Interactive Web Success

As of late steroid use in sports has been the topic of conversation by the media. From Jose Conseco appearing on Donnie Deustch’s “The Big Idea” which airs on CNBC to Congress looking to pass legislation to regulate steroid use in professional sports.

Is steroid use a problem in pro sports?

Well it depends on who you asked, but steroids weren’t developed in 2005, they have been around for quite some time. Most people associated bodybuilding with steroid use so football and baseball players that may have used them just flew under the radar.

As sports enthusiasts question records that were broken and bash those pro athletes that have been singled out for steroid use, the big problem isn’t the use of steroids by pro athletes but the use of steroids by the youth.

Of course kids that are playing baseball in the schoolyard look up to their role models and try to emulate them. So laws being passed to eliminate the use of steroids in pro sports may have an impact, but having a law isn’t enough. There has to be an educational process developed so that the youth really understands the dangers of steroid use.

Legislation without Education in this instance would be a big error.

When educators and politicians thought that speaking about drugs or sexually transmitted diseases might increase the use of drugs or sexual activity with the youth, they found out that kids knew more than they thought. So they have to take the same stance with steroids early on.

They have to assume that young athletes are aware of steroids and some perhaps use them. Then move forward accordingly and educate the youth on what they are and the harm that they may cause.

I am amazed that a pro athlete would come out via a book and admit their steroid use but does not take the responsibility of publicly denouncing steroid use with the youth and making public statements along those lines. Perhaps tainting the careers of other pro athletes was good enough but any pro athlete that has thousands if not millions of kids looking up to them have a responsibility to the public.

Maybe congress should work with MLB, the NFL, NHL and NBA and create PSA’s warning of the dangers of steroid use and begin a program in schools educating the youth on steroid use. Another good idea would be to develop a program to educate the parents as well.

We will see what develops in the coming months and hopefully legislators will keep in mind that they have to include education with legislation as it relates to steroids.

Louis Victor New Age Media Concepts 646-403-9972

And who ruffled my feathers? My state legislators did when they voted in favor of a bill costing $3m to produce curriculum materials for our public schools. So what’s wrong with that?

All members of the legislature, both republicans and democrats, voted in favor…with the exception of a single republican senator who felt that it was none of their business. He is right. Their job is to finance public education not to produce curriculum materials.

How could this have happened at a time when over 6% of our labor force is unemployed and we are in a severe and prolonged economic down-turn? There are several possibilities:
The media failed to keep us informed.
No organization protested (PTA, School Boards,
Teachers, parents etc. etc.
The bill was proposed by a member of a politically potent ethic minority and, in the present climate of multiculturalism and ethnic diversity of course {”whitey” would grovel and vote for a bill clearly against their best interest as well as the interests of the students

This is just one more example of the failure of what we laughingly call DEMOCRACY. Democracy is like a wheelbarrow, you know. It doesn’t work unless you get behind it and apply some effort. Fail to do this and you forfeit your bitching and whining rights.

About the Author

Retired high school science teacher.

Dick Cheney- November, 2005: “The president and I cannot prevent certain politicians from losing their memory, or their backbone — but we’re not going to sit by and let them rewrite history…”

Good point.

DoD Transcript excerpt of Sec. Rumsfeld and Gen. Myers on Tuesday, February 10, 2004.

Q: Mr. Secretary, you said in your opening remarks, sir — you described it as two paths that nations can take, and you noted that Saddam Hussein, had he opened up his country to the U.N. resolutions, there would have been no war.

Rumsfeld: Mm-hmm.

Q: And it intrigues me because about a year ago you said the same thing, he had the choice between war and peace and he had chosen war. If I follow your thought correctly — and I’m sure you’ll tell me if I’m not — (Laughter.) — in his case, if he would have opened up the country, let the U.N. come in, the United States come in, whoever, to search for the weapons of mass destruction, he would have still been in power today, correct? Okay. And that would be an acceptable position — or you chose the word of the “position” — vis–vis no war, Saddam Hussein still in power, with a whole year of us hearing about all the other reasons why it was important to remove him.

Rumsfeld: Mm-hmm. In my view it is — the world is fortunate, the Iraqi people are fortunate, and the region is fortunate, that he’s not there. And I think anyone who has looked at the mass graves and the torture rooms and heard the stories of what took place in that country has to feel the same way.

Was what I said today correct? Yes. There would not have been a war. I mean, that’s just a fact, just like — I mean, what will Libya look like two, four, five years from now…

Oops. Weren’t the inspectors were in Iraq. Why did they leave? Oh, right… Saddam kicked them out.

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan on Monday ordered all U.N. inspectors and support staff, humanitarian workers and U.N. observers along the Iraq-Kuwait border to evacuate Iraq after U.S. threats to launch war. FOX (there are many other sources but FOX was chosen in this venue because…’nuff said- it was all over the media- anybody who can read, see, or hear knows this).

Oops. Anybody? Anybody? Ferris?

“This Week” (November 20, 2005)

Stephanopolous: If you had known that no WMD’s would be found, would you still advocate invasion?

Rumsfeld: I didn’t advocate invasion.

Stephanopolous: You didn’t?

Rumsfeld: No. I wasn’t asked. If you read all the books on the thing…

Stephanopolous: You weren’t? But why weren’t you asked? That’s very puzzling.

Rumsfeld: No. I’m sure that the President understood what my views were… but… but… as a technical matter, did he ever look and say, “What should we do- should we do this or not do that”- this is something that the president thought through very carefully.

Stephanopolous: Are you trying to distance yourself on the war with that…

Rumsfeld: Of course not. I agreed completely with the decision to go to war. And I’ve said that 100 times and don’t even suggest that…

Stephanopolous: I’m just asking…

Rumsfeld: Yeah. Well you know better…. uhhh… Look, the interesting thing to me about the pre-war intelligence is clearly it was wrong. It was wrong (inaudible). But everyone saw the same thing in the Executive branch, in the Legislative branch, in the other countries, it was presented at the U.N… uhhh…

Stephanopolous: But would you have been for an invasion if we had known that?

Rumsfeld: If I… I… the answer is probably yes. Our planes were being shot at every day, every week in the no fly zone. Here was a man who was giving $25,000 to the families of suicide killers. Murderers who were doing it. Zarqawi was in that country during that period. He’s a person that used chemical weapons against his own people and against his neighbors, had invaded Kuwait…

Hmmm… aren’t those the “other reasons” dismissed in 2004?

“That’s not the way the world really works anymore… We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality - judiciously, as you will - we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors … and you, all of you, will be left to study what we do.” - To Ron Suskind, former Wall Street Journal reporter and author of The Price of Loyalty by a senior advisor to George Bush

Ohhhh… why didn’t they just say so?

The full article with other sources, links, and information is contained at AmeriPundit.com.

President Bush has referred to Jim Gilchrist as a “Vigilante.” Many American citizens have an opposite view, calling him a Patriot. The vast majority of Republican voters want the problem of a tidal wave of illegal aliens pouring across our borders solved, not swept under the rug! Their reasons for concern range from potential terrorist threats, and fears of the importation of vicious gang violence, as well as the adverse economic impact on wages and employment opportunities of illegal immigration.

Gilchrist is the widely known founder of the Minuteman Project, (www.jimgilchrist.com) which has mobilized the participation of thousands of volunteers who have taken up stations along the U.S. border in an attempt to reduce the numbers of illegal migrants crossing the border. Although the Minutemen’s direct impact in reducing illegal immigration could be viewed as negligible, there can be no argument as to whether their “watch and report” mission has raised this troubling issue to the forefront of political debate.

Most citizens of California are acutely aware of the rise in violent crime implicated in gang related activities. The state has experienced a dramatic increase in gang violence and “syndicated crime” due to illegal immigration, which has risen to epidemic proportions. The LA Times reported that more than 50,000 illegal aliens with serious criminal records were deported in the last twelve years alone, including untold numbers of gang members.

“One thing is clear, illegal immigration is directly feeding significant increases in felony-level crime and gang-related violence,” Gilchrist said. “While the economic consequences of our broken borders have been severe, the alarming rise of crime and violence resulting from the uncontrolled growth of these gangs directly threatens our neighborhoods, our schools, and every aspect of security necessary to our society’s well-being,” said Gilchrist.

The MS-13 gang, which is comprised principally of Central Americans, nearly all of whom are illegals, has grown to 50,000 members and is increasing. MS-13, with its signature machete executions, is involved in appalling street violence, racketeering, and many other crimes from coast to coast.

What troubles Gilchrist the most is the blind eye cast by Republican leadership towards these crucial issues of illegal “invasion” by foreign nationals, and the security threat it poses to American territorial integrity. Critics inside and outside of the party attribute this lack of political will, code word for “courage,” to concerns by some politicians who fear the loss of an emerging “Hispanic voting block” come election time.

Gilchrist, who is a candidate in the upcoming December 6 special election to fill the vacancy in California’s 48th Congressional District, blasted the National Republican Senate Campaign for circulating a “Senate Leadership Survey” that omits any questions which refer to illegal immigration or border security.

“How can any survey, which purports to address the major political issues facing America, be taken seriously if it does not include a single question on the issues of illegal immigration or border security?” asked Gilchrist.

The answer may lie in these eye opening statistics. The number of Hispanics now residing in the United States has risen past 40 million, out-numbering African Americans as a potential voting block. Political insiders on both sides of the political spectrum believe that the future of national elections may very well rest in the hands of Hispanic voters. Consider that the winner of Florida, Texas, and California presidential contests could virtually lock up every future election.

Gilchrist believes that 90 percent of illegal immigrants are coming to the U.S. to exploit an economic situation vastly more advantageous than that left behind in their native countries. Clearly, he says, their reasons for coming here are related directly to what is happening socially, economically and politically in their nations of origin. In one interview, Gilchrist targeted Mexico by name stating that, “There is something seriously wrong in a country where half its population is trying to escape.” Gilchrist believes it is imperative that strong actions be taken by the governments of countries south of the border to improve the living standards of their own populations. America, says Gilchrist, cannot continue as the economic safety valve for every oligarchy and petty tyranny on earth. We need to stay economically strong, while sustaining America’s national unity upon the principles of western civilization.

The 48th Congressional District, located in Orange County, California, is thought of as one of the bastions of the Republican Party. Gilchrist, who is running as an Independent, has shaken the confidence of his Republican opponent, by building strong support among many Grand Old Party members who feel that the party is missing the boat on the issue of immigration.

Is Gilchrist going to be a surprise winner in the 48th District, much like former Governor Jesse Ventura was in 1998? In one of the more unforeseen upsets in American political history, Reform Party candidate Jesse “The Body” Ventura, once a pro wrestler known for his spoiler tactics in the ring, shocked the pundits and his two rivals — Democrat Hubert Humphrey III and Republican Norm Coleman — to win Minnesota’s governorship. It may be the right time again in U. S. history for an upset by an Independent challenger, this time to create a mandate for stiffening the U.S. border. Only time will tell — on December 6th to be exact.

Kris Nickerson Editor in Chief Press Direct International

Whether or not you are pleased with the results of the 2004 election, the season of high intensity politicking has mercifully come and gone . . . for now.

This election day, tens of millions of Americans exercised their voting muscle–more than 120 million by some estimates, or 60-percent of eligible voters–and that’s encouraging.

Kudos to you if you can count yourself a member of this group!

Still other tens of millions of Americans did not vote–many of them between the ages of 18 and 30, the same people who one day will become the future leaders for our country–and that’s most disappointing.

It’s clear that many Americans take their right to vote for granted, or simply don’t care. They have become complacent, reciting the all-too-familiar, “My one vote won’t make a difference.” But tell that to Al Gore who, had 537 voters in Florida not turned out and voted for George W. Bush in 2000, would most likely have been this year’s incumbent.

Luckily, not all of the sons and daughters of previous American generations took the right to vote for granted. Many fought and some even died to secure our ability to hold “free” elections. Starting in Revolutionary times, through the Civil War and the scandals and corruption of the mid- to late-19th century, through World Wars, and into present day, Americans have waged an ongoing battle to ensure that our system of voting and elections endures. They fought so women could vote; they fought so that all Americans, regardless of race, gender, or political leaning could vote. They won . . . and we and the entire world are their beneficiaries.

When we take time out of our otherwise busy lives to stop by our local polling places, we not only exercise our right–our duty–to vote, we also honor the sacrifices of these past generations.

I just don’t buy the refrain, “I’m too busy to vote.” No one is too busy to vote–not with absentee ballots and the relative speed and efficiency of modern voting. It took my wife and me all of 25 minutes to vote: 10 minutes to the polling place, five minutes to vote, and 10 minutes back. That’s not too much of a time commitment, not too much to ask to ensure that our system thrives and our way of life continues.

The desire to vote, however, is not a wholly American trait–it’s a universal desire. For example, in Iraq, Afghanistan and other such troubled spots, many of their sons and daughters (along with some of our own) are right now fighting and dying for the ability to elect leaders and to control the destiny of their respective countries. It’s the ultimate expression of free will on a national scale.

On one level voting seems such a tiny “thing,” a relatively small and insignificant event–the stroke of a pen, the touch of a stylus to a computer screen, the punching of a chad–but when combined with hundreds, thousands, and millions of other such singular acts, voting can be much more powerful than the spray of bullets.

By voting we can literally change the course of history, and virtually everyone–young or old, sick or healthy–can take up “arms” and vote. Only the desperate, disillusioned and disenfranchised resort to violence and intimidation. It’s a simple fact–there are many more of us “voters” around than there are those who use fear and guns to gain or maintain power.

So here’s hoping you got your “exercise” on election day by exercising your right to vote–a simple act that honors the hard work of those who came before us, as well as hard work yet to come. Remember, the world we create today is the world our children and their children will inherit. Voting is one way for us to rest easy that our voices have been heard and will continue to be heard.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Copyright (c) 2004 by Matt McGovern–All rights reserved.

About the Author

Matt McGovern combines a rare blend of creative and technical know-how with years of experience and a balanced and purposeful approach to life. He has authored and edited numerous books, e-books and e-zines. Get “Know-How” his free e-newsletter at www.700acres.com/pages/ad_archive.html or explore life, death and beyond with his novel, “CURRENTS-Every Life Leaves an Imprint” at www.MattMcGovern.com/books.html.

Three cheers for the Patriot Act!
Copyright © 2004 Andrew Wroblewski
Spyware Remover
http://spyware.pcwash.com/?=spyware-remover

I’m as patriotic as the next person, maybe even more so if the
next person is the cashier at my local convenience store which
still doesn’t seem to employ REAL Americans; but I digress.

Anyway, the rules for being a patriotic American were always a
little bit fuzzy prior to 9/11, so I thank God (can I still
thank Him in America?), that our President and his Attorney
General took the time to put it all down in writing.

What’s really amazing is that they were able to encapsulate
everything that it actually means to be an American patriot,
and get it all written down and passed by Congress, only 6
weeks after the World Trade Center was blown all to hell by
some decidedly un-Patriotic non-Americans. It took our founding
fathers a hell of a lot longer to write the Constitution than it
took Bush, Ashcroft and Haliburton, I mean Cheney, to “un write”
it. But, there I go digressing again.

Since we’ve become a “sound bite” society, let me save you the
trouble of reading all 131 pages of “Constitution II, the
Sequel” AKA the Patriot Act.

Here’s what is says in summary:

“There are lots of bad guys in the world and we just found out
that they existed on September 11, 2001. Some of those bad guys
live here in the U.S.A. Some of those bad guys might even be
YOU. In order to protect “US” from “YOU”, we’re going to check
up on YOU, from time to time, to make sure that YOU aren’t
doing things that YOU shouldn’t be in an attempt to hurt US”.

“Further, if we even suspect that YOU might be doing bad things
to US, then we might haul you away in the middle on the night
and hold you, without charges, for as long as we feel like it
and you can’t talk to a lawyer because YOU might be a terrorist
and terrorists don’t have any rights”.

It goes on to say…

“In an attempt to avoid accidentally confusing Patriotic
Americans with Unpatriotic Americans, we’re going to appoint a
neutral third party, the FBI, to monitor your e-mail, medical
records, library accounts, video store rentals, internet
activity, land line and cell phone conversations, bank and
credit card records, and whatever the hell else we think is
appropriate, all without probable cause. And, if you complain
about it, then YOU must have something to be afraid of and
that “something” just might be that you’re unpatriotic”.

So, there you go. Just print out this article, add “I Agree”
and sign it so you too can be a Patriotic American.

However, if you REALLY want to be a Patriotic American then
you should also join the Army and go to Iran so you can help
liberate their citizens from a repressive regime that monitored
and controlled their every movement, hauled their citizens away
in the middle of the night without charges, and held them for
as long as they wanted. But then, there I go digressing again.

About the Author

When he is not on his soapbox, Andrew Wroblewski
can be found at: Spyware Remover
making the world a safer place with the top-rated Spyware Removal Tool.
He is also available via email: admin*at*direct-response-marketing.net

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/

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

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