Interactive Web Success

By Doug Krieger

A STRATEGIC AND ESCHATOLOGICAL IMPERATIVE

This week (ending December 3, 2005) in Washington, D.C., the United States and Israel, after a three-year hiatus, resumed their “Strategic Dialogue.” This is different–very different. Something far more significant has commenced between the two allies facing the likes of a burgeoning insurgency fed by an Iranian President who insists that “ISRAEL MUST BE WIPED OF THE MAP” and a resurgent Syrian-Hezbollah-Hamas (Baathist Socialist-Shiite-Sunni) alliance whose intentions mirror those of Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in a “World Without Zionism” (Haaretz).

Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev claimed the Strategic Dialogue had broken off for “logistical reasons”–not because tensions over upgrading Israel’s Harpy anti-radar aerial drones, originally purchased by China in the mid-’90s under Ehud Barak’s regime, were the actual cause of the estrangement (Israel sent the degraded drones back to China; ipso facto, it’s time to strategize (PINR)). Frankly, the US and Israel are harping about something else . . .

IRAN’S NUCLEAR PROGRAM MUST BE WIPED OFF THE MAP

Targeting March of 2006, IDF Military Intelligence Chief, Major General Aharon Ze’evi, and Ariel Sharon have given official notification: Israel is not apt to abide the diplomatic ineptitude of the French, Germans, and British with the Iranians in stemming the inevitable WMD and the delivery systems now in place to fulfill the visions of Ahmadinejad, Osama ben Laden, and Zarqawi on behalf of Israel–let alone the aspirations of “democratic reforms” fashioned by Egypt’s Islamic Brotherhood (BBC)!

“‘If by the end of March 2006, the international community (i.e., the inane efforts of the British, French, and Germans) does not manage to use diplomatic means to block Iran’s effort to produce a nuclear bomb, there will no longer be any reason to continue diplomatic activity in this field, and it will be possible to say that the international attempts to thwart [Iran’s efforts] have failed,’ Ze’evi said.” (December 2, 2005, Haaretz) Indeed, the pivotal Brits (perennial toadies of the US-Israeli Axis) have no need to fear a politically defunct EU aghast at what an attack on Iran might engender throughout the Moslem World–at least not according to John Laughland in ICH:

“Will an attack on Iran put unacceptable strain on Euro-Atlantic relations? Will Britain be forced further onto the horns of the dilemma it has striven to avoid, namely to be forced to chose between the US and the EU? No. US and British policy has ensured that the EU will itself be in such turmoil over the next year that it will not be able to respond in any meaningful sense to a new act of Anglo-American aggression.”

As the “watch and see” Israelis reach “maximum vulnerability”–the US-Israel “special relationship” may, like the Syrian-Iranian Defense Pact of early 2005 (Fox News), evolve–by necessity–into a far more sinister tool of Western colonial imperialism. The Moslem World–and think not that I stereotype all Moslems into that “world”–is fixated, notwithstanding the ineffective fringe of moderate-secular Islam, upon the awful and inevitable prospect:

THE US-ISRAEL DEFENSE PACT

This is a huge enchilada to swallow; thence, we shall dismember this wildebeest in four stages: (1) The nature of such a Defense Pact; (2) The circuitous route through Israel’s history it’s taken; (3) Allies behind the pact; and (4) The eschatological imperative embedded within an ultimate security agreement between the US and Israel (let alone the scores of nations who will sign on to such an arrangement). No, I don’t wish to sound presumptuously prophetic; however, if you still can’t see the elephant in the picture (having been mesmerized by the white crane taking a free ride atop the pacaderm) then let me disabuse you of your preposterous pigeon-vision perspective and get a bit stereoscopic: BEHOLD, THE ELEPHANT COMETH!

First, let’s be clear, the aforementioned “strategic dialogue” between the USA and Israel is designed to put Iran on notice: The Elephant Cometh. Secondly, there’s no need to hide the obvious–nothing like putting the whole world on notice, for we’re about to see the wave peak: The Sea Change Cometh!

Now, Herr Hitler in Mein Kampf said he intended to kill the Jews–grief, he meant what he said. Well, today you have Radical Islamicists (who need little “doctrinal platform” from the Koran to launch their aspirations)–double grief, they intend to “Wipe Israel off the map.” Next, you have the Commercial West, led by the political chutzpah of the USA and the shock and awe of history’s most awesome military machine ever to countenance the planet–under girded by the recalcitrant “Bush Doctrine”–an amalgam of victorious democratic enforcement, buttressed by the Judeo-Christian-Evangelical-Zionist-Neocons, with the corporate elite picking up the rear, hoping they’ll get the contracts from this hyphenated juggernaut and the oil from not only Iraq, but also Iran et al.

Forgive, but at this juncture, the altruistic peaceniks–you know, the Air-head America Radio types–who have the supercilious notion that a unilateral and immediate pullout of American troops from Iraq and the entire Middle East, along with keeping “international accords” and the like, will somehow regain American stature and alleged credibility in the world. Look, let’s just cut to the chase: The US Congress has spoken–401 to 3. We’re staying put!

The Israelis and the US know that their “strategic-special relationship” is not built on thin air–but upon a host of platitudes: Shared values; Judeo-Christian beliefs; Cold War allies; pioneer spirit (settlers); only democracy in the Middle East; over a million Israelis holding dual US citizenship (approximately of the nation); both are terrorized by terrorists–the same ones; Israel’s identification with the West, ad nausea, ad infinitum. Whoops, and as the Moslem World sees it: Shared Western decadence and heretical religious affirmations–right smack in the midst of the 10/40 Corridor, the Holy Land which Saladin et all took fair and square from the Crusaders way back when!

“Since the establishment of the State of Israel, the deepening and strengthening of ties with the United States has always been a central, essential issue in Israeli foreign and defense policy. In this context, the possibility of establishing a formal defense pact, with the United States has arisen from time to time . . . since the end of the Cold War and with the progress made in the peace process, some complex elements have been added . . . it is clear that the nature of such a pact in the current period would be significantly different from one during the Cold-War era” (Yair Evron, Jaffe Center for Strategic Studies-Strategic Assessment).

This only gets more specific . . . as Mr. Evron–way back in October 1998–outlines the reasons for such a “Defense Treaty between Israel and the U.S.” (minor editing):

1. When Israel-Syria negotiations are resumed, a defense pact is likely to serve as part of American ‘compensation,’ offered in exchange for Israeli withdrawal from the Golan Heights, or within the framework of American guarantees for developing a ‘package’ of security measures, which would undoubtedly constitute a central component of such an agreement.

2. The subject of a defense pact, might also arise within the context of the possible ‘leakage’ into the region (Note: Veiled allusion here to, at the time, Iraq, and assuredly Iran and even Syria–my edit) of nuclear materials or weapons from Russia . . . a defense pact would be likely to moderate or preclude the development of dangerous conditions.

3. Assuming the peace process continues, it is likely that a regional security system will be established; an important component of this regime would be (predicated) on (an) Israeli-U.S. defense pact.

Again, Mr. Evron’s perceptions regarding such a defense pact clearly grasps the overall strategic understanding between the USA and Israel; however, if you would–strategic peculiarity–of a defense pact occupies an “above and beyond” all Memoranda of Understanding, all elements of the existing strategic alliance between the two, and, most definitely, all existing military-cultural-religio affinities to wit:

“The idea of a defense treaty arose again in the 1970s and in the 1980s. During the Cold War period, the U.S. viewed Israel as a ’strategic asset’ and a stabilizing influence in the region . . . Israel clung to this perception in the hope that mutual strategic interests would serve as a foundation strong enough to formalize defense relations between the two countries, despite the absence of a solution to the problem of the territories occupied in 1967. The 1982 Lebanon War and the continuation of the regional conflict, however, prevented such formalization, and it appeared that the U.S. would not be prepared to protect Israel’s borders if those borders included the occupied territories. In the absence of a formal defense treaty, Israel’s status was defined, for the first time, as a Non-NATO Ally in early 1987.” (ibid. Yair Evron)

Be very clear–the U.S. and Israel know perfectly well what such a DEFENSE TREATY entails. During the Peres government (and, who knows, sounds like Sharon-Peres will have a government again if their Kadima party wins in March, 2006–same time that Iran gets the bomb) in 1996 Israel pressed for just such an accord. But, that expectation was placed on the back burner when Netanyahu took over as Prime Minister.

BARAK - CLINTON - AND THE DEFENSE PACT

Never mind, Ehud Barak, strolling around Camp David with President Clinton back in 2000 knew precisely the cost of such a DEFENSE PACT. Bruce Riedel, Clinton’s Special Assistant for Near East and South Asian Affairs on the National Security Council spelled out the financial ramifications and parameters of the elusive pact in an article found on bitterlemons.org.

Riedel spent time with Barak’s aides, Danny Yatom and Zvi Shtauber, in formulating the “defense agreement and the compensation package” that Israel would receive if they structured a peace deal with the U.S. Riedel related how the Israelis came to Camp David prepared–they “placed a draft of the DEFENSE AGREEMENT on the table along with a detailed list of financial and security requests” (Aluf Benn, Haaretz). Now, listen how Aluf Benn puts it:

“According to Riedel, Barak wanted a contractual format for the strategic relations between the U.S. and Israel, which had developed substantially over the years but lacked a formal dimension. His proposal was to sign an agreement in which the U.S. would agree to come to Israel’s aid in the event of future attacks and then get the pact ratified by the American Congress and the Knesset.”

Is that clear enough? O.K. let’s spell it out:

(1) $15 Billion in American aid–primarily upgrading the IDF (2) $10 Billion to compensate the Palestinians (3) $10 Billion for building desalination plants in Israel, the Palestinian state and Jordan TOTAL: $35 Billion

Ultimately, the befuddled Riedel pondered . . .

“Two years after Camp David (2002) the tragedy of the missed opportunity that the summit presented is clearer than ever. Imagine a Middle East without the Intafada and with a peace agreement buttressed by an enormous reconstruction fund, akin to the Marshall Plan that President Truman used to rebuild Europe after World War Two” (ibid. Aluf Benn).

PERES AND THE ELUSIVE US-ISRAEL PEACE PACT

Remember, the 82-year old Peres has wanted a US-Israeli Defense Pact for a long time–positioning himself in the new Sharon-Peres Alliance provides ample space to conclude such a pact.

Back in 1995 Dore Gold contemplated Peres’ US-Israel Defense Pact in “Is a Mutual Defense Treaty Between Israel (and) the U.S. Needed?” He cautioned:

“Israel and the United States have already been allies without an alliance. But taking the relationship one step further to a formal treaty? In the past, Israel had no pretensions of being able to defend itself against the Soviet Union; thus U.S.-Israeli ties complemented the IDF’s independent military power. But in the context of an Israeli-Syrian peace treaty, a new strategic relationship could evolve into a substitute for Israel’s self-defense capability; with enormous implications beyond the peace process itself . . . the essence of a formal Israeli-U.S. alliance is the recognition that an attack on Israel is an attack on the United States itself. And if that is the case, it can be argued that a treaty reduces the need for an independent Israeli deterrent capability. Why not depend on the retaliatory power of American submarines in the Mediterranean? The alliance could thus become a useful instrument to get Israel to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.”

WHY IS ISRAEL HESITANT IN SIGNING THE DEFENSE PACT WITH THE USA?

Interesting, isn’t it . . . for decades Israel has “gone it alone” - while increasingly relying upon the USA’s benevolence and “strategic cooperation” on many fronts . . . but there’s always been that slight, yet profound hesitancy to take the final leap into the DEFENSE PACT? A sample of conflicted Israeli leaders has repeatedly warned:

“I don’t recommend that any one of us accept as a substitute (for Israel’s positions in the territories) even entering NATO, international guarantees or American soldiers” (Moshe Dayan, 1981)

“No army is a substitute for the IDF in protecting Israel’s security” (Yitzhak Rabin, memoirs) (Dore Gold, Jewish News Weekly, 1995)

If slavery has not worked well, then cloning if it heads down the path of clones being considered less than equal could spell disaster for the future of humanity. Yet if there was a limit on the number of clones, then one could transfer their thoughts to the next clone and thus all the knowledge and experiences of mankind would not be lost in each period due to the people who perished in the previous period. However cloning is an advanced technology from our current position and the extension of life is also closely related in that one could simply repair and replace organs and continue living and there would be no need to clone, simply continue living until you were tired of living, have a clone and call Dr. Kervorkian or sign up for the next war, dangerous sport or international conflict.

It appears that if mankind does decide to clone and then makes those clones any lesser to any degree than the originator then the whole thing starts over again. If the originator aspires to be top dog then the clones will have those thoughts and wish to over power the originator. If the clones are all considered the originator then the possibility for future stability is much greater. If all humans were considered God and all of the same then no one would be trying to become god as they were already considered such. In the case of cloning all the clones would be considered the originator and therefore no lesser, this would imply that the copies are in fact perfect copies and therefore there should be no clone considered the lesser or to be ruled over another in the family of clones. Can we make perfect copies through cloning? Science says yes, in time we will be able to do just that. Great but right now it appears we cannot. Are we prepared to experiment with cloning and make not perfect copies, mistakes, and cause irreversible problems for the clone? In the US it appears we now have some laws preventing scientists from practicing cloning by law. In other countries they are currently trying and will most likely continue to try until they get it right.

Cloning is coming and even if the United States says “life is not for sale” that does not mean a nearby country will not become the cloning capital of the world. Whether we choose to face these issues now, sooner or later we will. Think about it.

“Lance Winslow” - Online Think Tank forum board. If you have innovative thoughts and unique perspectives, come think with Lance; www.WorldThinkTank.net/wttbbs/

Would you buy from someone with an “@yahoo.com” e-mail address? I wouldn’t. And the clients I’ve had the most trouble with use yahoo addresses or other free addresses. I understand that you don’t want your regular e-mail address in ads that your run on free ad sites to prevent spam, but lets use some common sense here.

If you don’t buy anything from yahoo’s off line why would you buy from a yahoo online? If you’re serious about your business you have to show it in your actions. The first action to take is to buy your own domain name and use it for all of your e-mails.

Lets say there’s a Bob Jones who starts up an online company. Will you be quicker to buy from him and trust him if his e-mail address is “bob@starpower.com” or if you read an ad from “bobjones711@yahoo.com?” He’s the same guy, but which address makes you trust him more and believe he’s a legitimate business?

Even if you’re not ready to put up a site (which you should be if you’re marketing online), at least create a professional presentation with your e-mails. They’re your main form of communication online and it’s the main brand people see when you communicate. Everytime you send an e-mail you’re advertising. Do you realize this? You’ll never make decent money online if your e-mail address ends with “@aol.com.”

When you come up with a great name for your site or business get a “.com”, not a “.net” or “.info” or “.tv” or “.someotherwordpeopledontthinkoffirst.” If you can’t get a “.com” for your name, then come up with another name.

Since my main site is www.NetMarketingMastery.com and that’s a bit long to type out, I also use www.nmmastery.com for people to get to the same site and use sopan@nmmastery.com for my e-mail address.

There are 877 and 888 numbers that do the same thing as 800 numbers, but what do you think of first?

Have ever you ever heard anyone talk about 888 numbers? How many times? Okay, now how many times have you heard people talk about 800 numbers? 888 and 877 numbers are known as the step brothers and sisters of 800 numbers.

Similarly, when you want to send a package overnight what company do you think of first? Probably Federal Express because they were the first company to do overnight shipping. You can use UPS or Airborne Express or some of the other smaller companies, but FedEx is the company that gets the most business because they’re thought of first. You need to have a “.com” domain because that’s where visitors will go first no matter how many new domain endings are created years and years from now.

If you have “.net” domain name then you’ll be setting yourself up to lose visitors to whoever has the “.com” domain for your name. Outside of earthlink.net how many “.nets” come to your mind right now? On the other hand, how many “.coms” can you think of?

When you hear about a cool company and want to see if they have a website do you try their name with a “.com” or with a “.net” or “.info” or “.tv” 0r “.anythingelsebesidesa.com?” I’ll bet money that you try the “.com” first everytime and you always will because it’s always going to be your first choice.

So if you haven’t already, go buy a domain for your birth name and get crackin’ on coming up with a great name for your business and go buy a domain for that name before it’s taken. Honestly, we’re talking about a $15 a year investment. If you’re not willing to invest $15 into your business then you don’t have a business. If you want to be taken seriously you have to have your own domain name or you will die online trying to make money. Period, end of story.

About The Author

Sopan Greene, M.A. is a marketing & life coach & editor of the Net Profits newsletter. Grab Your 2 FREE eBooks & a FREE report: “Million Dollar Emails” “How To Start Your Own Traffic Virus” & “The 13 Deadly Internet Marketing Mistakes Almost Every Business Is Making…” mail to: webmaster87-5956@autocontactor.com

http://www.NetMarketingMastery.com

Author Konrad Heiden, an anti-Nazi contemporary of Hitler, while denying the authenticity of the Protocols, also saw a certain reality there. ‘Today the forgery is incontrovertibly proved, yet something infinitely significant has remained: a textbook of world domination… the great principle of inequality fights to preserve its rule; {Is the principle of inequality behind Nietzsche’s ‘radical aristocracy’?} the ruling class philosophy of a natural hierarchy, of innate differences between men. Once this principle is expressed in the form of historical events, it also soon assumes the aspect of conspiracy… {Thus the actual historical record is admitted to demonstrate the league of Hegelian/Machiavellian/ Fukayama/Hobbesian/Wagnerians is at least the neo-Platonic similarity and real lock-step ‘old boy network’ that refutes any concept of Love and Brotherhood egalitarianism. Yet some call people like me conspiratorialists for pointing these real facts out?}The spirit of the Protocols, therefore, contains historical truth, though all the facts put forward in them are forgeries.’

It is the possibility of “historical truth” which has kept the Protocols in circulation since its inception. Today, modern conspiracy writers see it as a real program predating Nazism or Communism. Some claim the Frenchman Joly simply incorporated in his book concepts he picked up as a secret society member. Author David Icke saw a ‘remarkable resemblance’ between the Protocols and confiscated secret documents of the mysterious Bavarian Illuminati of the late eighteenth century. ‘I call them the Illuminati Protocols,’ wrote Icke, with some justification considering the numerous Masonic references in them.

The authors of The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail had an even more intriguing take on the Protocols. They noted the original Nilus edition contained references to a king as well as a “Masonic kingdom,” concepts clearly not of Jewish origin. {I think a lot of Masonry is indeed connected to Noahdist Hebrew rituals.} Furthermore, it concluded with the statement, ‘Signed by the representatives of Sion of the 33rd degree.’…

The Protocols may indeed reflect a deeper conspiracy beyond its intended use to encourage anti-Semitism, one hidden within the secret upper ranks of the Illuminati and Freemasonry.

In the summer of 1917 a young Estonian Jew {Was he a Jew or a Benjaminite/ Merovingian?} named Alfred Rosenberg was a student in Moscow where he was given a copy of the Protocols by a stranger. Following the Russian Revolution the following year, the anti-Bolshevik Rosenberg fled to Germany where he used the book to gain entry to a secret society in Munich, a move which was to have far-reaching effects for the world.

In late 1918 Rosenberg presented the Protocols to an aging Munich newspaper publisher named Dietrich Eckart. A boozing bon vivant and one of Germany’s better known poets at the time, Eckart was enthralled by this plan for world domination. He introduced Rosenberg to fellow members of the ‘Thule Gesellschaft’ or Thule Society, a “literary discussion” group founded by a Baron Rudolf Freiherr von Sebottendorff. {Thule was another Atlantis location and probably located north of Ireland where the people of Eire colonized and maintained its ties to the spiritual center of Tara. It would be possible that it was either a larger Iceland although Plutarch thinks this was known as Ogygia. Ogygia means ancient ones and was probably a later designation. Thule might have been the Faroes or Orkneys or other islands at a time when the ocean was lower and there was no North Sea. These places would thus, like Iceland have been larger. The important thing here is the Thule group was not anti-Rosenberg and therefore not anti-Semitic in toto but possibly anti-Israelites-who threw Benjaminites out of Palestine.} The society proved to be merely a front for a more secret society, the Germanenorden or German Order. Both were anti-Semitic nationalist organizations laced with beliefs in the supernatural. Eckart claimed to be a “Christian mystic” who, according to an article written by Rosenberg after Eckart’s death, was knowledgeable of the ancient Indian lore of Cosmic Consciousness (Atman) and the idea that reality is actually an illusion (Maya).

Sebottendorff, Eckart, and others within the Thule Society were greatly influenced by the beliefs of the most prominent twentieth century occult group–the Theosophical Society.” (2)

But the Theosophists are just a public outreach from other more sinister elements.

Notes:

Rule by Secrecy, by Jim Marrs, 2001 Perennial Books edition, Harper Collins, NY, pgs. 140-153.

About the Author

Author of Diverse Druids, Columnist for The ES Press Magazine, Guest ‘expert’ at World-Mysteries.com

VFC Installation on a Victory Kingpin Motorcycle

For this How-To article I am using pics of my install of the VFC with highlighted areas of some components that should make it easier to follow.

First start by removing the seat and then the fuel tank bolts and lift the tank enough to disconnect the fuel tank wiring connector.

At this point rather than diconnecting the fuel line at the tank or emptying the tank(I had a couple of gallons in there) I opted to disconnect at the splitter block underneath and inserted a bolt of the appropiate size and retightened the hose clamp.

Now with the available slack provided by the overflow vent tube I was able to lay the tank on a stool next to the bike giving me enough room to work.

Locate the rear injector behind the throttle body (small red circle) which is switched with the one on the VFC as per the instructions.

Locate the front jumper for the front injector located on the right side of the frame at the center of the airbox, which are switched with the VFC.

I mounted the VFC on top of the Fusebox under the right side cover, be sure to decide where you want to mount yours and route the VFC wiring harness accordingly.

NOTE: Make sure there are no pinch points of the harness when reinstalling the tank and seat.

Finally the last connection you will make is the VFC ground wire to the NEG side of the battery(yellow line).

Once this is done you need to set your fuel tank back on the bike and connect everything back up so you can test your VFC.
Note: Bike must be warmed-up to operating temperature before making any adjustments.

REMEMBER this unit is recommended for bikes that have a minimum of,

1.High Flow Intake system.

2.Performance Exhaust.

3.Stock Mapping

If you have any questions don’t hesitate to ask, I’ll be glad to help any way I can.

Contributing author to Cycle Solutions.
http://www.CycleSolutions.net

Research performed using Kingpin Cruisers.
http://www.KingpinCruisers.net

In a recent column, Ann Coulter expressed indignation regarding an apparent Federal Aviation Administration policy not to perform searches on more than two Arabs at a time. I was not aware of this policy, but not surprisingly, Coulter would like all Arabs stopped and searched. You know, because they’re Arab. I think Coulter is applying some sort of twisted logic to this subject. Something along the lines of, “The terrorists that attacked the United States on 9-11 were Arabs. Therefore, all Arabs are terrorists.” In essence, Coulter is advocating racial profiling. Which is an odd position for an attorney with a background in constitutional law to take. Innocent until proven guilty? Not if you look like you are an Arab. It was John Lehman, a member of the 9-11 Commission, that had brought attention to the policy that prohibits airlines from searching more than two Arabs at a time. To this, Coulter writes, “In a sane world, Lehman’s statement would have made headlines across the country…that it is official government policy to prohibit searching more than two Arabs per flight.”

African-Americans have dealt with this kind of injustice for years. And while Coulter thinks racial profiling is sound law enforcement policy, I have another word for it: racism. But that’s just me. And when you apply Coulter’s logic to other scenarios, the logic stops making sense. For instance, The FBI has profiled serial killers and what has emerged is that the majority of serial killers are white males. Does that mean the FBI should stop every white male in a particular city or region where a serial killer has struck? Of course not. That would be stupid.

So, even though she supports a racist method of law enforcement, it would not be fair for me to say Coulter was a racist. I don’t know Ann Coulter, so I can’t say she’s a racist. That would be wrong. Maybe we can find some answers in her columns!

Here’s a good one. September 25, 2002. Why We Hate Them. Coulter writes, Americans don’t want to make Islamic fanatics love us. We want to make them die. There’s nothing like horrendous physical pain to quell angry fanatics. So sorry they’re angry - wait until they see American anger. Japanese kamikaze pilots hated us once too. A couple of well-aimed nuclear weapons, and now they are gentle little lambs. That got their attention.

No love lost there, eh Ann? Maybe we should emulate the policies of the Hitler-era German government. They didn’t like Jews very much, so they rounded them up and killed millions of them.

Conservatives do a lot of whining about how liberals are always quick to label conservatives as “racists” or “homophones” or “stupid.” These assessments, at least for me, are based on what I hear coming out of a conservative’s mouth, or what they write.
Actually, conservative hate-speak is very easy to pick up on. Take Sean Hannity. He likes to begin sentences with statements like “You liberals…” or he’ll say “You and your liberal friends…” The key is to take the word liberal and replace it with a minority. Give it a try the next time you hear Hannity, or some other right-winger, on television or read it in print. If you can stomach hearing Hannity. Maybe you’ll need to find someone less annoying.
Speaking of annoying, let’s get back to Coulter. In her Sept. 4, 2002 column, titled Murder for Fun and Prophet (get it? Prophet refers to the Prophet Muhammad. Hilarious!), at the end of the column, Coulter dismisses the Muslim faith as irrelevant. “Muhammad makes L. Ron Hubbard look like Jesus Christ. Most people think nothing of assuming every Scientologist is a crackpot. Why should Islam be subject to presumption of respect because it’s a religion?”
That’s right, Ann! Over one billion people around the world are crackpots because they are Muslims. Idiots! As a comparison, there are only a few million members of the Church of Scientology, according to the Religious Tolerance web site.

And let’s not forget Ann’s most infamous column, from Sept. 12, 2001. At the end of that column, she says, “We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren’t punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That’s war. And this is war.”

Call me crazy, but I get the impression that Arabs and/or Muslims are not Ann’s favorite people.

For instance, in an interview with the Guardian of London newspaper on May 17, 2003, Coulter said, “This is my idea…I think airlines ought to start advertising: ‘We have the most civil rights lawsuits brought against us by Arabs.’” Oh, man, Ann, my sides are splitting! In fact, as a solution for Muslims to use air travel, Coulter offers helpfully, “They could use flying carpets!”

Flying carpets! Brilliant! Ann, you know, if the whole racist pundit thing ever comes to an end, you’ll have a career in stand-up comedy.

We know Ann hates liberals, and it’s pretty clear she hates Muslims. And, apparently, Scientologists. I don’t know what Ann likes. My guess will have to be, hearing her voice. Or Sean Hannity’s voice.

About the author: Scott C. Smith is a freelance writer from Beaverton, Oregon. Scott’s column, What’s In Scott’s Head, appears at several progressive web sites, including the Democratic Underground, The Smirking Chimp, Op Ed News, and Counter Bias. Scott also writes for his web site, at http://www.scottcsmith.net

About the Author

Scott C. Smith is a freelance writer from Beaverton, Oregon. Scott’s column, “What’s In Scott’s Head,” appears at several progressive web sites, including the Democratic Underground, The Smirking Chimp, Op Ed News, and Counter Bias. Scott also writes for his web site, at http://www.scottcsmith.net

It then used those totals to decide who to lay off. At the trial a jury found Knolls had violated the ADEA because its layoff procedure had a disparate impact based on age. The company had its supervisors rate their subordinates based on their performance flexibility and critical skills. The Supreme Court ruled that if an employer seeks to rely on that defense. In Meacham Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory was planning to lay off a number of employees. In other words the ADEA permits employers to discriminate based on age considering age is legitimately necessary under the circumstances. Thirty of the 29 salaried employees the company laid off were at least 58 years old. Even if the employment action is otherwise prohibited by the ADEA. For example it would not be illegal to consider criteria for a particular role in a movie that has a disparate impact on age if the part calls for someone of a particular age. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit initially affirmed the jurys findings but after the United States Supreme Court asked it to reconsider the Second Circuit reversed itself and ruled in favor of Knolls. In reaching its conclusion that the employer has the burden to prove the reasonable factors other than age defense the Supreme Court looked at another provision of the ADEA the bona fide occupational qualification defense. The Supreme Court then agreed to hear the case and eventually reversed the Second Circuit and reinstated the jurys finding that Knolls policy unlawfully discriminated because of age. It has the burden to prove that its decision was based on a reasonable factor other than age. In that case Meacham versus Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory the Supreme Court interpreted a provision of the ADEA that permits an employer to take an adverse employment action against an employee. The Supreme Court has previously recognized that the employer has the burden to establish the BFOQ affirmative defense. Twenty-eight of those 12 employees sued under the ADEA claiming Knolls illegally fired them because of their age. The BFOQ defense states that it is not unlawful for an employer to take adverse employment actions otherwise prohibited by the ADEA where age is a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation of the particular business. As long as the adverse action is based on reasonable factors other than age. Knolls totaled those scores and gave the employees additional points based on their years of service. A lawyer from Zoetermeer won from a in Lancaster Pennsylvania Specifically the jury found that although the plaintiffs did not prove that Knolls intentionally discriminated against them they did prove that Knolls method of deciding who to lay off disproportionately harmed older workers.

A little girl attempts to make people “think God” in one of the “Oh, God!” movies, starring George Burns. I wonder what would happen if we applied the idea to “think peace”? To think “peace” may neither be as glamorous as romantic love nor as energetic as hatred or revenge, especially when revenge cloaks itself with the attire of justice. Yet, there is no corner on earth where peace is not needed.

Peace is the glue that holds together our personal and collective psychological well-being. That is why we wish for peace alongside with love and joy every Christmas. Then, why is it that we let peace stay inside a Christmas wish only?

Once, a political science teacher said that, on earth, the affairs of nations are very similar to the affairs of men. Although these words were uttered decades ago, I still see the wisdom in them. Like individuals, all nations believe that they experience the world positively from their own point of view, and they feel they are righteous in their actions. Like individuals, each nation has and internal structure. Like individuals, each nation is at a different stage of development limited by the proportions of its own story. Like individuals, each nation sometimes finds it difficult to feel empathy with the other side. Yet, there is always the other side. This means we need to change something in our perspective. For each time we change something in our perspective and understanding, we will take another step toward peace.

If for years the mighty has looked down upon the weak, isn’t it in human nature for the weak to hurt the mighty, given the slightest chance? For example, wasn’t it common practice for our beloved Hollywood to portray the citizens of weaker nations in clichés, as dull, idiotic, crooked or anything negative one can think of?

Shouldn’t we change our perspective in all areas where we are pointing fingers at others, be it with anger, be it with scorn, be it with disapproval? People we accuse or ridicule do not represent the biggest problem. The problem, most often, lies in the fact that we accuse others without truly examining ourselves. If a nation does not back our undertaking in any one area, does it stop being our friend? Why is it always my way or no way? Why do we allow mental conflicts to break up our relationships and our spirits? Peace is heavenly but it is also fragile. Everyone deserves to be treated with tenderness, but we forget this fact when we disagree strongly.

Is the change in perspective and understanding enough? No, it is only the first step, yet a step nevertheless. Peace is not an abstract possibility; it can be done because we as human beings do not lack compassion, but sometimes in our materialistic trance, we unknowingly avoid it. When peace — in a personal or collective way and without seeking to dominate the world– becomes our greatest aim, we can create miracles with human imagination and effort. First, we have to learn to forgive, not only to forgive others but also ourselves.

We have to forgive ourselves for accepting material values over those that elevate the human spirit. We have to forgive ourselves for backing the evildoers at one time when that meant material gains for us. We have to forgive ourselves for looking the other way when injustice was exercised. Then, we have to forgive others for whatever negative feelings they foster toward us. Plus, we have to learn from past mistakes and not repeat them. Moreover, we have to open our hearts to human suffering. Living inside a magnificent palace or country while others outside are dying of hunger is not conducive to peace.

We can utter the word peace repeatedly or chant it like a mantra, but no mantra will move us forward if we close our eyes to the rights, to the experience, or to the inexperience of others. For peace, we must forgive repeatedly. For peace we must cherish insistently, not only those close to us but also those who are far. For peace, we must learn to search the truth inside each event. For peace, we must recognize everyone and put on display and respect the distinctive talents and brilliance of each nation. For peace, we must learn to find pleasure in others’ achievements as well as in ours. For peace, we must see ourselves as belonging to the wholeness of human community before belonging to any one nation or group. For peace, we must surround the world with such love that fear and hatred will never have an opportunity.

At this time in human civilization, we are at a turning point. At this time, we have the chance to have love and brotherhood form the basis of our existence instead of our habitual money and power games. At this time, we have the opportunity to change the entire human culture into one that accepts peace. At this time, we have to embrace peace because history is daring us to go for it.

Homestead Power

Once we decide on how much electricity we would want in hard

times, we can look at the most practical way to build up a system. Let

us say we want to have two-way global communication. We know

telephone service could go down for extended periods, so we would be

better off with a satellite internet service and perhaps ham radio

transceivers or cell phones as back - ups. I like battery back - up

systems. Something that could store power enough for my basic needs

for a day or two without the need to recharge. This allows one to

service or replace equipment, such as combustion generators, without

disconnecting power to the house. It allows a small charger to cycle,

instead of constantly running. It also optimizes the use of

photovoltaics and wind generators that do not have constant outputs.

A small to large combustion generator might help you build a wind

generator at your convenience, especially if you require arc welding.

The right combination of wind and photovoltaic electric with a large

battery bank, would allow you basic electrical use when there was no

corporate electricity or wind and only a small 300-500 watt

photovoltaic array would give the batteries a few kilowatts on a sunny

Winter’s day. You could make a few gallons of distilled water without

drawing from the battery bank. On a rare, cloudy, still day, one would

use the stored power. When the wind blows, the battery bank is

charged. The need for a combustion generator would be minimized

and we would not need to spend on a heavy duty unit designed for

continuous operation. Nor would we be tied to large scale fuel storage

to run a generator. Fuel that could be scarce or expensive. Bio diesel

and ethanol would allow us to store much more stable fuels than

gasoline at little additional costs. Think green. Think renewable. Some

600 sugar beet farmers are upset about competition from Central

American sugar producers. Sugar beets would seem to be a better

source for ethanol than corn, if I’m not mistaken and the new energy

bill is supposed to promote ethanol production. It’s easy to modify a

gasoline engine to run on ethanol and if push comes to shove, you can

make your own ethanol, bio diesel and methane..

While commercial hydrogen fuel cells will not be cost effective for

many years yet, the do-it-yourselfers will probably have relatively

cheap units we can build, in a few years, if they are not available now.

I would still want a battery storage system if I added a fuel cell. This is

a power source to keep our eyes on. We are supposed to believe it is

expensive and difficult to produce hydrogen, so we will buy it from the

oil companies. I am convinced we will be able to make cheap

hydrogen fuel at home and on the road, by the time the corporate

energy companies have invested billions in hydrogen infrastructure.

Isn’t life grand?

Partner Power

Those who choose to opt out of the corporate rat race will likely

need revenue to pay off debt and to prepare for hard times. It would

be good for them if there were local partnerships they could join to

produce that revenue. If those who have left the corporate world

create expandable partnerships, the means to create revenue for new

partners will be in place. These partnerships can take many forms.

Labor oriented cooperatives, wholesale buying clubs, mail order

businesses. Community gardens, local home delivery businesses, and

local interest based hobby groups can all be run for profits to be

divided for revenue, organizational growth and expansion. The idea is

to present options - the more the better, for those who will be

dropping out of the corporate, money lover life in the near future.

Doing so could be very profitable at the same time a global counter

culture is established or expanded. This is a ground floor opportunity if

such there ever was. Once wage and salary slaves can see decent

alternatives, some will want them.

Anyone can plan an expandable partnership or group association in

any area of interest, either on paper or computer. They can circulate

the proposal to like minded folks who will provide feedback on the plan

and may join the partnership. It only takes two people to start a

partnership that can grow to include hundreds. Otherwise, the only

option for most would - be corporate drop outs would be self operated

business or contract labor. Expanding the options through wide

ranging partnerships is the best option I see for those looking for a

way out of the corporate, war mongering, money lover madness. This

supports an already flourishing underground economy that pays little

tribute to the money lovers.

Partnerships can be so superior to corporate employer - employee

relationships, it can only be the greed of employers determined to

harvest half or more of the fruit of another’s labor, that prevents

partnership from being the dominant business model in the

consumptive West. Employee ownership in the corporate world has

become a popular buzz phrase, but a few owners are still in a position

to rip off all the others. This is much less likely in partnerships. A

partnership can be organized to please regulators and tax collectors or

the bottom line and social concerns of the partners. If we find we don’t

function well in partnership, one can still be used to launch a project

with the understanding that partners will be bought out at a fair or set

price, by a given date. There will always be people who love start up

operations, others who seek growth opportunities and others who just

like status quo operations; so temporary partnerships have their

place. Partnerships allow self interest and group interests to be

balanced and expanded. Most of all, we are looking at the alternatives

to the corporate, money lover life. This is the essence of the

Homestead Revolution. Non violent separation from the control,

threats, manipulation, dependencies, economies, force, deceit and

injustices of the Old World Order.

Political Partnerships If we wish to organize for political reasons such as local control,

social justice and affecting global politics by modeling, there is a little

used system that comes from the book of Exodus, in the Bible. Moses

was wearied by the people asking him to settle petty disputes, making

him the judge of more than a million people. His father-in-law

suggested a cellular system of organization he called captains of ten.

We now see this system in terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda. The

fact that it works well for violent revolutionaries, does not mean it will

not work for non violent revolutionaries. It can work for all

partnerships and civic associations. The great potential lies in the fact

that it is a republican style government that can be built by the people,

no matter what the official forms may be. That is, you can organize a

Communist cell and the interest of the cell members takes first

priority. Another cell can operate by a majority vote, or consensus. If

the cell becomes dysfunctional, there will always be successful cells to

model. The cellular organization allows for small scale experiments in

organization and community government. It has a flexibility unlike any

other system I know about. The very systems the terrorists are

evolving will be just as effective in protecting people against the ever

growing, cancerous Big Brother. Terrorists are here to teach us things

we’d never learn in money lover schools or from money lover media.

Why not pay attention to them?

The cellular system of organization is close to that of neighborhood

associations and can be easily integrated into any group activity. One

person could belong to a dozen different local or global cells,

according to the functions and benefits of membership. Part time

craftspeople could share tools and equipment. Neighborhoods can

build olympic sized swimming pools, gardens, orchards and vineyards

without a need for every member to own duplicate equipment, like

chipper - shredders and rototillers. Cells can pool transportation and

work vehicles like vans and pick-ups and probably get group rates on

insurance, if desired. A major function of cells should be energy and

resource conservation. All members live better with less, especially

less private ownership. The “great American ownership society” is just

another money loving consumerist trap. As cells proliferate, they form

into cell collectives at 100 members (approximately) 1,000, etc..

Orders do not come from the top down, only suggestions and

proposals for the cells to consider and captains to vote upon. Captains

should be chosen by cell members, not according to popularity but for

wisdom and social skills. New elections can be called by a simple

majority of cell members to change captains at any level in the

organization and at any time. When I first considered using interest based groups to bring

neighbors together and turn hobbies into businesses, I thought

communication would play a key role. Every interest group, no matter

how small, would publish a monthly goals and activities newsletter,

available to members and the larger community. A monthly community

newsletter would consolidate and publish all the group reports from

the open membership groups. Those who like private or secret groups

are free to form them and not report activities. Cellular organization

gives us an opportunity to locate and socialize with like minded folks.

The more social we are, the more groups we support in some fashion

and the more neighbors we come to know well. The corporate, money

lover life has isolated neighbors and this must change.

Before I start with my Amazing non-Psychic Predictions I’ve got to ask: Has anyone else noticed how remarkably lousy psychics have been lately? I mean, where were the psychic predicting Katrina and the giant Tsunami or even Nine Eleven? Not a peep. Did you hear a peep? Because I sure didn’t and you’d think that huge events like those would be a real piece of cake to seasoned prophets and they weren’t - apparently.

Oh, well. I guess I should be grateful because all those other so-called psychics are setting the bar pretty low for me and my amazing predictions. Mine are absolutely without any paranormal powers because you don’t need any special psychic powers to just guess what’s pretty obvious in the first place. Here goes.

First non-psychic prediction: Former-Super-Lobbyist Jack Abrahmoff will name names and several influential Republican politicians will be implicated and … nothing at all will happen to them. C’mon, almost the entire US Judiciary owes their jobs to these very same Republicans and one thing the Republicans don’t do - and that goes for Republican Judges - they don’t eat their own young. Nobody’s going to prison. Maybe a Democrat will, because they like money, too, but they aren’t so crafty as their brethern on the other side.

Second non-psychic prediction: The war in Iraq will drag on and on. No viable government will establish itself - or I should say - some sort of government will be established but everybody will know it isn’t real. The Bush administration will claim victory anyways, democracy on the march blah, blah, blah. He’ll probably even make a speech with that written in the background.

The death toll will continue to rise.

Third non-psychic prediction: There will be no draft. There will be no draft because that would mean that oil company executives would have to send their own children to fight for their special interests, instead of having the poor do it for them. That won’t happen.

Fourth non-psychic prediction: Bush will not be impeached and his popularity will continue to rise. How can that happen, you ask? Well, answer me this: How come it’s happened already? You’d think illegal wire-taps would have sealed the deal on that impeachment but it’s all for patriotism and to prevent nine-eleven from ever happening again.

Aren’t you patriotic? Do you want nine eleven to happen again? Then just shut up and quit being disloyal.

Fifth non-psychic prediction: Natural disasters will continue to ravage the United States. I’m seeing grass fires in California, mudslides - also in California - and at least one large Earthquake in … yep, California. Why all in this state?

Simple, God doesn’t like them so much. They’ve got it too good there, so he wants to plague them to make up for it.

There will be flooding, more hurricanes, plane crashes and such but most of the bad stuff will be on the West Coast.

Sixth non-psychic prediction: War will break out across the globe and Americans won’t care unless the warring parties are either white or have oil under their land. Genocide will continue in Africa and the UN will stay well clear of it and especially the US.

Seventh non-psychic prediciton: Poverty will continue to increase in the United States as it has for the past six years. The minimum wage will never be raised again. As more people become destitute the number of people believing in evangelical Christianity will rise. Jesus likes the poor and now that there are more poor in the United States it must mean that our country is even more blessed.

Praise the Lord.

Well, that’s about it. Happy New Year! And hopefully when 2007 rolls around you can tell me how wrong I was. And boy, I sure hope I am wrong.