in actuality, never really existed. Now we have the ongoing debate over the location of weapons of mass destruction. Where was the danger? Was all this killing and spending necessary? How long will this nation building and dying go on? When will we become more concerned about the needs of our own citizens than the problems we sought in Iraq and Afghanistan? Who knows where we’ll go next—Iran, Syria or North Korea?

At the end of the Cold War, the neoconservatives realized a rearrangement of the world was occurring and that our superior economic and military power offered them a perfect opportunity to control the process of remaking the Middle East.

It was recognized that a new era was upon us, and the neocons welcomed Frances Fukuyama’s “end of history” declaration. To them, the debate was over. The West won; the Soviets lost. Old-fashioned communism was dead. Long live the new era of neoconservatism. The struggle may not be over, but the West won the intellectual fight, they reasoned. The only problem is that the neocons decided to define the philosophy of the victors. They have been amazingly successful in their efforts to control the debate over what Western values are and by what methods they will be spread throughout the world.

Communism surely lost a lot with the breakup of the Soviet Empire, but this can hardly be declared a victory for American liberty, as the Founders understood it. Neoconservatism is not the philosophy of free markets and a wise foreign policy. Instead, it represents big-government welfare at home and a program of using our military might to spread their version of American values throughout the world. Since neoconservatives dominate the way the U.S. government now operates, it behooves us all to understand their beliefs and goals. The breakup of the Soviet system may well have been an epic event but to say that the views of the neocons are the unchallenged victors and that all we need do is wait for their implementation is a capitulation to controlling the forces of history that many Americans are not yet ready to concede. There is surely no need to do so.

There is now a recognized philosophic connection between modern-day neoconservatives and Irving Kristol, Leo Strauss, and Machiavelli. This is important in understanding that today’s policies and the subsequent problems will be with us for years to come if these policies are not reversed.

Not only did Leo Strauss write favorably of Machiavelli, Michael Ledeen, a current leader of the neoconservative movement, did the same in 1999 in his book with the title, Machiavelli on Modern Leadership, and subtitled: Why Machiavelli’s iron rules are as timely and important today as five centuries ago.  Ledeen is indeed an influential neocon theorist whose views get lots of attention today in Washington. His book on Machiavelli, interestingly enough, was passed out to Members of Congress attending a political strategy meeting shortly after its publication and at just about the time A Clean Break was issued.

In Ledeen’s most recent publication, The War Against the Terror Masters, he reiterates his beliefs outlined in this 1999 Machaivelli book. He specifically praises: “Creative destruction…both within our own society and abroad…(foreigners) seeing America undo traditional societies may fear us, for they do not wish to be undone.” Amazingly, Ledeen concludes: “They must attack us in order to survive, just as we must  destroy them to advance our historic mission.”

If those words don’t scare you, nothing will. If they are not a clear warning, I don’t know what could be. It sounds like both sides of each disagreement in the world will be following the principle of preemptive war. The world is certainly a less safe place for it.

In Machiavelli on Modern Leadership, Ledeen praises a business leader for correctly understanding Machiavelli: “There are no absolute solutions. It all depends. What is right and what is wrong depends on what needs to be done and how.” This is a clear endorsement of situational ethics and is not coming from the traditional left. It reminds me of: “It depends on what the definition of the word ‘is’ is.”

Ledeen quotes Machiavelli approvingly on what makes a great leader. “A prince must have no other objectives or other thoughts or take anything for his craft, except war.” To Ledeen, this meant: “…the virtue of the warrior are those of great leaders of any successful organization.” Yet it’s obvious that war is not coincidental to neocon philosophy, but an integral part. The intellectuals justify it, and the politicians carry it out. There’s a precise reason to argue for war over peace according to Ledeen, for “…peace increases our peril by making discipline less urgent, encouraging some of our worst instincts, in depriving us of some of our best leaders.” Peace, he claims, is a dream and not even a pleasant one, for it would cause indolence and would undermine the power of the state. Although I concede the history of the world is a history of frequent war, to capitulate and give up even striving for peace—believing peace is not a benefit to mankind—is a frightening thought that condemns the world to perpetual war and justifies it as a benefit and necessity. These are dangerous ideas, from which no good can come.

The conflict of the ages has been between the state and the individual: central power versus liberty. The more restrained the state and the more emphasis on individual liberty, the greater has been the advancement of civilization and general prosperity. Just as man’s condition was not locked in place by the times and wars of old and improved with liberty and free markets, there’s no reason to believe a new stage for man might not be achieved by believing and working for conditions of peace. The inevitability and so-called need for preemptive war should never be intellectually justified as being a benefit. Such an attitude guarantees the backsliding of civilization. Neocons, unfortunately, claim that war is in man’s nature and that we can’t do much about it, so let’s use it to our advantage by promoting our goodness around the world through force of arms. That view is anathema to the cause of liberty and the preservation of the Constitution. If it is not loudly refuted, our future will be dire indeed.

Ledeen believes man is basically evil and cannot be left to his own desires. Therefore, he must have proper and strong leadership, just as Machiavelli argued. Only then can man achieve good, as Ledeen explains: “In order to achieve the most noble accomplishments, the leader may have to ‘enter into evil.’ This is the chilling insight that has made Machiavelli so feared, admired and challenging…we are rotten,” argues Ledeen. “It’s true that we can achieve greatness if, and only if, we are properly led.” In other words, man is so depraved that individuals are incapable of moral, ethical and spiritual greatness, and achieving excellence and virtue can only come from a powerful authoritarian leader. What depraved ideas are these to now be influencing our leaders in Washington?  The question Ledeen doesn’t answer is:  “Why do the political leaders not suffer from the same shortcomings and where do they obtain their monopoly on wisdom?”

Once this trust is placed in the hands of a powerful leader, this neocon argues that certain tools are permissible to use. For instance: “Lying is central to the survival of nations and to the success of great enterprises, because if our enemies can count on the reliability of everything you say, your vulnerability is enormously increased.” What about the effects of lying on one’s own people? Who cares if a leader can fool the enemy? Does calling it “strategic deception” make lying morally justifiable? Ledeen and Machiavelli argue that it does, as long as the survivability of the state is at stake. Preserving the state is their goal, even if the personal liberty of all individuals has to be suspended or canceled.

Ledeen makes it clear that war is necessary to establish national boundaries—because that’s the way it’s always been done. Who needs progress of the human race! He explains:

"Look at the map of the world: national boundaries have not been drawn by peaceful men leading lives of spiritual contemplation. National boundaries have been established by war, and national character has been shaped by struggle, most often bloody struggle."

Yes, but who is to lead the charge and decide which borders we are to fight for? What about borders 6,000 miles away unrelated to our own contiguous borders and our own national security? Stating a relative truism regarding the frequency of war throughout history should hardly be the moral justification for expanding the concept of war to settle man’s disputes. How can one call this progress?

Machiavelli, Ledeen and the neocons recognized a need to generate a religious zeal for promoting the state. This, he claims, is especially necessary when force is used to promote an agenda. It’s been true throughout history and remains true today, each side of major conflicts invokes God’s approval. Our side refers to a “crusade;” theirs to a “holy Jihad.” Too often wars boil down to their god against our God. It seems this principle is more a cynical effort to gain approval from the masses, especially those most likely to be killed for the sake of the war promoters on both sides who have power, prestige and wealth at stake.

Ledeen explains why God must always be on the side of advocates of war: “Without fear of God, no state can last long, for the dread of eternal damnation keeps men in line, causes them to honor their promises, and inspires them to risk their lives for the common good.” It seems dying for the common good has gained a higher moral status than eternal salvation of one’s soul. Ledeen adds:  "Without fear of punishment, men will not obey laws that force them to act contrary to their passions. Without fear of arms, the state cannot enforce the laws…to this end, Machiavelli wants leaders to make the state spectacular."

It’s of interest to note that some large Christian denominations have joined the neoconservatives in promoting preemptive war, while completely ignoring the Christian doctrine of a Just War. The neocons sought and openly welcomed their support.

I’d like someone to glean anything from what the Founders said or placed in the Constitution that agrees with this now-professed doctrine of a “spectacular” state promoted by those who now have so much influence on our policies here at home and abroad. Ledeen argues that this religious element, this fear of God, is needed for discipline of those who may be hesitant to sacrifice their lives for the good of the “spectacular state.”

He explains in eerie terms: “Dying for one’s country doesn’t come naturally. Modern armies, raised from the populace, must be inspired, motivated, indoctrinated. Religion is central to the military enterprise, for men are more likely to risk their lives if they believe they will be rewarded forever after for serving their country.” This is an admonition that might just as well have been given by Osama bin Laden, in rallying his troops to sacrifice their lives to kill the invading infidels, as by our intellectuals at the AEI, who greatly influence our foreign policy.

Neocons—anxious for the U.S. to use force to realign the boundaries and change regimes in the Middle East—clearly understand the benefit of a galvanizing and emotional event to rally the people to their cause. Without a special event, they realized the difficulty in selling their policy of preemptive war where our own military personnel would be killed. Whether it was the Lusitania, Pearl Harbor, the Gulf of Tonkin, or the Maine, all served their purpose in promoting a war that was sought by our leaders.

Ledeen writes of a fortuitous event (1999): …of course, we can always get lucky. Stunning events from outside can providentially awaken the enterprise from its growing torpor, and demonstrate the need for reversal, as the devastating Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 so effectively aroused the U.S. from its soothing dreams of permanent neutrality.

Amazingly, Ledeen calls Pearl Harbor a “lucky” event.  The Project for a New American Century, as recently as September 2000, likewise, foresaw the need for “a Pearl Harbor event” that would galvanize the American people to support their ambitious plans to ensure political and economic domination of the world, while strangling any potential “rival.”

Recognizing a “need” for a Pearl Harbor event, and referring to Pearl Harbor as being “lucky” are not identical to support and knowledge of such an event, but this sympathy for a galvanizing event, as 9-11 turned out to be, was used to promote an agenda that strict constitutionalists and devotees of the Founders of this nation find appalling is indeed disturbing. After 9-11, Rumsfeld and others argued for an immediate attack on Iraq, even though it was not implicated in the attacks.

The fact that neo-conservatives ridicule those who firmly believe that U.S. interests and world peace would best be served by a policy of neutrality and avoiding foreign entanglements should not go unchallenged. Not to do so is to condone their grandiose plans for American world hegemony.

The current attention given neocons is usually done in the context of foreign policy. But there’s more to what’s going on today than just the tremendous influence the neocons have on our new policy of preemptive war with a goal of empire. Our government is now being moved by several ideas that come together in what I call “neoconism.” The foreign policy is being openly debated, even if its implications are not fully understood by many who support it. Washington is now driven by old views brought together in a new package.

We know those who lead us—both in the administration and in Congress—show no appetite to challenge the tax or monetary systems that do so much damage to our economy. The IRS and the Federal Reserve are off limits for criticism or reform. There’s no resistance to spending, either domestic or foreign. Debt is not seen as a problem. The supply-siders won on this issue, and now many conservatives readily endorse deficit spending.

There’s no serious opposition to the expanding welfare state, with rapid growth of the education, agriculture and medical-care bureaucracy. Support for labor unions and protectionism are not uncommon. Civil liberties are easily sacrificed in the post 9-11 atmosphere prevailing in Washington. Privacy issues are of little concern, except for a few members of Congress. Foreign aid and internationalism—in spite of some healthy criticism of the UN and growing concerns for our national sovereignty—are  championed on both sides of the aisle. Lip service is given to the free market and free trade, yet the entire economy is run by special-interest legislation favoring big business, big labor and, especially, big money.

Instead of the “end of history,” we are now experiencing the end of a vocal limited-government movement in our nation’s capital. While most conservatives no longer defend balanced budgets and reduced spending, most liberals have grown lazy in defending civil liberties and now are approving wars that we initiate. The so-called “third way” has arrived and, sadly, it has taken the worst of what the conservatives and liberals have to offer. The people are less well off for it, while liberty languishes as a result.

Neocons enthusiastically embrace the Department of Education and national testing. Both parties overwhelmingly support the huge commitment to a new prescription drug program. Their devotion to the new approach called “compassionate conservatism” has lured many conservatives into supporting programs for expanding the federal role in welfare and in church charities. The faith-based initiative is a neocon project, yet it only repackages and expands the liberal notion of welfare. The intellectuals who promoted these initiatives were neocons, but there’s nothing conservative about expanding the federal government’s role in welfare.

The supply-siders’ policy of low-marginal tax rates has been incorporated into neoconism, as well as their support for easy money and generous monetary inflation. Neoconservatives are disinterested in the gold standard and even ignore the supply-siders’ argument for a phony gold standard.

Is it any wonder that federal government spending is growing at a rate faster than in any time in the past 35 years?

Power, politics and privilege prevail over the rule of law, liberty, justice and peace. But it does not need to be that way. Neoconism has brought together many old ideas about how government should rule the people. It may have modernized its appeal and packaging, but authoritarian rule is authoritarian rule, regardless of the humanitarian overtones. A solution can only come after the current ideology driving our government policies is replaced with a more positive one. In a historical context, liberty is a modern idea and must once again regain the high moral ground for civilization to advance. Restating the old justifications for war, people control and a benevolent state will not suffice. It cannot eliminate the shortcomings that always occur when the state assumes authority over others and when the will of one nation is forced on another—whether or not it is done with good intentions.

I realize that all conservatives are not neoconservatives, and all neocons don’t necessarily agree on all points—which means that in spite of their tremendous influence, most Members of Congress and those in the administration do not necessarily take their marching orders from the AEI or Richard Perle. But to use this as a reason to ignore what neoconservative leaders believe, write about it and agitate for—with amazing success I might point out—would be at our own peril. This country still allows open discourse—though less everyday—and we who disagree should push the discussion and expose those who drive our policies. It is getting more difficult to get  fair and balanced discussion on the issues, because it has become routine for the hegemons to label those who object to preemptive war and domestic surveillance as traitors, unpatriotic and un-American. The uniformity of support for our current foreign policy by major and cable-news networks should concern every American. We should all be thankful for CSPAN and the internet.

Michael Ledeen and other neoconservatives are already lobbying for war against Iran. Ledeen is pretty nasty to those who call for a calmer, reasoned approach by calling those who are not ready for war “cowards and appeasers of tyrants.” Because some urge a less militaristic approach to dealing with Iran, he claims they are betraying America’s best “traditions.” I wonder where he learned early American history! It’s obvious that Ledeen doesn’t consider the Founders and the Constitution part of our best traditions. We were hardly encouraged by the American revolutionaries to pursue an American empire. We were, however, urged to keep the Republic they so painstakingly designed.

If the neoconservatives retain control of the conservative, limited-government movement in Washington, the ideas, once championed by conservatives, of limiting the size and scope of government will be a long-forgotten dream.

The believers in liberty ought not deceive themselves. Who should be satisfied? Certainly not conservatives, for there is no conservative movement left. How could liberals be satisfied? They are pleased with the centralization of education and medical programs in Washington and support many of the administration’s proposals. But none should be pleased with the steady attack on the civil liberties of all American citizens and the now-accepted consensus that preemptive war—for almost any reason—is an acceptable policy for dealing with all the conflicts and problems of the world.

In spite of the deteriorating conditions in Washington—with loss of personal liberty, a weak economy, exploding deficits, and perpetual war, followed by nation building—there are still quite a number of us who would relish the opportunity to improve things, in one way or another. Certainly, a growing number of frustrated Americans, from both the right and the left, are getting anxious to see this Congress do a better job. But first, Congress must stop doing a bad job.

We’re at the point where we need a call to arms, both here in Washington and across the country. I’m not talking about firearms. Those of us who care need to raise both arms and face our palms out and begin waving and shouting: Stop! Enough is enough! It should include liberals, conservatives and independents. We’re all getting a bum rap from politicians who are pushed by polls and controlled by special-interest money.

One thing is certain, no matter how morally justified the programs and policies seem, the ability to finance all the guns and butter being promised is limited, and those limits are becoming more apparent every day.

Spending, borrowing and printing money cannot be the road to prosperity. It hasn’t worked in Japan, and it isn’t working here either. As a matter of fact, it’s never worked anytime throughout history. A point is always reached where government planning, spending and inflation run out of steam. Instead of these old tools reviving an economy, as they do in the early stages of economic interventionism, they eventually become the problem. Both sides of the political spectrum must one day realize that limitless government intrusion in the economy, in our personal lives and in the affairs of other nations cannot serve the best interests of America. This is not a conservative problem, nor is it a liberal problem—it’s a government intrusion problem that comes from both groups, albeit for different reasons. The problems emanate from both camps that champion different programs for different reasons. The solution will come when both groups realize that it’s not merely a single-party problem, or just a liberal or just a conservative problem.

Once enough of us decide we’ve had enough of all these so-called good things that the government is always promising—or more likely, when the country is broke and the government is unable to fulfill its promises to the people—we can start a serious discussion on the proper role for government in a free society. Unfortunately, it will be some time before Congress gets the message that the people are demanding true reform. This requires that those responsible for today’s problems are exposed and their philosophy of pervasive government intrusion is rejected.

Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it’s realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy. A few have, and others will continue to do so, but too many—both in and out of government—close their eyes to the issue of personal liberty and ignore the fact that endless borrowing to finance endless demands cannot be sustained. True prosperity can only come from a healthy economy and sound money. That can only be achieved in a free society.


http://www.learn-usa.com/
A nation that knows not from where it came, knows not where it is going!  Today, Americans know too little about the foundations of our nation.  The result is a nation now in chaos, its people unable to discern what is wrong with the transformation (paradigm shift) of our society and form of government that, if left unchecked, will destroy every facet of freedom, liberty and justice.  The price of freedom is vigilance; the price of vigilance is knowledge.  Many of America's founding documents are now available on the web.

America’s Foundations HyperLinks:
The American Colonist's Library
http://personal.pitnet.net/primarysources/
The Anti-Federalist Papers
http://www.wepin.com/articles/afp/index.htm
bartleby.com
http://www.bartleby.com/99/index2.html
Constitution Society
http://www.constitution.org/
The Federalist Papers
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/const/fed/fedpapers.html
founding.com
http://www.founding.com/home.htm
quoteland.com
http://www.quoteland.com/library/
The Republican, Historical Vault
http://members.ll.net/chiliast/hvault.htm
Wallbuilders.com
http://www.wallbuilders.com/

http://www.newswithviews.com/Blumenfeld/SamuelA.htm
http://www.newswithviews.com/Stuter/stuterA.htm
http://www.newswithviews.com/public_schools/public_schoolsa.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Enemy Within [and the Need for Profiling]
by Daniel Pipes
New York Post
January 24, 2003

The day after 9/11, Texas police arrested two Indian Muslim men riding a train and carrying about $5,000 in cash, black hair dye and boxcutters like those used to hijack four planes just one day earlier.

[The police held the pair initially on immigration charges (their U.S. visas had expired); when further inquiry turned up credit card fraud, that kept them longer in detention. But law enforcement's real interest, of course, had to do with their possible connections to Al-Qaeda.]

To investigate this matter - and here our information comes from one of the two, Ayub Ali Khan, after he was released - the authorities put them through some pretty rough treatment.

Khan says the interrogation "terrorized" him. [He recounts how "Five to six men would pull me in different directions very roughly as they asked rapid-fire questions. . . . Then suddenly they would brutally throw me against the wall." They also asked him political questions: had he, for example, "ever discussed the situation in Palestine with friends?"]

Eventually exonerated of connections to terrorism and freed from jail, Khan is - not surprisingly - bitter about his experience, saying that he and his traveling partner were singled out on the basis of profiling. This is self-evidently correct: Had Khan not been a Muslim, the police would have had little interest in him and his boxcutters.

Khan's tribulation brings to attention the single-most delicate and agonizing issue in prosecuting the War on Terror. Does singling out Muslims for additional scrutiny serve a purpose? And if so, is it legally and morally acceptable?

In reply to the first question - yes, enhanced scrutiny of Muslims makes good sense, for several reasons:

In the course of their assaults on Americans, Islamists - the supporters of militant Islam - have killed nearly 4,000 people since 1979. No other enemy has remotely the same record.

Islamists are plotting to kill many more Americans, as shown by the more than one-group-a-month arrests of them since 9/11.

While most Muslims are not Islamists and most Islamists are not terrorists, all Islamist terrorists are Muslims.

Islamist terrorists do not appear spontaneously, but emerge from a milieu of religious sanction, intellectual justification, financial support and organizational planning.
These circumstances - and this is the unpleasant part - point to the imperative of focusing on Muslims. There is no escaping the unfortunate fact that Muslim government employees in law enforcement, the military and the diplomatic corps need to be watched for connections to terrorism, as do Muslim chaplains in prisons and the armed forces. Muslim visitors and immigrants must undergo additional background checks. Mosques require a scrutiny beyond that applied to churches and temples.

Singling out a class of persons by their religion feels wrong, if not downright un-American, prompting the question: Even if useful, should such scrutiny be permitted?

If Americans want to protect themselves from Islamist terrorism, they must temporarily give higher priority to security concerns than to civil-libertarian sensitivities.

Preventing Islamists from inflicting further damage implies the regrettable step of focusing on Muslims. Not to do so is an invitation to further terrorism.

This solemn reality suggests four thoughts:

First, as Khan's experience shows, Muslims are already subjected to added scrutiny; the time has come for politicians to catch up to reality and formally acknowledge what are now quasi-clandestine practices. Doing so places these issues in the public arena, where they can openly be debated.

Second, because having to focus heightened attention on Muslims is inherently so unpleasant, it needs to be conducted with utmost care and tact, remembering, above all, that seven out of eight Muslims are not Islamists, and fewer still are connected to terrorism.

Third, this is an emergency measure that should end with the War on Terror's end.

Finally, innocent Muslims who must endure added surveillance can console themselves with the knowledge that their security, too, is enhanced by these steps.

Arrests and Convictions

Following is a partial listing of those arrested in the United States in connection to militant Islamic terrorism:

  • Eagon, Minn. August 2001: Zacarias Moussaoui, accused of being the intended 20th hijacker on 9/11.
  • Detroit and Dearborn, Mich. September 2001: Karim Koubriti, Ahmed Hannan, Farouk Ali-Haimoud and Abdel-Ilah Elmardoudi (Abdella), accused of being part of a sleeper operational combat cell for a militant Islamic movement allied with al Qaeda. Specifically, they are accused of trying to cause economic harm to the United States, recruit and train terrorists, set up safe houses and gather intelligence about terror targets.
  • Peoria, Ill. December 2001: Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri, accused of falsely denying his contacts with Mustafa Ahmed al-Hawsawi, one of the 9/11 organizers based in the United Arab Emirates;
  • Ann Arbor, Mich. December 2001: Rabih Haddad, accused of funneling money to terrorists via the Global Relief Foundation;
  • Northern Virginia and Georgia. March 2002: 15 warrants executed against several businesses (including MarJac Investments, Mar-Jac Poultry, Reston Investments, SAAR Foundation, Safa Trust and Sterling Management Group); nonprofit organizations (including the Fiqh Council of North America, Graduate School of Islamic and Social Sciences, International Institute of Islamic Thought, International Islamic Relief Organization and Muslim World League), and four homes, all connected to M. Yaqub Mizra, accused of laundering money for al Qaeda or other terrorist groups.
  • Justice, Ill. April 2002: Enaam Arnaout, accused of funneling money to al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations;
  • New York. April 2002: Mohammed Yousry, Ahmed Abdel Sattar and Yassir Al-Sirri accused of passing messages between Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman (serving a life sentence for his part in an attempt to blow up New York City landmarks) and his followers;
  • Chicago. May 2002: Jose Padilla, accused of being an al Qaeda member who was plotting to release a dirty bomb in a U.S. city;
  • Sunrise, Fla. June 2002: Adham Hassoun, suspected of organizing al Qaeda operatives in the United States;
  • Detroit. July 2002: Omar Abdel-Fatah Al-Shishani, accused of smuggling $12 million in bogus cashiers checks into the United States, possibly on behalf of al Qaeda (his name appeared on documents found in Afghanistan);
  • Seattle. July 2002: James Ujaama, accused of conspiracy to provide material support and resources and resources to al Qaeda;
  • Paterson, N.J. August 2002: Mohamed Atriss, accused of connections to known terrorists;
  • Lackawanna, N.Y. September 2002: Yahya Goba, Shafal Mosed, Yasein Taher, Taysal Galab, Mukhtar al-Bakri and Sahim Alwan, accused of providing material support to al Qaeda, and several of them are accused of training in al Qaeda camps. Taysal Galab has confessed;
  • Portland, Ore. September 2002: Mohamed Kariye, accused of financial links to al Qaeda via the Global Relief Foundation;
  • San Diego. September 2002: Syed Saadat Ali Faraz, Muhammed Abid Afridi and Ilyas Ali, accused of trading drugs for Stinger anti-aircraft missiles to sell to al Qaeda (and caught in Hong Kong, then extradicted to the United States);
  • San Diego. October 2002: Syed Shah, Muhammed Apridi and Ilyas Ali, accused of conspiring to distribute illegal drugs and to provide material support and resources to a foreign terrorist organization;
  • Portland, Ore., and Detroit. October 2002: Jeffrey Battle, Patrice Ford, Ahmed Bilal, Muhammad Bilal, Habis Al Saoub and October Lewis, accused of forming an al Qaeda suspected terrorist cell to levy war against the United States, conspiring to provide material support and resources to al Qaeda and to contribute services to al Qaeda and the Taliban and possessing firearms.;
  • Orlando, Fla. November 2002: Jesse Maali, accused of ties to Middle East groups advocating violence;
  • Buffalo, New York. December 2002: Mohamed Albanna, Ali Albanna, Ali Elbaneh, accused of operating an illegal money transfer business to Yemen.

There have also been two major arrests connected to rogue states.

  • Richardson, Texas. December 2002: Five brothers—Ghassan, Bayan, Basman, Hazim and Ihsan Elashi—accused of selling computers and computer parts to Libya and Syria, both designated state sponsors of terrorism;
  • Seattle, Nashville, St. Louis, Dallas, Phoenix and Roanoke, Va. December 2002: Hussein Al-Shafei, Ali Noor Alsutani, Kaalid Amen, Salam Said Alkhursan, Ali Almarhoun and Malik Almaliki, accused of sending $12 million in cash and goods to Iraq via AlShafei Family Connect Inc. of Seattle.

In addition, there has been at least one conviction:

  • Hollywood, Fla. August 2002: Imran Mandhai and Shueyb Mossa Jokhan, pleaded guilty of planning to engage in jihad by destroying electrical power stations, Jewish institutions and other targets in southern Florida with the goal of attracting other Islamists, linking up to al Qaeda and creating a state of anarchy. At the appropriate moment, they would issue their demands, which included no help for Israel, freeing all Muslims in U.S. jails and U.S. withdrawal from the Middle East.

1009

From www.danielpipes.org | Original article available at: www.danielpipes.org/article/1009


FOURTEEN SIGNPOSTS TO SLAVERY

1. Restrictions on taking money out of the country and on the establishment or retention of a foreign bank account by an American citizen.

2. Abolition of private ownership of hand guns.

3. Detention of individuals without judicial process.

4. Requirements that private financial transactions be keyed to social security numbers or other government identification so that government records of these transactions can be kept and fed into a computer.

5. Use of compulsory education laws to forbid attendance at presently existing private schools.

6. Compulsory non-military service.

7. Compulsory psychological treatment for non-government workers or public school children.

8. An official declaration that anti-Communist organizations are subversive and subsequent legal action taken to suppress them.

9. Laws limiting the number of people allowed to meet in a private home.

10. Any significant change in passport regulations to make passports more difficult to obtain or use.

11. Wage and price controls, especially in a non-wartime situation

12. Any kind of compulsory registration with the government of where individuals work.

13. Any attempt to restrict freedom of movement within the United States.

14. Any attempt to make a new major law by executive decree (that is, actually put into effect, not merely authorized as by existing executive orders.)

As you are no doubt aware President Nixon already has invoked numbers 1 and 14.

Steps 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 12 and 13 already have been proposed and some are actively campaigned for by organized groups. As of January 1, 1972 banks must report to the government any deposit or withdrawal over $5,000. The next step will be to restrict the taking of money out of the country. Big Brother is watching your bank account!

Increased government control over many kinds of private schools is proposed annually in many state legislatures. Compulsory non-military service-a universal draft of all young men and women, with only a minority going into the armed services has been discussed by the Nixon Administration as an alternative to the draft. Sensitivity training is already required for an increasing number of government workers, teachers and school children. As long ago as 1961, Victor Reuther proposed that anti-Communist groups and organizations be investigated and placed on the Attorney General’s subversive list. The propaganda war in progress to force registration or confiscation of firearms is the number one priority of all the collectivists-an armed citizenry is the major roadblock to a totalitarian takeover of the United States.

You are in this fight whether you want to be or not. Unless you are an Insider, you are a victim. Whether you are a multimillionaire or a pauper you have an enormous amount at stake.

The Insiders are counting on your being too preoccupied with your own problems or too lazy to fight back while the chains of slavery are being fastened on you. They are counting on their mass media to con you, frighten you, or ridicule you out of saving your freedom, and, most of all, they are counting on your thinking you can escape by not taking part in opposing their takeover.

They are also counting on those of you who recognize the conspiracy becoming so involved with watching all moves that you become totally mesmerized by their machinations, and thus become incapable of acting.

The choice is yours. You can say, “It can’t happen here!” But nearly every one of the one billion people enslaved by the Communists since 1945 doubtless said the same thing. Or you can end run this whole conspiratorial apparatus.

The choice you must make was enunciated by Winston Churchill when he told the people of England:

“If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival.”

Because we have ignored warning after warning, we are now at that place in history. Unless you do your part now, you will face a further choice, also described by Mr. Churchill. He said:

“There may be even a worse fate. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than live as slaves.”

http://21stcenturycicero.wordpress.com/nwo/none-dare-call-it-conspiracy/none-dare-call-it-conspiracy-chapter-8/fourteen-signposts-to-slavery/


Cicero on the Enemy Within (http://freedomstruth.blogspot.com/2005/06/cicero-on-enemy-within.html)
A response to the dangerous, foolish, wrong, underhanded, divisive, unpatriotic, statements from the members of the Senate:

"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself.

"For the traitor appears not a traitor – he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear."
– Marcus Tullius Cicero 42 B.C


De Borchgrave: U.S. at War with Radical Islam
Monday, November 19, 2007 4:18 PM
By: Phil Brennan (www.newsmax.com/newsfront/muslim_extremism/2007/11/19/50694.html?s=al&promo_code=3DE3-1)

The U.S. is at war not with a political movement, but with Muslim extremism on a global scale, says influential journalist and Newsmax columnist Arnaud de Borchgrave.

In an exclusive Newsmax interview, de Borchgrave warns that the situation in Pakistan, a nuclear power, is growing graver as al-Qaida and the Taliban maintain influence in key border areas and President Pervez Musharraf loses control. And while the U.S. troop surge in Iraq is showing some success, any preemptive strike against Iran would solidify Islamic fundamentalist hatred of the U.S. worldwide to disastrous effect, he says.

De Borchgrave, a former editor of the Washington Times and now director and senior adviser for the transnational threats project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, also discusses Iran’s influence in Iraq, the U.S. presidential race, and the likelihood of al-Qaida obtaining nuclear weapons.

Newsmax: How serious is the current situation in Pakistan?

De Borchgrave: I don’t think it could be more serious. The comments of Benazir Bhutto, twice Pakistan’s prime minister in the 1980s and '90s, speak for themselves at the end of an e-mail she sent to me. She wrote: “It may sound dramatic but the picture here is frightening. Pakistan is slowly disintegrating and it seems everyone is paralyzed into ignoring the calamity that is coming.”

Newsmax: How much control do the Taliban and al-Qaida have over Pakistan at the moment?

De Borchgrave: They control the key tribal areas, known as North and South Waziristan, and to a lesser degree, some of the other tribal [regions] that border Afghanistan. But it’s total control in North and South Waziristan, which are the key areas for us in terms of Afghanistan.

Newsmax: Are they making any progress elsewhere in Pakistan?

De Borchgrave: Yes, in the Swat Valley, which is a highly prized tourist attraction in Pakistan inside the northwest frontier province. The [Pakistani] army has gone in there and taken casualties and then backed away as Taliban reinforcements arrived. The army backed down. The army is fed up at this point because they feel that they’ve been carrying out America’s orders transmitted by General Musharraf.

Newsmax: Is Musharraf in danger of losing control of the army?

De Borchgrave: Yes. In the next few days following [U.S. Deputy Secretary of State] John Negroponte’s visit this weekend, I can see General Pervez Kyani, who was going to become number one when Musharraf was confirmed as president, [taking] off his uniform. General Kyani was head of ISI, the Interservices Intelligence agency, and was private military secretary to Benazir Bhutto when she was prime minister in the late ‘80s.

Newsmax: What do you see as Bhutto's role if Musharraf falls?

De Borchgrave: Her role obviously is to enter the electoral contest, which is going to take place as soon as the Musharraf situation is resolved. A soon as martial law is lifted you can expect an election campaign to begin in earnest. Since she is the head of the PPP, the Pakistan Peoples Party, she would become prime minister for the third time.

Newsmax: What about the presidency?

De Borchgrave: The presidency would presumably be held by either Musharraf or the man who replaces him.

Newsmax: So he could still remain a power in the government?

De Borchgrave: I suppose he could, but it’s not going to work because it’s quite clear from what [Bhutto] said – “the fact that militants hold open meetings without fear of retaliation proves the Musharraf regime is totally inept, unwilling or colluding in their expansion” – that she doesn’t feel she could work with Musharraf,

Newsmax: Is there any way that under Bhutto or anybody else that control of these areas now under the control of the Taliban and al-Qaida can be reclaimed?

De Borchgrave: Very, very difficult – very difficult terrain. The U.S. certainly could not get involved directly because that would touch off a major showdown between Pakistan and the U.S. Everybody would turn against the United States at that point.

Newsmax: What are the odds that al-Qaida gets its hands on nuclear weapons in Pakistan?

De Borchgrave: I would say zero at this point. There’s another possibility – if elements of the army split over Musharraf or his successor, who will be controlling the nuclear weapons? Would it be Islamists in the army or some neutral people who are still pro-Western?

Go back to what General [Muhammad] Zia did when he was the last military dictator. [He encouraged Islamism in the army] and encouraged the formation of madrassas on the border to block the penetration of communist ideology during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.

We worked very closely with the Pakistanis and the Saudis then in encouraging Islam as a means of undermining the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan and as a means of preventing the penetration of communist ideology into Pakistan.

But they've become a Frankenstein monster, these madrassas. They spread all over the country. You’ve got about 12,000 of them and nothing has been reformed despite U.S. aid to produce reforms. They produced a lot of plans for reform but nothing has really happened because the extremists among the clerics are against it and it’s extremist clerics who control the madrassas.

So you have hundreds of thousands of kids taught to hate America and to hate Israel. And Zia encouraged Islam in the army ranks. He was the one who got Muslim chaplains appointed throughout the military. These young officers who were heavily influenced by Islam at the time of Zia today are colonels and generals.

So the army clearly is divided between those who are Western oriented, who have been to staff schools in the United States, and others who are hard-line in terms of Islam. They are the ones who don't want to take on al-Qaida, don't want to fight Taliban. After all Taliban was invented by the ISI right after the Soviets pulled out of Afghanistan in February 1989.

ISI at one point was run by General Hamid Gul, who hates America with a passion. Hamid Gul is an Islamic extremist and he’s also the strategic adviser to the six political religious parties in the coalition that governs two of Pakistan's four provinces.

When you look at public opinion polls in Pakistan, Musharraf scores in the single digits, Bush in the teens and Osama bin Laden at 46 percent.

I don't think there's any danger of al-Qaida getting hold of nuclear weapons, though that danger is always there. What I see is perhaps a split in the army and Islamist extremists within the army taking control of these nuclear storage sites.

There are about six of them. They have separated warheads from delivery systems as well as separated nuclear cores from the detonators, so it is well dispersed. To get one weapon, they would have to put four parts together and they're stored in different parts of the country. That would not be accessible to al-Qaida unless somebody in the army were to get hold of all the different codes to access all these different places. I think it's highly unlikely but it's always a danger.

Newsmax: You have written that we are fighting a religion here. You wrote that radical Islam, or Islamofascism as conservatives are prone to call it, conveys the impression of a political movement, but is really no such animal. Can you expand on that?

De Borchgrave: Most Americans think that we're just fighting a few thousand bad guys called al-Qaida. Al-Qaida has a huge support group around the world and we forget that. Ask any moderate Muslim head of state or head of government to estimate how many extremists are in that country and they say about 1 percent. Then ask them how many fundamentalists, and they say about 10 percent.

Musharraf himself gave me those figures three months before 9/11. I said, “Well general, that's 1.6 million extremists you have in your country.” He said he hadn't thought about it that way but he guessed I was right.

Extrapolating that across the Muslim population of the world, you come up with 12 million to 14 million extremists and their roughly 130 million supporters who are fundamentalists. That's the world we live in today.

There are people who dress the way you and I do, go to the best restaurants in Paris and London, who are fundamentalists and who covertly support what al-Qaida is doing against the U.S.

Newsmax: Where are we in the war against Islamofascism?

De Borchgrave: I don't think we're anywhere because we don't understand the dimensions of the problem. We’ve been saying for a long time that the central front in the war on terror was Iraq. But it never was. Iran is obviously a greater danger and is part of the central front of the war on Muslim extremism.

We saw that in 1979 when the mullahs took over Iran, but we also saw what happened in Saudi Arabia at that time when Muslim extremists seized control of the Grand Mosque in Mecca. They had a hell of a time getting them out of there and the Saudis turned to the French for technical assistance.

The French sent some special forces attached to their intelligence services. They were quickly converted to Islam so that they could penetrate Mecca and they flooded the catacombs where the bad guys had taken refuge. They flooded those with water and then put electric cables in the water and fried them.

That was a major turning point in Saudi Arabia because that was the time when the deal was made between the Wahabi clergy and the royal family. The royal family said in effect, you Wahabi clergy refrain from criticizing our deplorable excesses and in exchange here is all the money you need to spread Wahabism round the world.

Newsmax: Is the U.S. military surge working in Iraq?

De Borchgrave: The surge seems to be working. What is not working is the lack of political reconciliation. The Shiites are charging ahead, obviously with Iranian backing, and they're leaving the Sunnis out of the picture. There are no negotiations between the two to try to bring the Sunnis into some form of coalition government.

Nouri Kamel Mohammed Hassan al Maliki, the Iraqi prime minister, has been to Iran twice in one year with a government delegation each time, getting along extremely well with the Iranian government, getting financial aid from the Iranians for schools and hospitals. What's hardly ever reported is the special connection between Maliki, who spent seven years in exile in Teheran while Saddam Hussein was in power, and his very close contacts with Tehran. It tracks back to this Iraq study group report by Lee Hamilton and Jim Baker in which they stated that Iran has more influence in Iraq than the U.S.

When we first invaded Iraq almost automatically thousands of Iranians poured into southern Iraq. In Basra, the police chief even said a few months after we liberated Iraq that he could only rely on one out of four of his policemen. The other three were working for Tehran.

Newsmax: What would happen if we were to bomb Iran?

De Borchgrave: The last four CENTCOM commanders, including Anthony Zinni and Arabic-speaking John Abizaid, said any bombing of Iran would push 320 million Arabs into the camp of radical Islam and produce an unmitigated geopolitical disaster for the United States. This, they believe, would also push a moderate Iraqi government into the arms of a “martyred” Iran coupled with a demand that U.S. forces hightail it home.

Thus, those who advocate bombing would unwittingly play into the hands of religious extremists. Israelis say they are faced with an existential crisis that Americans cannot comprehend.

Newsmax: What is your opinion of Secretary of State Condi Rice?

De Borchgrave: Condi Rice is a highly intelligent woman who is not a geopolitician. We haven't really found a successor generation to the geopolitical thinkers like Zbigniew Brzezinski and Henry Kissinger and Jim Schlesinger. Everybody talks about that in Washington. Where is the successor generation? It's interesting that the two best geopoliticians, Kissinger and Brzezinski — one a Republican, one a Democrat — were both European born. For those born in Europe, geopolitics is in their DNA. After all, Europe has had hundreds of wars over the centuries and we haven’t. We think in fairly simple terms. Good guys and bad guys.


Islam and the nation-state
By Caroline B. Glick
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/1107/glick111307.php3

Throughout the world, one of the most prevalent causes of war, terrorism and political instability is the ongoing weakening of the nation-state system. There are several reasons that the nation-state as a political unit of sovereignty is under threat. One of the most basic causes of this continuous erosion of national power throughout the world is the transformation of minority-dominated enclaves within nation-states into ungovernable areas where state power is either not applied or applied in a haphazard and generally unconstructive manner.

While domestic strife between majority and minority populations has been an enduring feature of democratic and indeed all societies throughout history, the current turbulence constitutes a unique challenge to the nation-state system. This is because much of the internal strife between minority and majority populations within states today is financed and often directed from outside the country.

Traditionally, minorities used various local means to engage the majority population in a bid to influence the political direction or cultural norms of the nation state. The classic examples of this traditional minority-majority engagement are the black civil rights movement in the US in the 1960s and the labor movements in the West throughout the 20th century. By and large, these movements were domestic protests informed by national sensibilities even when they enjoyed the support of foreign governments.

Today while similar movements continue to flourish, they are now being superseded by a new type of minority challenge to national majorities. This challenge is not primarily the result of domestic injustice but the consequence of foreign agitation. The roots of these minority challenges are found outside the borders of the targeted states. And their goals are not limited to a call for the reform of national institutions and politics. Rather they set their sights on weakening national institutions and eroding national sovereignty.

MUSLIM MINORITIES throughout the world are being financed and ideologically trained in Saudi and UAE funded mosques and Islamic centers. These minorities act in strikingly similar manners in the countries where they are situated throughout the world. On the one hand, their local political leaders demand extraordinary communal rights, rights accorded neither to the national majority nor to other minority populations. On the other hand, Muslim neighborhoods, particularly in Europe, but also in Israel, the Philippines and Australia, are rendered increasingly ungovernable as arms of the state like the police and tax authorities come under attack when they attempt to assert state power in these Muslim communities.

Logic would have it that targeted states would respond to the threat to their authority through a dual strategy. On the one hand, they would firmly assert their authority by enforcing their laws against both individual lawbreakers and against subversive, foreign financed institutions that incite the overthrow of their governments and their replacement with Islamic governments. On the other hand, they would seek out and empower local Muslims who accept the authority and legitimacy of their states and their rule of law.

Unfortunately, with the notable exception of the Howard government in Australia, in country after country, governments respond to this challenge by attempting to appease Muslim irredentists and their state sponsors. The British responded to the July 7, 2005 bombings by giving representatives of the Muslim Brotherhood an official role in crafting and carrying out counter-terror policies.

In 2003, then French president Jacques Chirac sent then interior minister Nicholas Sarkozy to Egypt to seek the permission of Sheikh Mohammed Tantawi of the Islamist al-Azhar mosque for the French parliament's plan to outlaw hijabs in French schools.

In the US, in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, the FBI asked the terror-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations to conduct sensitivity training for FBI agents.

In Holland last year, the Dutch government effectively expelled anti-Islamist politician Ayaan Hirsi Ali in the interest of currying favor with Holland's restive Muslim minority.

THE FOREIGN policy aspect of the rush to appease is twofold. First, targeted states refuse to support one another when individual governments attempt to use the tools of law enforcement to handle their domestic jihad threat. For instance, European states have harshly criticized the US Patriot Act while the US criticized the French decision to prohibit the hijab in public schools.

More acutely, targeted states lead the charge in calling for the establishment of Muslim-only states. Today the US and the EU are leading the charge towards the establishment of a Palestinian state and the creation of an independent state of Kosovo.

In two weeks, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice will host the Annapolis conference where together with her European and Arab counterparts, she will exert enormous pressure on the Olmert government to agree to the establishment of a jihadist Palestinian state in Israel's heartland with its capital in Jerusalem and its sovereignty extending over Judaism's most sacred site, the Temple Mount.

The establishment of the sought-for Palestinian state presupposes the ethnic cleansing of at a minimum 80,000 Israelis from their homes and communities simply because they are Jews. Jews of course will be prohibited from living in Palestine.

FOR ITS part, the Palestinian leadership to which Israel will be expected to communicate its acceptance of the establishment of Palestine, is one part criminal, and two parts jihadist. As Fatah leader and Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas and his colleagues have made clear, while they are willing to accept Israel's concessions, they are not willing to accept Israel. This is why they refuse to acknowledge Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state.

A rare consensus exists today in Israel. From the far-left to the far-right, from IDF Military Intelligence to the Mossad, all agree that the Annapolis conference will fail to bring a peace accord. Since Rice's approach to reaching just such an accord has been to apply unrelenting pressure on Israel, it is fairly clear that she will blame Israel for the conference's preordained failure and cause a further deterioration in US-Israeli relations.

While Israel is supposed to accept a Jew-free Palestine, it goes without saying that its own 20 percent Arab minority will continue to enjoy the full rights of Israeli citizenship. Yet one of the direct consequences of the establishment of a Jew-free, pro-jihadist State of Palestine will be the further radicalization of Israeli Arabs. They will intensify their current rejection of Israel's national identity.

With Palestinian and outside support, they will intensify their irredentist activities and so exert an even more devastating attack on Israel's sovereignty and right to national self-determination.

SHORTLY AFTER the Annapolis conference fails, and no doubt in a bid to buck up its standing with the Arab world, the US may well stand by its stated intention to recognize the independence of Kosovo.

On December 10, the UN-sponsored troika from the US, Russia and Germany is due to present their report on the ongoing UN-sponsored negotiations between the Kosovo Muslims and the Serbian government regarding the future of the restive province of Serbia. Since the Kosovo Muslims insist on full sovereignty and Serbia's government refuses to accept Kosovo's independence, those talks are deadlocked. Since Russia refuses to support Kosovo's removal from Serbia, there is no chance that the UN Security Council will pass a resolution calling for Kosovar independence.

The push for Kosovar independence was begun by the Clinton administration. It was the natural consequence of the NATO bombing of Serbia in 1999. Yet the basic assumptions of that bombing campaign have been turned on their head in recent years. In 1999, Serbia was run by a murderous dictator Slobodan Milosovic. He stood accused of ethnically cleansing Kosovo of its Muslim population which was perceived as innocent. Today, led by Prime Minister Vojislav Kostunica, Serbia is taking bold steps towards becoming a liberal democracy which abjures ethnic cleansing and political violence. On the other hand, the Saudi-financed Kosovo Muslims have destroyed more than 150 churches over the past several years, and have terrorized Kosovar Christians and so led to their mass exodus from the province.

As Julia Gorin documented in a recent article here, in Jewish World Review, Kosovo's connections with Albanian criminal syndicates and global jihadists are legion. Moreover, Kosovar independence would likely spur irredentist movements among the Muslim minorities in all Balkan states. In Macedonia for instance, a quarter of the population is Muslim. These irredentist movements in turn would increase Muslim irredentism throughout Europe just as Palestinian statehood will foment an intensification of the Islamization of Israel's Arab minority.

The Kosovo government announced last month that given the diplomatic impasse, it plans to declare its independence next month. Currently, the Bush administration is signaling its willingness to recognize an independent Kosovo even though doing so will threaten US-Russian relations.

In a bid both to prevent the Bush administration from turning on Israel in the aftermath of the failure of the Annapolis conference and to make clear Israel's own rejection of the notion that a "solution" to the Palestinian conflict with Israel can be imposed by foreign powers, the Olmert government should immediately and loudly restate its opposition to the imposition of Kosovar independence on Serbia.

In the interest of defending the nation-state system, on which American sovereignty and foreign policy is based, the US should reassess the logic of its support for the establishment of Muslim-only states. It should similarly revisit its refusal to openly support the right of non-Islamic states like Israel, Serbia and even France, to assert their rights to defend their sovereignty, national security and national character from outside-sponsored domestic Islamic subversion.

Throughout the world, one of the most prevalent causes of war, terrorism and political instability is the ongoing weakening of the nation-state system. There are several reasons that the nation-state as a political unit of sovereignty is under threat. One of the most basic causes of this continuous erosion of national power throughout the world is the transformation of minority-dominated enclaves within nation-states into ungovernable areas where state power is either not applied or applied in a haphazard and generally unconstructive manner.

While domestic strife between majority and minority populations has been an enduring feature of democratic and indeed all societies throughout history, the current turbulence constitutes a unique challenge to the nation-state system. This is because much of the internal strife between minority and majority populations within states today is financed and often directed from outside the country.

Traditionally, minorities used various local means to engage the majority population in a bid to influence the political direction or cultural norms of the nation state. The classic examples of this traditional minority-majority engagement are the black civil rights movement in the US in the 1960s and the labor movements in the West throughout the 20th century. By and large, these movements were domestic protests informed by national sensibilities even when they enjoyed the support of foreign governments.

Today while similar movements continue to flourish, they are now being superseded by a new type of minority challenge to national majorities. This challenge is not primarily the result of domestic injustice but the consequence of foreign agitation. The roots of these minority challenges are found outside the borders of the targeted states. And their goals are not limited to a call for the reform of national institutions and politics. Rather they set their sights on weakening national institutions and eroding national sovereignty.

MUSLIM MINORITIES throughout the world are being financed and ideologically trained in Saudi and UAE funded mosques and Islamic centers. These minorities act in strikingly similar manners in the countries where they are situated throughout the world. On the one hand, their local political leaders demand extraordinary communal rights, rights accorded neither to the national majority nor to other minority populations. On the other hand, Muslim neighborhoods, particularly in Europe, but also in Israel, the Philippines and Australia, are rendered increasingly ungovernable as arms of the state like the police and tax authorities come under attack when they attempt to assert state power in these Muslim communities.

Logic would have it that targeted states would respond to the threat to their authority through a dual strategy. On the one hand, they would firmly assert their authority by enforcing their laws against both individual lawbreakers and against subversive, foreign financed institutions that incite the overthrow of their governments and their replacement with Islamic governments. On the other hand, they would seek out and empower local Muslims who accept the authority and legitimacy of their states and their rule of law.

Unfortunately, with the notable exception of the Howard government in Australia, in country after country, governments respond to this challenge by attempting to appease Muslim irredentists and their state sponsors. The British responded to the July 7, 2005 bombings by giving representatives of the Muslim Brotherhood an official role in crafting and carrying out counter-terror policies.

In 2003, then French president Jacques Chirac sent then interior minister Nicholas Sarkozy to Egypt to seek the permission of Sheikh Mohammed Tantawi of the Islamist al-Azhar mosque for the French parliament's plan to outlaw hijabs in French schools.

In the US, in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, the FBI asked the terror-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations to conduct sensitivity training for FBI agents.

In Holland last year, the Dutch government effectively expelled anti-Islamist politician Ayaan Hirsi Ali in the interest of currying favor with Holland's restive Muslim minority.

THE FOREIGN policy aspect of the rush to appease is twofold. First, targeted states refuse to support one another when individual governments attempt to use the tools of law enforcement to handle their domestic jihad threat. For instance, European states have harshly criticized the US Patriot Act while the US criticized the French decision to prohibit the hijab in public schools.

More acutely, targeted states lead the charge in calling for the establishment of Muslim-only states. Today the US and the EU are leading the charge towards the establishment of a Palestinian state and the creation of an independent state of Kosovo.

In two weeks, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice will host the Annapolis conference where together with her European and Arab counterparts, she will exert enormous pressure on the Olmert government to agree to the establishment of a jihadist Palestinian state in Israel's heartland with its capital in Jerusalem and its sovereignty extending over Judaism's most sacred site, the Temple Mount.

The establishment of the sought-for Palestinian state presupposes the ethnic cleansing of at a minimum 80,000 Israelis from their homes and communities simply because they are Jews. Jews of course will be prohibited from living in Palestine.

FOR ITS part, the Palestinian leadership to which Israel will be expected to communicate its acceptance of the establishment of Palestine, is one part criminal, and two parts jihadist. As Fatah leader and Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas and his colleagues have made clear, while they are willing to accept Israel's concessions, they are not willing to accept Israel. This is why they refuse to acknowledge Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state.

A rare consensus exists today in Israel. From the far-left to the far-right, from IDF Military Intelligence to the Mossad, all agree that the Annapolis conference will fail to bring a peace accord. Since Rice's approach to reaching just such an accord has been to apply unrelenting pressure on Israel, it is fairly clear that she will blame Israel for the conference's preordained failure and cause a further deterioration in US-Israeli relations.

While Israel is supposed to accept a Jew-free Palestine, it goes without saying that its own 20 percent Arab minority will continue to enjoy the full rights of Israeli citizenship. Yet one of the direct consequences of the establishment of a Jew-free, pro-jihadist State of Palestine will be the further radicalization of Israeli Arabs. They will intensify their current rejection of Israel's national identity.

With Palestinian and outside support, they will intensify their irredentist activities and so exert an even more devastating attack on Israel's sovereignty and right to national self-determination.

SHORTLY AFTER the Annapolis conference fails, and no doubt in a bid to buck up its standing with the Arab world, the US may well stand by its stated intention to recognize the independence of Kosovo.

On December 10, the UN-sponsored troika from the US, Russia and Germany is due to present their report on the ongoing UN-sponsored negotiations between the Kosovo Muslims and the Serbian government regarding the future of the restive province of Serbia. Since the Kosovo Muslims insist on full sovereignty and Serbia's government refuses to accept Kosovo's independence, those talks are deadlocked. Since Russia refuses to support Kosovo's removal from Serbia, there is no chance that the UN Security Council will pass a resolution calling for Kosovar independence.

The push for Kosovar independence was begun by the Clinton administration. It was the natural consequence of the NATO bombing of Serbia in 1999. Yet the basic assumptions of that bombing campaign have been turned on their head in recent years. In 1999, Serbia was run by a murderous dictator Slobodan Milosovic. He stood accused of ethnically cleansing Kosovo of its Muslim population which was perceived as innocent. Today, led by Prime Minister Vojislav Kostunica, Serbia is taking bold steps towards becoming a liberal democracy which abjures ethnic cleansing and political violence. On the other hand, the Saudi-financed Kosovo Muslims have destroyed more than 150 churches over the past several years, and have terrorized Kosovar Christians and so led to their mass exodus from the province.

As Julia Gorin documented in a recent article here, in Jewish World Review, Kosovo's connections with Albanian criminal syndicates and global jihadists are legion. Moreover, Kosovar independence would likely spur irredentist movements among the Muslim minorities in all Balkan states. In Macedonia for instance, a quarter of the population is Muslim. These irredentist movements in turn would increase Muslim irredentism throughout Europe just as Palestinian statehood will foment an intensification of the Islamization of Israel's Arab minority.

The Kosovo government announced last month that given the diplomatic impasse, it plans to declare its independence next month. Currently, the Bush administration is signaling its willingness to recognize an independent Kosovo even though doing so will threaten US-Russian relations.

In a bid both to prevent the Bush administration from turning on Israel in the aftermath of the failure of the Annapolis conference and to make clear Israel's own rejection of the notion that a "solution" to the Palestinian conflict with Israel can be imposed by foreign powers, the Olmert government should immediately and loudly restate its opposition to the imposition of Kosovar independence on Serbia.

In the interest of defending the nation-state system, on which American sovereignty and foreign policy is based, the US should reassess the logic of its support for the establishment of Muslim-only states. It should similarly revisit its refusal to openly support the right of non-Islamic states like Israel, Serbia and even France, to assert their rights to defend their sovereignty, national security and national character from outside-sponsored domestic Islamic subversion.



Washington Protects the Terror Masters
By Daniel Pipes
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/1107/pipes111307.php3

The Bush administration's counterterrorism policies appear tough, but inside the courtroom, they evaporate, consistently favoring not American terror victims, but foreign terrorists.

Consider a civil lawsuit arising from a September 1997 suicide bombing in Jerusalem. Hamas claimed credit for five dead and 192 wounded, including several Americans. On the grounds that the Islamic Republic of Iran had financed Hamas, five injured Americans students sued it for damages.

Expert testimony established the regime's culpability during a four-day trial, leading Judge Ricardo M. Urbina, under the Flatow Amendment of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, to fine the Iranian government and its Revolutionary Guard Corps US$251 million in compensatory and punitive damages.

The plaintiffs looked for Iranian government assets in the United States to seize, in accord with the little-known section, 201a of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002, which states that "Notwithstanding any other provision of law … in every case in which a person has obtained a judgment against a terrorist party on a claim based upon an act of terrorism … the blocked assets of that terrorist party … shall be subject to execution."

Finding Iranian assets, however, proved no easy task, as most of them had been withdrawn by the Iranian authorities after the embassy hostage crisis of 1979-81. Therefore, the victims' lead lawyer, David Strachman of Providence, R.I., devised some creative approaches, such as intercepting the imminent return of ancient Iranian clay tablets on loan to the University of Chicago for up to seventy years.

Strachman found just one significant cache of Iranian government money: approximately $150,000 at the Bank of New York, in an account belonging to Bank Melli, Iran's largest bank and a fully-owned subsidiary of the regime. However, when the plaintiffs sued for these funds, BoNY filed a federal lawsuit asking for a legal determination what to do with its Bank Melli assets.

The victims' task in this case may have appeared easy, given that the U.S. government (1) views Bank Melli as an "wholly-owned instrumentality" of the Iranian government and it (2) considers that government a "terrorist party."

But no, the U.S. Department of Justice "entered this case as amicus curiae in support of Bank Melli." It did so, explained a spokeswoman for the Treasury Department, "to vindicate a correct reading" of the U.S. regulation. Its amicus brief appears decisively to have influenced the trial judge, Denise Cote, who adopted the joint Bank Melli-Justice Department position in toto and ruled in March 2006 against the funds being awarded to the victims. The latter appealed to the Second Circuit Court, but it too sided with the Justice Department, dismissing the suit in April 2007.

Its funds then in the clear, Bank Melli immediately removed them all from BoNY and transferred them beyond U.S. jurisdiction.

The story does not end there. On October 25, the State Department announced that Bank Melli would henceforth be cut off from the U.S. financial system because it "provides banking services to entities involved in Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile programs" by facilitating "numerous purchases of sensitive materials." Further, it found that Bank Melli "was used to send at least $100 million" to Iran's terrorist fronts, including those which had trained the Hamas members who perpetrated the 1997 Jerusalem bombing.

This incompetent outrage — Washington first helping Bank Melli, then sanctioning it — fits a larger pattern of federal agencies advocating in court on behalf of terrorists.

Justice tried to shield Tehran from victims' claims in the University of Chicago case.

It opposed the attachment of a mere $10,000 of Iranian funds to one 1997 victim family; and, when the family won in district court, it appealed the verdict.

It interceded in Ungar v. Hamas to prevent the orphaned victims' attachment of $5 million belonging to the Holy Land Foundation, a Texas organization prosecuted as a Hamas front.

In Ungar v. PLO and PA, the State Department rescued the Palestine Liberation Organization when the Ungars tried to enforce their $116 million judgment against a PLO-owned office building in Manhattan.

Is there not something deeply flawed about the U.S. government consistently siding with terrorists and, according to Strachman, "never once supporting terrorism victims to collect their judgments in court"? One hopes it will not require a new terrorist catastrophe to fix these misguided policies.


America's strategies for victory — and defeat
By Caroline B. Glick
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/1107/glick110907.php3

The battle of Iraq is nearly over. And the Americans have nearly won. Their enemies are on the run. Al Qaida forces have lost or are losing their bases of operations. Its fighters are being killed and captured in ever increasing numbers. Iraq's Sunni citizens who, until recently refused to take any part in the post-Saddam regime, are joining the army and citizens' watch groups by the thousands.

Local sheikhs in Baghdad, following the example set earlier by Sunni sheikhs in Anbar province are ordering their people to fight with the Americans against al Qaida. For their part, the Shiite militias know that they are next in line for defeat. As a result, Muqtada el Sadr ordered his forces to cease their attacks.

The numbers speak for themselves. Over the past month, some 46,000 Iraqi refugees returned home. Since May, the number of civilian casualties has decreased by 75 percent. US military casualties have also dropped precipitously after the death rate rose in recent months of hard fighting. Neighborhoods in Baghdad which had ceased to function under al Qaida's reign of terror have come back to life. Businesses are reopening. Citizens are rebuilding their homes. Even churches are opening their doors. This is what victory looks like.

Yet the promise of Baghdad is a lone ray of light in an otherwise darkened field of failed US policies. As President George W. Bush prepares to enter his last year in office, America's international standing is at a low point. The forces of jihad, while being defeated in Iraq, are rising everywhere else. The price of oil races towards the once inconceivable price of $100 a barrel. New jihadist mosques open daily throughout the world. Pakistan is a disaster. Iran is closing in on the bomb.

To understand America's manifold failures, it makes sense to begin with a look at why Iraq is different. For the new successful American strategy in Iraq is not only different from what preceded it there. It is also different from the US strategy which is failing everywhere else.

The new American strategy in Iraq is based on a fairly simple strategic assumption: The US goal in Iraq is to defeat its enemies and to defeat its enemies the US must target them with the aim of defeating them. This is a strategy based on common sense.

Unfortunately, common sense seems to be the rarest of commodities in US foreign policy circles today. Outside of Iraq, and until recently in Iraq itself, the US has based its policies on the notion that it can bend its adversaries to its will by on the one hand signaling them in a threatening way, and on the other hand by trying to appease them where possible. And this is the heart of the failure.

In the lead up to Iraq, it was clear to US strategic planners that of the three states - Iraq, Iran and North Korea - that Bush labeled as members of the "Axis of Evil," Iraq was the least dangerous. It sponsored terror less than Iran. Its weapons of mass destruction programs were less developed that those of Iran and North Korea. As a result, there were some voices - particularly in Israel - which suggested that given that the US was uninterested in targeting more than one country in addition to Afghanistan, the US should direct its fire at Iran rather than Iraq. But for their own reasons, among them the collapse of the UN sanctions regime on Iraq; the fact that Iraq alone was under UN Security Council authority; and Iraq's relative weakness, the Americans chose to go after Saddam.

They assumed that the invasion itself would work to strengthen America's deterrent capability and so work to America's advantage in its dealings with Iran and North Korea. Here then we see, that the decision to invade Iraq was based in part on a continued American reliance on a strategy of signaling rather than confronting Iran and North Korea. If this hadn't been the case, Iraq probably would have been cast to the side.

Initially the American strategy met with stunning success. Iran, North Korea, Syria and indeed the Arab world as a whole, were shaken and terrified by the victorious American assault on Saddam. Unfortunately, rather than build on their momentum, the Americans did everything they could to assure these states that they had no reason to worry that a similar fate would befall them. Rather than maintain the offensive - by sealing Iraq's borders and then going after insurgents' bases in Iran and Syria, the US went on the defensive. And so it allowed Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia to support and direct the insurgency. As a result of America's show of weakness, the lesson that its enemies took from its campaign in Iraq was that to deter the Americans, they should intensify their support for terror and their weapons of mass destruction programs.

Once deterrence collapsed, the Americans chose a mix of appeasement mixed with threats that had no expiration date. Last year's North Korean intercontinental ballistic missile and nuclear tests, the war in Lebanon, the Hamas takeover of Gaza and Iran's intensification of its nuclear program are all results of the failure of this model of US foreign policy making.

These policies are of a piece with the US's general foreign policy posture towards its adversaries. And that posture is unfortunately based on a hugely inflated view of America's deterrent capabilities and Washington's failure to craft policies which are suited to their interests and goals.

Today, the most glaring example of this state of affairs is Pakistan. America has two primary goals in Pakistan. First it seeks to prevent Pakistan's nuclear weapons and technologies from proliferating or falling under the control of jihadists. Second, it seeks to defeat al Qaida and the Taliban.

After September 11, the Americans gave Pakistan's military dictator a choice: he could help them defeat the Taliban and al Qaida in Afghanistan or he could lose power. That was a good start but then the Americans began losing track of their priorities. After General Pervez Musharraf agreed to Washington's ultimatum, the Americans put all their eggs in his basket. And so they lost their ability to deter him and so influence his behavior.

Certain of unconditional American backing, Musharraf played a double game. He helped the US in Afghanistan and then allowed the Taliban and al Qaida to escape and rebase in Pakistan.

Musharraf was also unforthcoming on nuclear issues. He barred American investigators from interrogating Pakistan's chief nuclear proliferator A.Q. Khan, and so refused them key intelligence on other countries' Pakistani supported nuclear programs. Yet having based their Pakistan policy on their assumption that Musharraf was irreplaceable, the Americans pretended nothing was wrong.

And now they are confronted by a disastrous situation. On the one hand, thanks to Musharraf's hospitality, al Qaida and the Taliban control large swathes of Pakistan and have declared jihad against their host, thus placing Pakistan's nuclear arsenals in greater danger. At the same time, they use their Pakistani bases to intensify their insurgency in Afghanistan.

On the other hand, as has been his consistent policy since seizing power in 1998, Musharraf continues to ignore the seriousness of the Taliban--al Qaida threat. The purpose of his recent declaration of martial law and suspension of the Pakistani constitution was not to enable him to better fight the jihadists. It was to break his liberal political opposition whose members demand democracy and an end to his military rule.

And in the midst of this, the Americans find themselves with no leverage over the still irreplaceable Musharraf.

A similar situation exists in Saudi Arabia. There too the US squandered the leverage it gained after the Sept. 11 attacks by giving unconditional support to the Saudi royal family. The Saudis immediately understood that the best way to ensure continued American support was to extend their support for terrorism and finance of radical, pro-jihad mosques while raising the price of oil. As in Pakistan, the worse the situation became, the more the Americans supported them.

And then of course there are the Palestinians. Here American policy has been a double failure. First of all, it has destroyed American deterrence towards the Arab world.

In order to divert American attention away from their support for jihadist terrorism, the leaders of the Arab world sought to convince the Americans that the only way to end their support for terror and jihad was by resolving the Palestinian conflict with Israel. Rather than stop to question the validity of the Arabs' strange assertion, the Americans believed them. Over time, this belief led them to neglect their actual goals - to end the Arab world's support for terror; prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction; and maintain world oil prices at around $30 a barrel - in favor of a secondary and unrelated issue. Aside from that, it bears noting that it is largely because of the strengthening of jihadist forces in the Arab world that there is no possibility of achieving peace between Israel and the Palestinians. Rather than understand this, the Americans have allowed the Arabs to send them on a wild goose chase that will never end.

The very fact that this week Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice thought that it was more important to come to Israel for the ninth time of the year than deal with the crisis in Pakistan shows clearly just how deeply the Americans have internalized this Arab fiction.

Then there are the Palestinians themselves. As Bush announced in 2002, the US's main goal regarding the Palestinians is to force them to stop engaging in terror and jihad. All other American policies regarding the Palestinians were supposed to be conditioned on the accomplishment of this goal. Yet as in Pakistan, over time the Americans neglected this goal in favor of an easier one - supporting Mahmoud Abbas and Fatah. In order to strengthen Abbas and Fatah, the Americans have cast aside their goal of ending Palestinian terror. As a result, today they have no leverage over Abbas. As with Musharraf in Pakistan, strengthening Abbas is the only policy the Americans have towards the Palestinians, and increasingly, towards Israel. And as in Pakistan, the threatening reality on the ground is a consequence of the fact that their policy ignores their actual goals.

Two conclusions can be drawn from contrasting America's victory in Iraq with its failures in so many other theaters. First, the only way to successfully fight your enemies is to fight them. And second, basing policies on pretending to deter leaders who are not deterred is a recipe for failure. Until the Americans accept these lessons, Iraq aside, the international environment will grow ever more threatening.


On Signing a Bomb
By Austin Bay
Wednesday, November 14, 2007

AN AMERICAN AIRBASE SOMEWHERE IN SOUTHWEST ASIA -- Today, I put a note on a bomb. To be specific, I took a jet black marking pen and inscribed a 500-pound Joint Direct Attack Munition -- JDAM, in the jargon.

Perhaps putting a note on a bomb strikes some as either romantic, foolish or vicious -- or a combination of the three. The act certainly has shades, colors and dollops of all these characteristics, and a harsh dash of steeling sentimentalism. These are the predictable psycho-babble carps. But let's get to the tacks: In my case, the act is motivated by a megaton of deserved anger.

Get the picture: I was on a concrete work stand with U.S. Air Force ordnance personnel who were preparing and fusing the bombs. Day in, day out, at the end of a long runway in the desert, these young men and women tighten the screws and add the gizmos that turn a hunk of iron and high explosive into a weapon with a very big bang. As I approached the stack of olive-drab bombs, an airman passed me a black Marks-A-Lot and asked me, "Would you like to send a message?"

I suppose the bomb I saw will eventually be tucked beneath the wing of a fighter plane headed for Iraq or Afghanistan. Those are the logical destinations. But I sent my message to Pakistan's most famous resident, Osama bin Laden.

Recall Osama said that people will follow the "strong horse" in a fight. In his mind, the United States was "the weak horse," a nation of couch potatoes, spoiled brats and libertine wastrels -- cowards all.

But Osama has had a tough six years. Consider the consequences of 9-11. His Afghan bastion fell quickly. Yes, the Taliban still murder villagers and send suicide bombers toward Kabul, but the Taliban of today is a fanatic fragment of the organization that once ruled 90 percent of Afghanistan by terror.

Osama also sought to transform an intra-Muslim war. Sept. 11 was his violent magic trick, the sensational abracadabra that would cover the Muslim world's fissures and fractures with the facade of a pan-Islamic jihad. Osama, of course, would serve as the new caliph, thank you.

That bid's gone belly-up, and Iraq is the battlefield that killed it. In Iraq, the United States brought the "exported war" back to the heart of the Arab Muslim Middle East. Who has suffered the most from homicidal Islamist extremists? Other Muslims. Perhaps The Washington Post doesn't know it, but in Iraq, al-Qaida has lost the information war.

The struggle for the terms of modernity continues, and will continue for decades, but al-Qaida's sociopaths have been exposed.

So what did I scrawl on the bomb? "Greet the strong horse." I hope it gives a terrorist a fatal ride.


Morally paralyzed
By Thomas Sowell

"Moral paralysis" is a term that has been used to describe the inaction of France, England and other European democracies in the 1930s, as they watched Hitler build up the military forces that he later used to attack them.

It is a term that may be painfully relevant to our own times.

Back in the 1930s, the governments of the democratic countries knew what Hitler was doing — and they knew that they had enough military superiority at that point to stop his military buildup in its tracks -- but they did nothing to stop him.

Instead, they turned to what is still the magic mantra today — "negotiations."

No leader of a democratic nation was ever more popular than British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain — wildly cheered in the House of Commons by opposition parties as well as his own — when he returned from negotiations in Munich in 1938, waving an agreement and declaring that it meant "peace in our time."

We know now how short that time was. Less than a year later, World War II began in Europe and spread across the planet, killing tens of millions of people and reducing many cities to rubble in Europe and Asia.

Looking back after that war, Winston Churchill said, "There was never a war in all history easier to prevent by timely action." The earlier it was done, the less it would have cost.

At one point, Hitler could have been stopped in his tracks "without the firing of a single shot," Churchill said.

That point came in 1936 — three years before World War II began — when Hitler sent troops into the Rhineland, in violation of two international treaties.

At that point, France alone was so much more powerful than Germany that the German generals had secret orders to retreat immediately at the first sign of French intervention.

As Hitler himself confided, the Germans would have had to retreat "with our tail between our legs," because they did not yet have enough military force to put up even a token resistance.

Why did the French not act and spare themselves and the world the years of horror that Hitler's aggressions would bring? The French had the means but not the will.

"Moral paralysis" came from many things. The death of a million French soldiers in the First World War and disillusionment with the peace that followed cast a pall over a whole generation.

Pacifism became vogue among the intelligentsia and spread into educational institutions. As early as 1932, Winston Churchill said: "France, though armed to the teeth, is pacifist to the core."

It was morally paralyzed.

History may be interesting but it is the present and the future that pose the crucial question: Is America today the France of yesterday?

We know that Iran is moving swiftly toward nuclear weapons while the United Nations is moving slowly — or not at all — toward doing anything to stop them.

It is a sign of our irresponsible Utopianism that anyone would even expect the UN to do anything that would make any real difference.

Not only the history of the UN, but the history of the League of Nations before it, demonstrates again and again that going to such places is a way for weak-kneed leaders of democracies to look like they are doing something when in fact they are doing nothing.

The Iranian leaders are not going to stop unless they get stopped. And, like Hitler, they don't think we have the guts to stop them.

Incidentally, Hitler made some of the best anti-war statements of the 1930s. He knew that this was what the Western democracies wanted to hear — and that it would keep them morally paralyzed while he continued building up his military machine to attack them.

Iranian leaders today make only the most token and transparent claims that they are building "peaceful" nuclear facilities — in one of the biggest oil-producing countries in the world, which has no need for nuclear power to generate electricity.

Nuclear weapons in the hands of Iran and its international terrorist allies will be a worst threat than Hitler ever was. But, before that happens, the big question is: Are we France? Are we morally paralyzed, perhaps fatally?


Gang-Rape in Annapolis, Saudi Style
By Frank J. Gaffney, Jr.
Tuesday, November 27, 2007

It is fitting that Condoleezza Rice chose the U.S. Naval Academy for the venue of tomorrow’s so-called Mideast peace conference. The reputation of that extraordinary institution in Annapolis has been sullied in recent years by a succession of rapes of young women. Despite official efforts to low-ball its significance, Ms. Rice’s conclave is shaping up to be a gang-rape of a nation on a scale not seen since Munich in 1938, when the British and French allowed Hitler and Mussolini to have their violent way with Czechoslovakia.

This time, the intended victim is Israel. As with the effort to appease the Nazis and Fascists nearly sixty years ago, however, the damage will not be confined to the rapee. The interests of the Free World in general and the United States in particular will suffer from what the Saudis and most of the other attendees have in mind for the Jewish State – namely, its dismemberment and ultimate destruction.

There will, of course, be no punishments for the perpetrators of the coming gang-rape of Israel at Annapolis. To the contrary, the Bush Administration feels deeply indebted to the Saudi foreign minister for his participation and that of a representative of a country Ms. Rice’s department lists as a state-sponsor of terror: Syria.

In fact, as an inducement for attending, a host of nations who have never formally and concretely abandoned their historic determination to bring about Israel’s liquidation have been assured by their U.S. hosts that they will be able to use this event to promote their agendas. As one American official blithely put it: “No one’s microphone will be turned off.”

Consequently, it seems likely that Annapolis will feature an outpouring of sentiment – in fact, near unanimity – on the following points: Israel must relinquish to its Palestinian and Syrian enemies territory essential to the defense and security of the Jewish State. Hard experience in southern Lebanon and Gaza leaves no doubt that the vacuum thus created will be used by terrorists to attack Israel, and perhaps America.

The gang assembled at the Naval Academy – Europeans, Russians, non-governmental organizations as well as Arabs – will largely insist that the Israelis allow the capital of a new Palestinian state to be established in the section of Jerusalem most holy to Jews (and Christians). Never mind that from East Jerusalem, the Israeli-controlled remainder of the city can be shelled at will with Kassam rockets or even mortars.

At Annapolis, virtually everyone will also agree that Israel must accept some arrangement affording rights to millions of Arabs who have been, as the esteemed historian Bernard Lewis points out in today’s Wall Street Journal, deliberately condemned to refugee status (in some cases, for as many as five generations) by their regional “brothers” and UN enablers. Everyone understands this demand will translate demographically into the end of the Jewish State.

By virtue of its sponsorship of the event and its actions, both there and subsequently, the United States will once again assume the role of “honest broker.” This mutation of Israel’s one ally makes it still less likely that America will block such international demands.

Even before Annapolis, Condi Rice has found it inexpedient to do more than mouth platitudes of the kind that once governed George Bush’s policies vis a vis the Jewish State and its enemies. Today, Palestinians can remain in the terror business – they can even officially and explicitly refuse to recognize Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish homeland – and still enjoy the Administration’s political support and access to U.S. military equipment, training and vast amounts of taxpayers’ funds.

The bigger problem is that the government of Ehud Olmert seems disposed to go along with the emerging “international consensus.” Indeed, Olmert has already signaled a willingness to compromise his country’s future security and integrity as a Jewish state in the hope of rescuing his failed premiership and avoiding prosecution for corruption. For their part, his people seem to be sleep-walking, unable to believe that every one of their longstanding national requirements (for example, a unified Jerusalem, secure borders, no “right of return” for “refugees,” etc.) is being abandoned in the pursuit of a “peace” no one can seriously believe is in prospect from the Saudis and their friends.

Sadly, the people of Israel stand to be punished for putting themselves in such a compromising position. Unfortunately for them and for others who will be victimized in the future by Israel’s emboldened Islamist enemies, the penalty for the “process” resuscitated at the Naval Academy and the concessions that will flow from it will not be the lash. It may well prove to be a death sentence.


Middle East War in the Offing?
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
By: Arnaud de Borchgrave

A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion runs deep, Saul Bellow once said.

The illusion, yet again, is a Middle Eastern peace conference in November or December that would produce the final outlines and contents of an independent state of Palestine.

Seldom has such a vision appeared more chimera than reality, and yet seldom pursued more vigorously, this time by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who has logged eight trips to the region in 10 months, in the elusive pursuit of a legacy other than Iraq.

For advice on the pursuit of what she sees as her Middle Eastern legacy for the history books, Rice has consulted two former presidents (Carter and Clinton), three former secretaries of state (Henry Kissinger, James Baker, Madeleine Albright), and top Middle East negotiators who have made a career out of the "peace process."

She now believes she can reel in a "viable and contiguous Palestinian state" in the next 12 months. But "contiguous" is already unattainable by Israel's 456-mile physical barrier and Jewish settlements that are all inter-connected by roads banned to Palestinians.

Major concessions by ailing (prostate cancer) Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, now the subject of seven police and judicial investigations for alleged improprieties, are out of the question. They would only accelerate his decline and the return to power of former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu — who would then promptly restore the status quo ante.

Could the United States then make aid to Israel conditional on a Palestinian settlement? The next president might try what would be a foreign policy first — but a collective congressional holler would force a quick retreat.

The obstacles in the Palestinian camp are equally insurmountable. Palestinians and Israelis have diametrically opposed narratives of their history since the birth of Israel in 1948. And if they can't agree on contemporary history, let alone who was there first 3,000 years ago, how can they possibly agree on what needs correcting and on who owes what to whom?

As Rice met with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in Ramallah, the most Westernized of all West Bank cities, where women now wear the veil, both seemed oblivious to the rising threat of Hamas from its Gaza base to the entire West Bank. Islamic fundamentalism is now on the march throughout the occupied Palestinian territories. It's no longer safe for Abbas to enter Jenin or Nablus, the two largest cities in the West Bank. Even his own security forces would not or could not protect him in what were until recently safe areas for Palestinian moderates.

Rice, Abbas, and their Israeli interlocutor, Olmert, are in a state of denial about the insuperable roadblock of Hamas, now a majority Palestinian movement that denies the very existence of Israel and dominates both Gaza and the West Bank. For Olmert, omerta is protection against oblivion. A majority of Israeli lawmakers said any attempt to slice and dice East Jerusalem to accommodate the Palestinian demand for a capital city would be Olmert's last curtain call.

Benjamin Netanyahu, the immensely popular right-wing firebrand, would then be assured of Israel's leadership in early elections — back to square one. Or square two with Ehud Barak, a reborn hawk, now defense minister, who trails Netanyahu in the polls.

Similarly, the billions of dollars the Palestinians will demand as compensation for the 4 million Palestinians denied the right of return (descendants of the 700,000 who left in 1948 "of their own volition," according to the Israelis, or were "terrorized" into leaving, say the Palestinians) will be compensated, not by Israelis as they see it, but by U.S. taxpayers once the haggling stops. So this is yet another non-event.

Three major deal-breakers — a "contiguous and viable" Palestinian state, Jerusalem, and the right of return — defy solution in the 15 months Rice has left to achieve a Palestinian state for posterity. Even a Palestinian miracle would not detract from the specter of "World War III" conjured up by President Bush over Iran's nuclear ambitions — and echoed by oil at $93 a barrel, gold at $800, the dollar at an all-time low, and Egypt announcing its decision to build nuclear reactors (shorthand for something more lethal).

International Atomic Energy Agency chairman Mohammed ElBaradei, who got the Nobel Peace Prize for getting it right in Iraq, now says there is still no evidence of prohibited nuclear-related activities in Iran. And he urged the United States to halt its fiery rhetoric, as there is still time for diplomacy.

"The earlier we go into negotiation, the earlier we follow the North Korean model, the better for everybody," ElBaradei told CNN's Wolf Blitzer. But the Bush administration insists on talking to Tehran through the EU3 — France, Britain, Germany — while strengthening economic and financial sanctions.

The Korean model requires lots of carrots because Iran can get almost anything it needs from abroad via the free port city of Dubai in the United Arab Emirates where falsified third-country labeling is not quantum physics.

One senior American diplomat made a difference with North Korea. But in Washington, speculation about the probability of war with Iran is strangely bereft of desired outcomes and probable retaliatory consequences.

The IAEA says Iran is years away from a deliverable nuclear weapon.

Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill went to Pyongyang to nail down the deal whereby North Korea agreed to deweaponize its embryonic nuclear warheads. Shouldn't Hill, or an equally capable diplomat, be dispatched to Tehran to at least explore the possibility of a geopolitical quid pro quo? A U.S. withdrawal from Iraq when conditions ripen; the lifting of all sanctions, diplomatic recognition and a non-aggression treaty should all be in America's diplomatic quiver.

In return, Iran formally agrees to forgo nuclear weapons and grants total access to IAEA inspectors to check whatever they want with little advance notice.

Vice President Dick Cheney and his neocon friends would call this Munich-like appeasement.

Unless bombing of Iran's suspected nuke sites is ordered by Bush before he leaves office, they think the next occupant of the White House, probably a Democrat, will "wimp out." Therefore, they conclude, the time to bomb Iran is now, and hang the consequences. This geostrategic assessment ignores Vladimir Putin's latest gambit — two high-level Russo-Iranian meetings in October.

Regional Middle Eastern war anyone?


Bomb Iran, Strengthen al-Qaida and Radical Islam
Thursday, November 15, 2007
By: Arnaud de Borchgrave

Radical Islam, or Islamo-fascism as conservatives are prone to call it, conveys the impression of a political movement. It is no such animal. Al-Qaida's suicide bombers and assorted gunslingers are not individual al-Qaida terrorists, inspired by Osama bin Laden, who have hijacked a religion. Like it or not, the West is fighting a religion "that arose in enraged reaction to the West," writes Fergus Kerr in "20th Century Catholic Theologians."

The only leader who has called it by its real name, according to Kerr, "is a man wholly averse to war, a pope who took his name from the Benedict who interceded for peace in World War I." Benedict XVI, alone among the leaders of the Christian world, "challenges Islam as a religion, as he did in his September 2006 Regensburg University address," which touched off noisy protests throughout the Muslim world. The pope repeated a question posed by Manuel II Paleologos, an obscure 14th century Byzantine emperor, to a Persian guest at his winter quarters near Ankara. "Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."

The pope did not contradict the emperor's fighting words. He simply said the emperor had spoken with "startling brusqueness," omitting, presumably deliberately, to say whether he disagreed.

Also conveniently ignored were Christianity's many bloody contributions to history, from the 11th to the 13th centuries in nine major crusades against Jerusalem when popes told Christians to fight to repay God for their sins; to the Spanish Inquisition (1476-1834) during which Torquemada, one of Hitler's precursors, tortured, killed and drove out some 300,000 Jews and heretics; to Pope Alexander VI (1492-1505), the infamous Borgia who was the "Monster of Iniquity."

Three world religions with their roots in the Middle East espoused, at some stages of their history, the concepts of "Holy War" and "Just War." Religion generates certainty, which breeds intolerance, which ignites conflict.

An anonymous online reviewer whose experience in intelligence, theology and journalism combined to produce the blogosphere pseudonym "Spengler" (Oswald Spengler's best-known tome was "The Decline of the West," published in 1918) says, "Radical Islam threatens the West only because secular Europe, including the sad remnants of the former Soviet Union, is so desiccated by secular anomie it no longer cares enough about its future to produce children." Demographers can also see Muslims forming a majority in Russia by mid-century and possibly dominating Western Europe at the turn of the 22nd century.

The Islamo-fascism label for al-Qaida's fundamentalist support "to save Islam" justifies the neoconservative campaign to pressure President Bush to order the bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities before he leaves office. But there's a slight impediment: The last four CENTCOM commanders, including Anthony Zinni and Arabic-speaking John Abizaid, said any bombing of Iran would push 320 million Arabs into the camp of radical Islam and produce an unmitigated geopolitical disaster for the United States. This, they believe, would also push a moderate Iraqi government into the arms of a "martyred" Iran coupled with a demand that U.S. forces hightail it home.

Thus, those who advocate bombing would unwittingly play into the hands of religious extremists. Israelis say they are faced with an existential crisis that Americans cannot comprehend. The obvious comeback is the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, which was also existential for those who lived through it. But we talked to the adversary, conjugating hard and soft power into smart power
- and Moscow backed down. Nikita Khrushchev also threatened to bury us at a time when thousands of nuclear-tipped intercontinental ballistic missiles were targeted at every major city and military base in the United States. Again, smart power
- otherwise known as the Helsinki process on human rights, freedom of the press and movement of people
-- gradually collapsed the Soviet Union.

While countless millions of Americans tune out, Islamist extremists are marshalling their forces, including the hundreds of thousands of young men brainwashed in Pakistan's madrassas into the core belief that martyrdom against the "American Zionist crusaders" is to earn the keys to paradise. Most Muslims feel victimized while fundamentalists seem genetically programmed to understand, even encourage, the youthful urge to violence.

In an e-mail message to this reporter Wednesday, Benazir Bhutto, the embattled Pakistani leader under house arrest, said, "I very much fear the risk of civil war. The longer (President) Musharraf stays, the worse it's going to get. I knew it was bad but after coming here (from eight years of exile), I am shocked at just how bad. The militants are spreading everywhere not because people want them but because the administration unilaterally withdraws without a fight leaving the people of the town or village at the mercy of the long-haired, bushy faced barbarians who terrorize the local population and subdue them by shooting and killing randomly. I am just wondering how long it's going to be before the militants march on Islamabad."

Twice prime minister in the 1980s and '90s, Bhutto continued, "It may sound dramatic but the picture here is frightening. Pakistan is slowly disintegrating and it seems everyone is paralyzed into ignoring the calamity that is coming. The district headquarters of Shangla Hills fell today. The local population was ready to resist but didn't have the resources. The government didn't send any reinforcements and the local administration disappeared. In fact, it seems like the buddies of the militants had already been appointed."

The Pakistani army ceased operations a month ago against the Taliban and al-Qaida in the tribal areas on the Afghan border. Army units dispatched to the scenic Swat Valley, inside the Northwest Frontier province, have met strong resistance as more militants arrive from nearby towns and villages. Pakistan, one of the world's eight nuclear powers, is the ultimate nightmare scenario. The army is the custodian of secret nuclear weapons sites, deep underground. But the army is in disarray and the widely despised army chief and president, Pervez Musharraf, clings to power by enforcing martial law.----------------------------


The Perils of Pakistan
Wednesday, November 7, 2007 9:36 AM
By: Arnaud de Borchgrave  

One of the world's eight nuclear powers, Pakistan is now a failing state out of control where Taliban, al-Qaida, and their supporters have secured their privileged sanctuaries in the tribal areas on the Afghan border; reoccupied the Red Mosque in the center of Islamabad; launched suicide bombers in widely scattered parts of this Muslim country of 160 million.

More than any other country, Pakistan is the breeding ground of Islamic terrorism. Yet it enjoys the status of "major non-NATO ally" of the United States. Now 60 years old, Pakistan has lived under military dictatorship for half its life.

In 1999, Gen., Pervez Musharraf, the army chief of staff (the country's supreme military commander), seized power and decreed martial law.

Last week, with Pakistan spinning out of control, Musharraf staged his second coup, decreed a state of emergency (tantamount to martial law), dismissed the Supreme Court, suspended the constitution, arrested some 1,500 politicians, lawyers and human rights activists, closed down all 50 TV channels except the one controlled by the government, imposed self-censorship on the print media and appointed new supreme court judges willing to follow orders.

Twice deposed as prime minister, Benazir Bhutto returned to Pakistan Oct. 18 after eight years of self-imposed exile, in what she thought was a power-sharing deal with Gen. Musharraf.

He had agreed to doff his uniform and run for president in a free election. As head of her Pakistan People's Party, Pakistan's most popular, Bhutto would run in elections scheduled for January and if her party won a majority, she would become prime minister.

Musharraf also guaranteed the deletion of a little constitutional impediment — political leaders are barred from serving three times as head of government. Everything began to unravel when two suicide bombers attacked her triumphal homecoming parade, killing 142 and injuring more than 400.

Musharraf, meanwhile, got himself re-elected president by a majority of members of four provincial assemblies, the federal assembly and the senate — but all opposition parties boycotted the balloting and Musharraf feared the Supreme Court would not validate his election.

His second coup d'etat followed.

Bhutto flew back to Dubai, her residence in exile, to reassure her three children who had watched the attack on television.

She returned to Karachi as security forces deployed throughout major cities. In a Nov. 3 e-mail to this reporter, Bhutto said, "Those who support the Taliban and oppose me continue to have high positions in government. Musharraf doesn't remove them nor has he kept any of the promises he made guaranteed by third parties. Yesterday [before Musharraf's state of emergency], television channels broadcast a meeting in Bajaur [one of the seven tribal agencies that border Afghanistan] by a mullah claiming that he and his group will kill me in Rawalpindi [where she was scheduled to attend a PPP rally, now banned]."

Bhutto's e-mail added, "The fact that militants hold open meetings without fear of retaliation proves the Musharraf regime is totally inept, unwilling or colluding in their expansion.

"Our rapprochement talks with Musharraf have foundered in the quicksand of his failing promises. There is no move towards democracy. It's either back to dictatorship [1999] or back to a rigged election [2002]. Or Musharraf is replaced with a pliant interim government for two years run from behind the scene by the same military hard-liners. They claim in two years they can push NATO out of Afghanistan and replace president [Hamid] Karzai with one of their own, betting that the U.S. will be caught up in presidential elections for one year and it will take another year for the new administration to settle in."

By way of conclusion, Mrs. Bhutto's e-mail said, "The situation is grim, the risks are high, but I have faith in the people to turn around the problem if we can get a real election." That horizon seems to be receding.

In recent opinion polls, Musharraf was in single digits, President Bush in the teens, and Osama bin Laden close to 50 percent. Pakistan's extremist militants reject a woman as the nation's leader, as well as an alliance with America.

Mahmoud Al Hasan, a leader of the extremist Hezb-ul-Mujahideen, the militant wing of the religious Jamaat-e-Islami party, described Bhutto and Musharraf as "slaves" of the United States. Bhutto had the added distinction of being labeled an infidel. "What should be the reaction of jihadis?" Al Hasan asked. "They should definitely kill her. She is an enemy of Islam and jihadis."

There are several hundred, if not thousands, of jihadis willing to commit suicide to assassinate Bhutto.

This, in turn, could trigger a civil war in a country with an estimated 50 nuclear weapons and delivery systems. The military are convinced Mr. Bush compelled Musharraf to deploy some 100,000 troops in the tribal agencies on the Afghan border to eradicate Taliban and al-Qaida infrastructure. But their heart was never in it. And Musharraf himself confirmed U.S. pressure in his memoirs "In the Line of Fire." More than 1,000 Pakistani troops were killed, over 3,000 injured and almost 300 captured. A number chose to stay with the Taliban fighters and the others were released after pledging not to attack their "brothers."

With Taliban and al-Qaida sanctuaries now secure in the foothills of the Hindu Kush, the NATO campaign to whittle down Taliban's guerrilla units in Afghanistan could last for years. But those doing the fighting with U.S. units — Canadian, British and Dutch contingents — were beginning to lose political and public opinion support at home. Logistics were costly, with no end in sight. What they originally thought might be a two- to three-year peacekeeping commitment could now take five to 10 more years. The Afghan army, according to a Canadian assessment, won't be able to manage security till 2015.

Even German, French and Italian units, stationed in relatively peaceful zones far from the Afghan border, could feel growing reluctance on their respective home fronts to keep them there. The narco-state stigma also rankled opposition politicians in Berlin, Paris and Rome. But opium is critical to the Afghan economy.

Gen. Sir David Richards, who commanded the Afghan mission until last February, said, "there are too few troops to conduct the operation in a manner that meets the basic rules of a counterinsurgency campaign" and that "we need a doubling of forces — and probably a lot more than that — if we are to achieve minimum goals." That would double the 41,000-strong NATO force to more than 80,000.

The future of NATO hangs in the balance.


Ex-Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto Targeted
Monday, October 29, 2007 2:26 PM
By: Arnaud de Borchgrave

No sooner did Benazir Bhutto narrowly escape a two-man suicide bombing attack than she faced the next death threat of many more to come.

Like paparazzi chasing down a celebrity, would-be assassins will be dogging her every step as she leads her Pakistan People's Party in the coming election campaign to reclaim Pakistan's prime ministership, from which she was deposed in 1990 and again in 1996.

Five days after 140 people were killed and some 400 wounded in Bhutto's brush with martyrdom, she received a two-page handwritten letter in Urdu from a "friend of al-Qaida" that threatened to eliminate her "by any means."

Frighteningly long lists of plots are being hatched by a wide variety of extremist organizations and groups. And there is no shortage of killers and volunteers for suicide bombings, martyrs anxious to die for a new global caliphate. Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf himself has been the target of nine assassination attempts, two by suicide bombers. Conspiracy is Pakistan's middle name.

Government sleuths reassembled body parts to get a lead on the would-be assassins. Released to the media were ghoulish photos of the severed head of what the police were certain was one of the perpetrators. Pakistani intelligence from a northern tribal territory reported another 30 suicide bombers had been assigned to "high-value political targets."

Radical groups pollute Pakistan's political scene. Since Sept. 11, 2001, when Musharraf, under U.S. pressure, dumped his Taliban proteges, extremist groups, once encouraged by the all-powerful Inter-Services Intelligence agency for the "liberation" of Indian Kashmir, were ordered to shut down. Many of them had offices in the major cities that were closed only to reopen with a different name a block or two away.

The most ominous warning of all for Bhutto came from the federal railways minister, Sheik Rashid Ahmad. He accused her of "raising the flag of imperialism" (i.e., Bush administration support), which means she "will have to face suicide attacks. We have already conveyed to her that the ground realities have changed (since she was last in her country eight years ago)."

This perennial cabinet minister ran a jihadi training camp in the 1980s. He also served in the previous military government under President Zia ul-Haq. As Musharraf's information minister, he was known as a champion spin doctor who affects an always-in-the-know image. This time he inadvertently validated Bhutto's claim that some elements in Musharraf's government collude with militant radicals assigned to sabotage her political comeback.

Ahmad is a close friend of retired Gen. Hamid Gul, a former ISI chief who acts as strategic adviser to the Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal coalition of six politico-religious extremist parties that governs two of Pakistan's four provinces (Baluchistan and the Northwest Frontier province).

Gul hates the United States — and anything Washington favors — with a passion. He assisted the creation of the Taliban in the early 1990s and to this day believes the Sept. 11 al-Qaida attacks were a plot engineered by Israel's Mossad, the CIA and the U.S. Air Force. ("How come no fighters were scrambled to take on the planes you say were hijacked?" he asked this reporter.)

From al-Qaida and Taliban sanctuaries in the tribal areas on the Afghan border to Karachi, a teeming port city of 15 million some 600 miles away, there are tens of thousands of fanatics who would love to see Bhutto dead.

To lengthen the odds, the government banned political rallies and street demonstrations. But she will still have television, now accessible to 60 percent of the country. The privately owned ARY television network has 12 24/7 channels for news and commentary and for everything from food to fashion. ARY Chief Executive Officer Salman Iqbal was in Washington and New York this month to recruit "intellectual talent" for a new a "think tank" channel, directed by Ammar Turabi. It will focus on counterterrorism, human rights and distance learning.

Despite the newly acquired accoutrements of modernity, a large part of Pakistan is still stuck in the past.

More than half its 160 million people are illiterate. And aligned against Bhutto's return to power are renegade ISI cadres; the nationwide MMA coalition of extremists throughout the country; supporters of the late military dictator ul-Haq, who seized power from Bhutto's father, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, and then ordered him executed by hanging (Zia himself died in a mysterious plane crash in 1988 and Benazir became prime minister in a restored civilian government); and the countless flat-Earth clerics and their followers who regard a female leader as an abomination.

Yet Bhutto's popularity in this deeply divided society remains high. And her Pakistan People's Party is the country's largest, backed and funded by a burgeoning middle class in a country with an annual growth rate of 7 percent. Her power-sharing deal with Musharraf called for corruption charges against her to be dropped as she returned from self-imposed exile in London and Dubai, in exchange for which Musharraf would doff his general's uniform after the Supreme Court certifies his election to another five-year term. He seized power in a bloodless military coup eight years ago.

Several hundred lame-duck lawmakers from four provincial assemblies, the federal Assembly and the Senate re-elected him recently; all opposition parties boycotted the balloting.

Assuming all goes according to plan — always a big "if" in Pakistan — the big question will be who will wield the most clout on defense and internal security matters? Bhutto believes the seven troubled tribal areas on the Afghan border, now under the sway of al-Qaida, the Taliban and assorted jihadis from Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, can be brought to heel by introducing political parties and election campaigning to the Federally Administered Tribal Areas.

Today only the MMA is authorized to recruit and propagandize in the FATA. The MMA is pro-Taliban and its leaders are self-avowed admirers of Osama bin Laden, the world's most wanted terrorist. Pakistan's mainstream political parties are not welcome in North and South Waziristan where the Taliban and al-Qaida rule and where Pakistani troops are loath to fight.

Pakistani intelligence reported from the northern tribal territories another 30 suicide bombers had been assigned to terminate high-value political targets.

Bhutto is now the target with the highest value. The late ul-Haq once said his greatest mistake was not killing Bhutto the daughter as he had ordered the execution of her father. Benazir's assassination would relegate Pakistan to "failing nuclear state."


On Iraq

Most Liberals blame US Policy for the attacks on the US and the conflict in Iraq
- what about the Terrorists? This attitude dangerous to the safety and future well being of America.

While most comparisons to Viet Nam are specious...one is becoming more and more real: media coverage is forcing the military to fight with less than appropriate vigor. Americans are compassionate...War is ruthless. Had World War II been fought under the same media microscope being used in Iraq, tactics which were vital to victory would never have been implemented. The fire bombings of Dresden and Tokyo...the clearing out Japanese pillboxes with flame throwers in the South Pacific...the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki...all these would not have happened and the bloodiest conflict in history would have lasted years longer and killed millions more had we not been willing to totally crush our enemies.

A sharp knife cuts quickest and hurts least...the ruthless pursuit of war in the name of humanity is a virtue, not a vice. Though no one defends the actions in that Iraqi prison in and of themselves, war is fought by people and people are human...they make mistakes. Sometimes, men and women in war make dumb decisions. That is what happened here.

But calls for resignations at the highest echelons of America's military are unfair...they might even be called traitorous. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is an honorable man and would never condone or cover-up these abuses. Democrats, like Delaware Senator Joe Biden, are taking advantage of these isolated incidents to paint a picture of incompetence and corruption that threatens to shake our troops morale...something more important to our troops' survival than any equipment they use.

This war is winnable... but only if we are willing to do everything it takes to win. An enemy is never truly defeated until he knows he has been beaten. In World War II, Germany was ground to dust between the colossal grindstones of the Allied and Red armies. A full-scale invasion of Japan was only avoided by using a weapon so terrible that the Japanese were thunderstruck into surrender. Even then, it took two atomic bombs to make that point.

Opponents of the war point to casualties and to the low-scale attrition which are wearing away at the morale and fighting ability of our troops. They forget that post-World War II, Nazi's were a problem for years and we had to occupy Japan for more than 30 years to pacify the population. The American occupation of Germany continues to this day. Yet, the nation building accomplished in both Europe and Asia during the Cold War resulted in both these defeated nations rising from their ashes, Phoenix-like, to become industrial and economic giants. Not to mention they are shining examples of Democracy...a form of government neither had experienced before.

Everyone agrees...mistakes were made at the Iraqi prison, and the American men and women who perpetrated these decidedly "un-American" acts are being punished...even as I write this. But it would be fatal to the war effort...fatal to Iraq's budding Democracy...and fatal to future U.S. interests to allow this scandal to balloon beyond it's true parameters. Democrats and those against the wart are looking to use any lever...at any cost...to pry George W. Bush out of the Presidency. For the sake of every man, woman and child who loves freedom...don't let them.
- By John Gilliland


How Did Ahmed Mohamed Get In?
The Tampa Tribune
Published: November 27, 2007

The newest evidence revealed in the case against former University of South Florida student Ahmed Mohamed is positively frightening.

Translated from Arabic, the video shows Mohamed encouraging would-be terrorists to use remote-controlled toys to detonate bombs.

What remains unanswered in this unfolding case is how Mohamed, who had been at USF since January, passed security checks before entering the country on a student visa issued by the U.S. State Department. Prosecutors believe the video was made after he arrived here.

Surely, Mohamed did not go from mild-mannered doctoral student to bomb-making instructor in the mere eight months between his arrival at USF and his arrest with fellow student Youssef Samir Megahed. The two were caught with explosives in their car near the Navy weapons station at Goose Creek, S.C.

USF did its part in ensuring Mohammed actually attended doctorate courses in engineering, but it relied on the federal government to determine whether he was a security risk. The Department of Homeland Security and the State Department should explain how it keeps students with radical tendencies out of the country.

Clearly something is afoul with security if an Arab bomb-making instructor can roost comfortably at an American university and teach others how to become more efficient killers. The public is due an explanation of how this occurred.
 
Reader Comments
Posted by ( Willis ) on November 27, 2007 at 10:46 a.m.

Our Universities, especially private schools, seem to prefer foreign students to American Citizen Students.

Could it be the guaranteed tuition and monetary gifts given by Middle East and Asian governments in return for educating their students? Is it any wonder that foreign nationals make up most of our graduate level students?

American students, working hard and struggling to meet the ridiculously growing tuition costs, are being out-bid by money rich governments for the limited graduate school slots.

As foreign governments become more aggressive and our universities continue to base their admission policies on greed and a displaced sense of political correctness, expect more of these undesirable students to enter our boarders. Also expect more American Students to be displaced from our own schools.


"I have been made victorious through terror." -- Muhammad, founder of Islam

In The Truth About Muhammad (which you can get absolutely free), Robert Spencer uncovers the facts about Muhammad that other biographers and the mainstream media keep hidden -- such as:

"I have been made victorious with terror" -- and other statements of Muhammad on his deathbed

The strange incident in Muhammad's life that makes it virtually impossible to prove rape in Islamic countries today

How Muhammad used the graphic lure of Islamic Paradise to urge his warriors to fight furiously to extend his rule

"Kill every Jew who comes into your power": Why Muhammad became so angry with both Jews and Christians -- with disastrous consequences that are still playing out in the world today

Muhammad's child bride -- and the terrible consequences his marriage to a nine-year-old still has in the Islamic world

"War is deceit": The permission Muhammad gave his followers to lie in order to gain an advantage over their enemies

How Muhammad broke the principal treaty he entered into, again setting a pattern for Muslim states thereafter

Muhammad's commands to his followers to wage perpetual war against non-Muslims

Muhammad on women's rights: Women "are prisoners with you having no control of their persons"

Why Muhammad still stands as the supreme model of human behavior for Muslims -- the "Perfect Man"

How other modern biographies "sanitize" the figure of Muhammad for Western audiences
https://members.humaneventsonline.com/order.php?offer=1314


America's strategies for victory — and defeat
By Caroline B. Glick
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/1107/glick110907.php3

The battle of Iraq is nearly over. And the Americans have nearly won. Their enemies are on the run. Al Qaida forces have lost or are losing their bases of operations. Its fighters are being killed and captured in ever increasing numbers. Iraq's Sunni citizens who, until recently refused to take any part in the post-Saddam regime, are joining the army and citizens' watch groups by the thousands.

Local sheikhs in Baghdad, following the example set earlier by Sunni sheikhs in Anbar province are ordering their people to fight with the Americans against al Qaida. For their part, the Shiite militias know that they are next in line for defeat. As a result, Muqtada el Sadr ordered his forces to cease their attacks.

The numbers speak for themselves. Over the past month, some 46,000 Iraqi refugees returned home. Since May, the number of civilian casualties has decreased by 75 percent. US military casualties have also dropped precipitously after the death rate rose in recent months of hard fighting. Neighborhoods in Baghdad which had ceased to function under al Qaida's reign of terror have come back to life. Businesses are reopening. Citizens are rebuilding their homes. Even churches are opening their doors. This is what victory looks like.

Yet the promise of Baghdad is a lone ray of light in an otherwise darkened field of failed US policies. As President George W. Bush prepares to enter his last year in office, America's international standing is at a low point. The forces of jihad, while being defeated in Iraq, are rising everywhere else. The price of oil races towards the once inconceivable price of $100 a barrel. New jihadist mosques open daily throughout the world. Pakistan is a disaster. Iran is closing in on the bomb.

To understand America's manifold failures, it makes sense to begin with a look at why Iraq is different. For the new successful American strategy in Iraq is not only different from what preceded it there. It is also different from the US strategy which is failing everywhere else.

The new American strategy in Iraq is based on a fairly simple strategic assumption: The US goal in Iraq is to defeat its enemies and to defeat its enemies the US must target them with the aim of defeating them. This is a strategy based on common sense.

Unfortunately, common sense seems to be the rarest of commodities in US foreign policy circles today. Outside of Iraq, and until recently in Iraq itself, the US has based its policies on the notion that it can bend its adversaries to its will by on the one hand signaling them in a threatening way, and on the other hand by trying to appease them where possible. And this is the heart of the failure.

In the lead up to Iraq, it was clear to US strategic planners that of the three states - Iraq, Iran and North Korea - that Bush labeled as members of the "Axis of Evil," Iraq was the least dangerous. It sponsored terror less than Iran. Its weapons of mass destruction programs were less developed that those of Iran and North Korea. As a result, there were some voices - particularly in Israel - which suggested that given that the US was uninterested in targeting more than one country in addition to Afghanistan, the US should direct its fire at Iran rather than Iraq. But for their own reasons, among them the collapse of the UN sanctions regime on Iraq; the fact that Iraq alone was under UN Security Council authority; and Iraq's relative weakness, the Americans chose to go after Saddam.

They assumed that the invasion itself would work to strengthen America's deterrent capability and so work to America's advantage in its dealings with Iran and North Korea. Here then we see, that the decision to invade Iraq was based in part on a continued American reliance on a strategy of signaling rather than confronting Iran and North Korea. If this hadn't been the case, Iraq probably would have been cast to the side.

Initially the American strategy met with stunning success. Iran, North Korea, Syria and indeed the Arab world as a whole, were shaken and terrified by the victorious American assault on Saddam. Unfortunately, rather than build on their momentum, the Americans did everything they could to assure these states that they had no reason to worry that a similar fate would befall them. Rather than maintain the offensive - by sealing Iraq's borders and then going after insurgents' bases in Iran and Syria, the US went on the defensive. And so it allowed Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia to support and direct the insurgency. As a result of America's show of weakness, the lesson that its enemies took from its campaign in Iraq was that to deter the Americans, they should intensify their support for terror and their weapons of mass destruction programs.

Once deterrence collapsed, the Americans chose a mix of appeasement mixed with threats that had no expiration date. Last year's North Korean intercontinental ballistic missile and nuclear tests, the war in Lebanon, the Hamas takeover of Gaza and Iran's intensification of its nuclear program are all results of the failure of this model of US foreign policy making.

These policies are of a piece with the US's general foreign policy posture towards its adversaries. And that posture is unfortunately based on a hugely inflated view of America's deterrent capabilities and Washington's failure to craft policies which are suited to their interests and goals.

Today, the most glaring example of this state of affairs is Pakistan. America has two primary goals in Pakistan. First it seeks to prevent Pakistan's nuclear weapons and technologies from proliferating or falling under the control of jihadists. Second, it seeks to defeat al Qaida and the Taliban.

After September 11, the Americans gave Pakistan's military dictator a choice: he could help them defeat the Taliban and al Qaida in Afghanistan or he could lose power. That was a good start but then the Americans began losing track of their priorities. After General Pervez Musharraf agreed to Washington's ultimatum, the Americans put all their eggs in his basket. And so they lost their ability to deter him and so influence his behavior.

Certain of unconditional American backing, Musharraf played a double game. He helped the US in Afghanistan and then allowed the Taliban and al Qaida to escape and rebase in Pakistan.

Musharraf was also unforthcoming on nuclear issues. He barred American investigators from interrogating Pakistan's chief nuclear proliferator A.Q. Khan, and so refused them key intelligence on other countries' Pakistani supported nuclear programs. Yet having based their Pakistan policy on their assumption that Musharraf was irreplaceable, the Americans pretended nothing was wrong.

And now they are confronted by a disastrous situation. On the one hand, thanks to Musharraf's hospitality, al Qaida and the Taliban control large swathes of Pakistan and have declared jihad against their host, thus placing Pakistan's nuclear arsenals in greater danger. At the same time, they use their Pakistani bases to intensify their insurgency in Afghanistan.

On the other hand, as has been his consistent policy since seizing power in 1998, Musharraf continues to ignore the seriousness of the Taliban--al Qaida threat. The purpose of his recent declaration of martial law and suspension of the Pakistani constitution was not to enable him to better fight the jihadists. It was to break his liberal political opposition whose members demand democracy and an end to his military rule.

And in the midst of this, the Americans find themselves with no leverage over the still irreplaceable Musharraf.

A similar situation exists in Saudi Arabia. There too the US squandered the leverage it gained after the Sept. 11 attacks by giving unconditional support to the Saudi royal family. The Saudis immediately understood that the best way to ensure continued American support was to extend their support for terrorism and finance of radical, pro-jihad mosques while raising the price of oil. As in Pakistan, the worse the situation became, the more the Americans supported them.

And then of course there are the Palestinians. Here American policy has been a double failure. First of all, it has destroyed American deterrence towards the Arab world.

In order to divert American attention away from their support for jihadist terrorism, the leaders of the Arab world sought to convince the Americans that the only way to end their support for terror and jihad was by resolving the Palestinian conflict with Israel. Rather than stop to question the validity of the Arabs' strange assertion, the Americans believed them. Over time, this belief led them to neglect their actual goals - to end the Arab world's support for terror; prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction; and maintain world oil prices at around $30 a barrel - in favor of a secondary and unrelated issue. Aside from that, it bears noting that it is largely because of the strengthening of jihadist forces in the Arab world that there is no possibility of achieving peace between Israel and the Palestinians. Rather than understand this, the Americans have allowed the Arabs to send them on a wild goose chase that will never end.

The very fact that this week Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice thought that it was more important to come to Israel for the ninth time of the year than deal with the crisis in Pakistan shows clearly just how deeply the Americans have internalized this Arab fiction.

Then there are the Palestinians themselves. As Bush announced in 2002, the US's main goal regarding the Palestinians is to force them to stop engaging in terror and jihad. All other American policies regarding the Palestinians were supposed to be conditioned on the accomplishment of this goal. Yet as in Pakistan, over time the Americans neglected this goal in favor of an easier one - supporting Mahmoud Abbas and Fatah. In order to strengthen Abbas and Fatah, the Americans have cast aside their goal of ending Palestinian terror. As a result, today they have no leverage over Abbas. As with Musharraf in Pakistan, strengthening Abbas is the only policy the Americans have towards the Palestinians, and increasingly, towards Israel. And as in Pakistan, the threatening reality on the ground is a consequence of the fact that their policy ignores their actual goals.

Two conclusions can be drawn from contrasting America's victory in Iraq with its failures in so many other theaters. First, the only way to successfully fight your enemies is to fight them. And second, basing policies on pretending to deter leaders who are not deterred is a recipe for failure. Until the Americans accept these lessons, Iraq aside, the international environment will grow ever more threatening.


 


 
 
  Site Map