1. STATUS QUO (1/1/04)
2. MAD COW (1/14/04)
3. ESTABLISHMENT PROBE
4. TO RECUSE OR NOT RECUSE (3/25/04)
5. GLOBAL INFRINGEMENT (4/28/04)
6. KERRY I (6/7/04)
7. KERRY II (6/10/04)
8. BUSH SKIPS GOP CONVENTION AGAIN (6/22/02)
9. CURBING CORPORATIONS (7/9/04)
10. EDWARDS AMD THE ELITES (7/19/04)
11. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION (8/9/04)
12. QUESTIONING GOSS (8/20/04)
13. AND THE WINNER IS: (TO BE DETERMINED) (8/26/04)
14. THE WINNER IS (PART 11- 8/26/04)
15. NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION (10/12/04)
16. ARE WE BETTER OFF? (10/21/04)
17. SPECTER (11/18/04)

There is nothing more constant than change so the old adage goes, and if it holds true then the U.S. status quo China-Taiwan policy in place for about 20 years has about run its course.

But the Bush Administration insists on the don’t-rock-the-boat policy and is demanding that Taiwan refrain from a referendum next March to get China to point its missiles some other way. The United States has already got the aggressive Communist nation not to point them this way.

The Clinton Administration called this a diplomatic victory. It didn’t say how long it would take China to turn the missiles around again if, indeed, it turned them in the first place.

To please and appease Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao, the Bush Administration warned Taiwan’s President Chen Shui-bian on the eve of a visit to Washington in December 2003 by Chen not to provoke China with the referendum and talk of independence.

About a month before Chen’s scheduled visit to the United States, China warned Taiwan that the use of force may become unavoidable if it pursued independence. It was characterized by some pundits as China’s strongest statement to Taiwan in years. But the Bush Administration did not consider it provocative enough to censure China as it did Taiwan.

That would appear to indicate that the status quo policy applies more to Taiwan than to China and its saber rattling threats. The pleasing and appeasing policy is letting China get away with just about anything it wants to do from ignoring trade restrictions to space and nuclear arms advancement.

THE ONE CHINA POLICY

China and Taiwan split during the civil war in 1949 between the Communists forces and those led by Chiang Kai-Shek who retreated to Taiwan and made it a strong defense bastion against growing Asiatic communism. The United States supported Taiwan with both economic and military aid and refused to recognize the communist regime. President Richard Nixon broke the ice with China in 1971 in a meeting with Zhou Enlai, a move that ultimately led to U.S. recognition.

For more than 20 years, the United States has had a ‘’one-China’’ policy. The so-called ‘’three nos’’ policy was enunciated during the Nixon Administration in 1982. A Chinese-American Joint Communiqué at that time stated that the U.S. agreed never to pursue a Two Chinas or a One China-One Taiwan policy, and to keep arms sales to Taiwan at a certain level. It also called for no U.S. support for Taiwan’s membership in international organizations in which membership is based on statehood.

In June 1998 former President Clinton during a visit to China became the first president to publicly oppose Taiwanese independence and to openly articulate the American restrictive policy. He expressed commitment to the ‘’three nos’’ policy, which other U.S. officials had referred to previously, but he also spelled it out in no uncertain terms. He also used the word ‘unification’’ relating to the China-Taiwan relations.

The Senate in a 92-0 vote repudiated Clinton’s comments, and the House later joined the Senate in affirming U.S. commitment to Taiwan’s sovereignty by a 390-1 vote.

BUSH POLICY

Now the Bush administration has stated categorically that its policy does not support Taiwan independence – a tilt favoring China. President Bush, standing beside Wen, raised no objection when Wen expressed his ‘’opposition to Taiwan independence.’’

On Wen’s return to China, the communist nation thanked Bush for his comments concerning Taiwan’s independence and his objection to Chen’s referendum. The administration obviously is trying to placate China despite its belligerency and its goal of becoming the undisputed power in Southeast Asia.

But how long can the status quo last? As China grows in power – thanks to the technology that it either stole via spies, bought, or connived to get from the United States with contributions to politicians – it will become even more aggressive.

A confrontation is bound to ensue. Appeasement to prevent war has never worked, and there is no reason to hope it will now with the Chinese. Better to confront them now than wait until they get stronger as they are doing rapidly.

In their book, The Coming conflict with China Richard Bernstein and Ross H. Munro state: ‘’Internal party documents have been circulating within the Chinese leadership since 1992 portraying the United States as China’s real enemy.’’

They note that China’s policy is to be the dominant power in Asia and that it has disputed or laid claim to several islands in the South China Sea. China also has confronted the United States on several occasions concerning Taiwan, surveillance flights in international waters and the grounding of a U.S. plane on Hainan Island that collided with a Chinese fighter.

China and Fidel Castro’s Cuba also have entered a close friendship that some analysts worry involves military and intelligence matters, such as land-based signals that collect intelligence.

A House special committee report at the end of 1998 stated that for at least two decades, which covered the Reagan, Bush and Clinton Administrations, U.S. policy permitted sensitive technology deals with China. ‘’National security harm did occur’’ in some of these deals, according to Rep. Christopher Cox, then chairman of the committee. Transfers of information during the Clinton Administration triggered the special investigation.

But Republicans also got their share of Chinese loot, according to a retired U.S. Naval intelligence officer – Lt. Commander Al Martin. He wrote that the gubernatorial elections of the Bushes, Jeb and George, in Florida and Texas, respectively, also drew Chinese money, and that the ‘’…Bush family is intimately connected with the Loral Corporation.’’

Loral was one of two corporations named in the Cox report. The other is Hughes Electronics. ‘’…the Bush family trust is a very substantial shareholder in Loral,’’ Martin wrote.

China has used every means available to acquire U.S. technology, and Bernstein and Munro point out that ‘’No multi-national (corporation)...can expect an entry pass (to China) without divulging technology early and often.’’ The writers said that in a 1980s deal, McDonnell Douglas Corp. ‘’provided enough technical data to fill a library.

Henry Kissinger and Alexander Haig have buttered their bread well as consultants to businesses gaining entry to China.

The late historian Antony Sutton in his book America’s Secret Establishment noted that the U.S. buildup of China which is similar to what happened in Russia. He apparently, correctly predicted in 1986 that by the year 2000 China will be a ‘’superpower’’ built by American technology and skill.’’ If he didn’t hit the nail on the head, he didn’t miss it by much.

American taxpayers paid for the technology and the missiles that are not only pointed at Taiwan but also at us or, if not, can be turned around.

TRADE SURPLUS AND CHARM

The Chinese trade surplus with the United States, which helps finance its missile and nuclear weapons programs, is continuing to soar. In October, 2003, that surplus hit a monthly record of $13.6 billion. China recorded a $103 billion trade surplus with the United States in the year 2000 and that will be topped with another record in 2003.

In December, 2003, Knight Ridder Newspapers ran a story contending that China was unleashing a ‘’charm offensive’’ in global diplomacy as a result of its economic good fortune. It also has large trade surpluses with most Asian countries.

The story noted China has dispatched an envoy to the Middle East, brokered talks between the U.S. and North Korea and warmed to its neighbors generally.

Some pundits are worried about China’s growing nationalism that the government has cultivated among young people and, especially, hatred toward Japan for crimes during the 1930s.

Japan has approved plans for a U.S.-developed ballistic missile shield ostensibly because of growing North Korean missile threats. But don’t think it isn’t also concerned about China.

When everything is going China’s way, there is no reason for it to show aggression. It’s the same old policy of advance and consolidate – that is consolidate gains from advances that were not yours in the first place. To paraphrase the poet, Shelley, if charm and consolidation come can more advancement and aggression be far behind?

SATELLITES, CARS AND OIL

On the technological front, we read that China successfully launched its 32nd satellite in November of 2003. The Communist nation also has launched an earth-surveying satellite in co-operation with Brazil.

And here’s another tidbit. Detroit’s big three automakers – GM Ford and DaimlerChrysler AG – are trying to increase their presence in China and have signed a trade pact to do it.

Imagine what happens to the atmosphere when a third or more of China’s billion plus people get behind the wheel. Who will negotiate the pollution fallout? The United States has no bargaining chip now that it successfully lobbied for China’s membership in the World Trade Organization.

And there’s another area of potential contention with the Communist nation that is beginning to emerge. OIL. The Chinese economic growth and increase in consumer goods will also boost its need for oil. That will increase demand and drive up prices and deals with Islamic countries that supply most of it.

China is the world’s second oil consumer at present and is cozying up to Saudi Arabia and other Islamic nations to assure a reliable supply. As the Dallas Morning News pointed out (12/8/03): ‘’If the Chinese believed it was in their strategic interest to trade nuclear technology for oil, everyone’s worst-case scenario would be a reality.’’

The Bush administration’s policy is for the United States to be so far ahead in arms and technology that no country can challenge its military might. If that goal is to be maintained, the U.S. had better tighten its security and stop selling or giving away for political gain arms and technology paid for by tax-payers.

It’s just a matter of time before reality will force a change in the status quo policy. Let us hope Washington doesn’t wait too long.

An Essay
By Richard C. Sizemore

There’s an old oft-told joke about a mule that lay down and refused to pull a cart and how the furious driver slammed him between the ears with a 2x4. The owner came running and shouting ‘’don’t kill my mule!’’ The driver said ‘’I’m not trying to kill him, I’m just trying to get his attention.’’

And that’s just about what it took to get the corporate-favoring Bush Administration and Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman with her agribusiness background to take belated and too little action to protect the public against the dreaded mad cow disease.

The multi-billion dollar cattle industry and USDA had to be hit with potential billions in lost sales here and abroad before it saw the light. Now that the rules have finally been changed and President Bush and Veneman gave assurances that beef is pure, should American consumers feel safe?

The track record of officials assuring the public about safety during outbreaks and potential threats from this and other diseases gives one cause for doubt.

It wasn’t long ago that British Agricultural Minister John Gummer in 1990 assured the British people that they were safe after the disease was discovered in several herds of animals. Worldwide, 153 cases of mad cow disease have been reported with 143 of them in England.

There has been one known case in the United States, a 22-year-old woman who spent her childhood in Britain and is believed to have contracted the disease there by eating beef. .

Gummer went on television with his four-year-old daughter and ate hamburgers to re-enforce the trust of the wary Brits. He was dubbed ‘’an idiot’’ by former Texas Agriculture commissioner Jim Hightower in his book There’s Nothing in the Middle of the Road but Yellow Stripes and Dead Armadillos.

In May, 2003, when mad cow disease was discovered in Canada, then Prime Minister Jean Chretien ate a steak lunch trying to reassure the world that Canadian beef was safe. The infected American cow came from Canada. If Hightower writes another book he now has more candidates for the moniker ‘’idiot.’’

Even though we have Veneman and the President telling us all is well and that they changed the rules after the jolting discovery of BSE in the U.S., the fact is we still don’t have all the facts plus the matter is still enmeshed in politics..

Thomas O. McGarity, food safety law professor at the University of Texas, wrote that consumers ‘’…shouldn’t take at face value the administration’s assurances that the proposals will ensure a safe supply of beef.’’ In an article published in the Dallas Morning News (1/6/04), McGarity called for an independent agency ‘’whose primary responsibility isn’t ensuring the economic well-being of agribusiness.’’

There are no criminal penalties in the new requirements, and corporations are known for cutting corners and not doing a very good job when left to police themselves. The new rules are also subject to legal challenge, McGarity points out. The meat industry ‘’…has an impressive record in persuading courts to throw out Agriculture Department rules.’’

SOME BACKGROUND

Veneman is an advocate of biotechnology and once said the world could not be fed without it. Yet surplus agriculture products is probably the biggest snag toward trade agreements. Veneman also once served as a member of the board of directors of a California company – Calgene – that pioneered genetically altered tomatoes and was later acquired by Monsanto. She also worked for the lobbying and law firm of Patton, Boggs and Blow. One of the largest clients was Dole Foods Co.

She chose as her chief of staff Dale Moore, former chief lobbyist for the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA), and Alison Harrison, former public relations director for NCBA, as her chief spokesperson.

Incidentally, the Justice Department is investigating whether Monsanto engaged in anticompetitive activity in the herbicide market, according to the New York Times, which ran a story (1/6/04) about Monsanto allegedly being involved in a price-fixing scheme for genetically modified seeds. The Times reported the Justice Department was aware of Monsanto’s seed pricing activities but could not confirm if it has begun a formal inquiry.

Veneman’s USDA experience began in 1986 in the foreign agricultural Service (FAS) where she became undersecretary for international affairs and commodity programs. She participated in the negotiations of the controversial North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and later became deputy undersecretary at USDA. In 1995 she became head of California’s Department of Food and Agriculture.

Veneman’s appointment to Bush’s cabinet was considered a political reward for her support for him in California.

Before the first case of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), or mad cow disease, was discovered in a Washington State dairy cow in December, Veneman and USDA had been guided by the cattle industry and had taken less action than other countries to track the disease. Japan, one of the largest importers of U.S. beef, is still not satisfied with the new rules that it claims doesn’t match its own safeguards. Mexico has been stopping U.S. beef at the border and about 40 countries have banned it.

USDA claimed to have tested more than 20,000 cattle last year for BSE --which is called variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (vCJD) when it hits humans. But United Press International reported it had been trying to get documentation of the tests since last July to no avail. Even that would represent only a small percentage of the millions of cows in the U. S. herd.

Lester Friedlander, a former USDA veterinarian, told UPI: ‘’ The government doesn’t have records to substantiate their testing so how do they know whether this (first case) is an isolated case?’’

Another disturbing item from the New York Times (12/25/03) concerns the efforts of Dr. Stanley Prusiner, who first identified prions -- brain-destroying proteins that cause mad cow disease -- as being rebuffed in seeking a meeting with Veneman. He wanted to stress the need to increase testing and safety measures after a case of BSE was discovered in Canada last May.

Later, after talking to Karl Rove, senior adviser to President Bush, Dr. Prusiner did get to meet with Veneman, according to the Times story. He said Veneman did not share his sense of urgency. He also said she was getting poor scientific advice from USDA scientists and veterinarians who know more about viruses than the novel concepts of prion biology

SOUND SCIENCE.

When Veneman finally changed the rules, she stated ‘’Sound science continues to be our guide.’’ Where was the sound science before questionable methods permitted the diseased cow to get into the food chain? The verb ‘’continues’’ is hardly appropriate to describe the ‘’science’’ followed by the department before the diseased cow was found.

In fact, if the rules adopted were in place then the cow would not have been sent to slaughter in the first place. In addition, it would not have been distributed before tests were returned. The new rules prohibit sick or so-called ‘’downer’’ cows (about 130,000 annually) from being sent to market to boost cattlemen’s income. They also call for test results to be confirmed before any cow enters the food chain.

The rules also prohibit stunning cattle by injection, a pre-slaughter practice that can disperse brain tissue. In addition, they call for stricter controls on automated carcass stripping systems to prevent spinal cord tissue and bone from getting into the meat. They also create a national animal identification system to speed response to a disease outbreak.

The rule changes marked a reverse in policy by the Bush Administration only a few weeks after USDA and the politically-potent meat lobby blocked a similar measure in Congress to ban downer cattle from the market. Chandler Keys, vice president of government affairs for the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, said the group now supports the USDA actions. He didn’t list his options.

It’s amazing what changes being hit between the ears, or pocketbook, can bring about.

Democrats jumped on the failure to enact legislation banning downer cattle as showing the ties between the Bush administration, congressional Republicans and the livestock industry that contributed nearly $5 million to political campaigns in 2000. They pointed out that nearly 80 percent of the money went to Republicans.

But Democrats are not pure in the mad-cow debacle.

Hightower notes that the late Dr. Richard Marsh of the University of Wisconsin stated after the outbreak of the disease in Britain that the United States had the same risk factors. He said the disease was in sheep ‘’…and we feed sheep to our cattle. What’s the argument about?’’ he asked. Also, according to Hightower, Dr. Marsh was turned down by USDA”s ‘’BSE Consultants Group’’ when asked that it include the Downer Cow Syndrome in its BSE research.

So, the Clinton administration and the George H. Bush administrations were also guilty of complacency, if not mal- or misfeasance in failing to enforce safeguards against BSE.

WHO’S TO BLAME?

It was the corporate feedlot managers that were responsible for mad cow disease in the first place. They tried to convert herbivores (vegetable and plant eaters) into carnivores (meat eaters) to save money and increase their milk and beef production. BSE is believed to be caused by this cannibalism and messing with Mother Nature.

The leading theory as to the origin of BSE is cows eating sheep infested with a sheep spongiform encephalopathy called ‘’scrapie.’’ Although BSE in humans is called vCJD (the v is for variant), a variant from the diseased named sporadic CJD.

No one knows what causes the latter for sure but scientists can’t be certain that it is not linked to mad cow disease.

Pork is also a potential source of infection, according to Michael Greger, M. D., chief investigator for Farm Sanctuary and mad cow coordinator for the Organic Consumers Association. Dr. Greger notes that cattle remains are still boiled down and legally fed to pigs and chickens.

FDA allows this because no ‘’naturally occurring’’ pig spongiform encephalopathy has ever been found. But pigs are killed so young that the disease symptoms don’t have time to show. In addition, the pigs are cramped so close together in feed lots that, Dr. Greger says, it would be difficult to spot the symptoms of irregular gait and movement in them.

And here’s another worry from Dr. Greger: ‘’The development of CJD was associated with eating roast pork, ham, hot dogs, pork chops (and) smoked pork.’’

The new rules by USDA as noted exclude some cow tissues from the human food supply, but Dr. Greger poses the question, where is the tissue going? Into animal feeds for chickens, pigs and pets, he answers.

Incidentally, the Agricultural Department is considering paying the cattle raisers for the downer cows that they keep off the market. It also will reimburse owners of 450 slaughtered animals from where the infected Holstein came. That means taxpayers will pick up the tab for the industry’s get rich scheme that threatens the public’s health and flawed USDA safeguards that permitted the importation of the diseased cow.

In his latest book, Thieves in High Places, Hightower notes a handful of corporations now monopolize…every aspect of the food economy.’’ He also lists (p156) the 10 top agribusiness contributors to congressional and presidential campaigns, 1992-2002 in millions of dollars.

They range from $16.3 for Philip Morris to $1.3 for Tyson. In between in order are: RJR Nabisco $7.4, Coca-Cola $5.1, Archer Daniels Midland $5.0, PepsiCo $3.1, ConAgra$2.7, Outback Steakhouse $2.5, McDonald’s $2.0 and Pilgrim’s Pride $1.7.

One other interesting observation from Hightower who points out that Alzheimer’s disease and vCJD have remarkably similar symptoms. ‘’More and more medical studies of dementia suggests that some of the 4 million Americans diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease are actually suffering with CJD,’’ Hightower wrote

Sheep, goats and other animals also are susceptible to their own forms of BSE and they, along with hogs, chickens, household pets and other animals go into rendering vats and are processed into protein pellets sold as cattle feed.

Monsanto and other corporations in the chemical industry are also poisoning the land and water supply with chemicals. Monsanto has genetically engineered a potato that contains a built-in toxin to kill pests as the potato grows. Only thing wrong is, Hightower reports the toxin is also in the potato that humans eat.

And here’s another disgusting item. In his book The Best Democracy Money Can Buy, Greg Palast notes that Monsanto developed a controversial growth hormone called BST to boost the milk output of cows. He quoted experts as saying BST increases the amount of pus in milk and that causes cow infections and increases the risk of prostrate and breast cancer in humans.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved BST as safe. It even prevented dairies from printing ‘’BST-free’’ on their milk products, Palast wrote. Some political clout, to paraphrase Winston Churchill.

Another cause for concern is calves in North America are weaned on a milk formula containing cattle blood plasma that can transmit mad cow disease. It’s done to save cow’s milk for the market. But BSE can be caused by blood transfusions which some Brits are banned from giving. One person has died from a blood transfusion in Britain.

In his book, When Corporations Rule the World, former Harvard Professor David C. Korten suggested eliminating all tax exemptions for corporations related to lobbying, public ‘’education’’, public charities or political organizations of any kind.

Hightower refers to a better way used by frontier communities. When someone poisoned the town’s water well ‘’They hanged the son-of-a-bitch,’’ he noted. Not today, however. The USDA pays them for their misdeeds.

Top

An Essay
By Richard C. Sizemore

What we have here is the establishment investigating the establishment. That would be well-connected members that President Bush appointed to investigate American intelligence gathering and its failures.

There’s a perpetual policy for flank-covering when the pressure gets hot in Washington. And that is to appoint a committee or a commission to get to the bottom of whatever the problem is at the moment.

Bush said no, and then relented to pressure before appointing the nine-member commission.

He fixed it so the results could not be detrimental to the November presidential election by setting the reporting date at March 31, 2005. Too bad he couldn’t fix it so the public records of the establishment members couldn’t be criticized until them.

He might also want to shield it from critics that point out it lacks subpoena power and that some members may have conflicting financial ties like those of Henry Kissinger and former Sen. George J. Mitchell who resigned from a White house panel in 2002 set up to investigate the 9/11 attack.

Sen. John Corzine (D-N. J.) claims the commission ‘’…seems designed more to shield the administration from accountability than to perform a true service to America

Bush may get more flak from several other inquiries into American intelligence that are underway than from his commission designed to go beyond those probes. As an example, the Senate Intelligence Committee announced it will expand its investigation to explore whether White house officials exaggerated the Iraq threat.

Another group is investigating 9/11 intelligence failures. The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States is looking into whether U.S. officials ignored a tip from German intelligence about the 9/11 hijackers two years before they flew into New York. Incidentally, the chairman – Former New Jersey Gov. Thomas H. Kean – and the vice chairman – Lee H. Hamilton – are both members of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).

At least six of the nine members of the President’s Commission belong to the CFR, including the two co-chairmen – Judge Silberman and Sen. and Gov. Charles Robb of Virginia. Robb also belongs to the Trilateral Commission founded by David Rockefeller.

SILBERMAN AND ROBB

Silberman may turn out to be the most controversial panel member for Democrats and liberals to attack. Sen. Harry Reid, (D-Nev.) already has called for Silberman’s replacement on the commission. He charged the panel would be ‘’smeared with partisan prejudice’’ as long as Silberman was on it.

The judge has a reputation of favoring Republicans in his work and also has close ties to the Bush administration, including friends Dick Chaney and Donald Rumsfeld, vice president and defense secretary, respectively. He was one of the federal judges who voided the conviction of Oliver North, who was found guilty of lying about his Iran-Contra dealings.

Liberal groups also have criticized Silberman for his alleged partisanship in the Whitewater investigation and accusations of sexual misconduct against former President Bill Clinton. He accused Clinton of ‘’declaring war against the United States’’ when he balked at having Secret Service agents testify in the Monica Lewinsky affair.

Senator Robb’s connections to members in the CFR and Trilateral Commission would give him entry to the establishment even if it weren’t for his Senate and other political connections. He is the son-in-law of former President Lyndon Johnson and defeated Oliver North in his 1994 bid for the Senate.

Robb, 64, served on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and also is a former Marine. He is supposed to make the commission bi-partisan, but some Republicans regard him as at least sympathetic to the war in Iraq because he advocated getting rid of Saddam Hussein.

MANDATE

The commission was given no explicit mandate to look into whether the administration distorted intelligence before invading Iraq. Except for perhaps one member, Retired Adm. William D. Studeman, former director of the CIA, it is devoid of technical expertise in intelligence matters.

But then the Warren Commission that was hand-picked by Lyndon Johnson to investigate JFK’s assassination didn’t have any forensic scientists as members. Its conclusions are still being challenged.

If this panel’s findings wind up the same way, Bush doesn’t have much to worry about. He will either be out of office or a lame duck president by the time the panel reports. So, he will be politically shielded from any derogatory fall-out, unless it amounts to an impeachable offence which is highly unlikely. Like the Warren Commission, it is not strictly an independent counsel although it contains both Democrats and Republicans. It was hand-picked by Bush who set the objectives and the time frame.

As noted at least six members of the commission belong to the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), an off-shoot of the Milner or Rhodes Round Table groups in England. These groups controlled English politics and the media right up to the invasion of Poland and a little beyond. We all remember the ‘’peace in our time’’ statement of the pathetic Neville Chamberlain after his meeting with Hitler in Munich.

The Round Table groups from which the CFR sprang almost destroyed Western Civilization as we know it. The CFR has invaded and saturated the U.S. Government since about 1920 when it migrated to this country from England. The Bush and Clinton administrations were and are loaded with CFR members as are the media, corporations and academia. (For more on these organizations, please click on Terms and Organizations on the heading of this site).

In addition to Senator Robb and Judge Silberman, other CFR members on the commission include:

--SEN. JOHN McCAIN. He is an outspoken GOP maverick on several subjects and some think him likely to kick the traces but considering a statement he made before the panel even began its duties that appears to be questionable. ‘’The President of the United States, I believe, would not manipulate any kind of information for political gain or otherwise,’’ McCain has been quoted as saying. So, it looks like the senator who tried to parley his bravery in Vietnam to the top seat in politics may have his mind made up going in.

--ADM. WILLIAM O. STUDEMAN. He is a former deputy director of the CIA during the first Bush administration and is well acquainted with the former president who himself once headed the CIA. Studeman also has served as director of Naval Intelligence and director of the National Security Agency. He is now a senior executive of Northrop Grumman, a large military contractor that performs work in weaponry and in planning and detection for unconventional weapons, among other things.

--LLOYD CUTLER, 86. He is a Democrat and a former counsel to Presidents Carter and Clinton. He was named to an oversight board in 2003 that was set up to monitor Pentagon anti-terrorist technology. He also served as Special Counsel on Ratification of the Salt II Treaty as well as a senior consultant to the President’s Commission on Strategic Forces in 1983-1984 when Ronald Reagan was president. He is a well-connected insider to the elite establishment.

--HENRY S. ROWEN. He is a professor emeritus from Stanford University. He served as an assistant secretary of defense in the first Bush administration from 1989 to 1991 after having served as a deputy assistant defense secretary in the Kennedy administration. He is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and a member of Stanford’s Asia/Pacific Research Center. Rowen was president of the RAND Corporation from 1967-1972 and also was assistant director of the U.S. Budget Bureau from 1956-1966 in the Eisenhower-Kennedy administrations. His resume shows a connection to the elite Washington political establishment, Corporate business and academia.

The other three members of the panel are not listed as members of the CFR but are nevertheless no strangers to Washington, corporations or politics. They are:

--RICHARD C. LEVIN. He is president of Yale University where the Bushes have a long connection to its graduate, elite ruling alumni. The president, his father and his grandfather were members of the powerful Skull & Bones secret society whose members comprise the inside ruling elite families of this nation. While Levin is not listed as a member of the CFR, he obviously would have acquaintance with many of the Yale graduates who are, including perhaps Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton. Since he was an economics professor and did research in this area before becoming president of Yale he is no stranger to corporate America, and corporate America belongs to the CFR.

--PATRICIA WALD. She is a former U.S. Court of Appeals judge of the D. C. Circuit and was appointed by former President Carter. She also represented the United States on the International Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. She has written several books on poverty and drug abuse and holds a score of honorary degrees. She wrote the dissenting opinion in the federal appeals court case that upheld the Naval Academy’s dismissal of a midshipman who admitted he was a homosexual. Judge Silberman wrote the majority opinion upholding the discharge. Wald in dissenting wrote the majority opinion ‘’…runs deeply against our constitutional grain’’ since the accused never admitted to homosexual conduct.

--CHARLES M. VEST. He is president of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has held that position since 1990. He chairs the U.S. Department of Energy Task Force on the Future of Science programs and is vice chair of the Council on Competitiveness and immediate past chair of the Association of American Universities. As MIT president he has advocated developing stronger relations with industry and sits on the board of directors of both IBM and E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Co. As a member of the mechanical engineering faculty at MIT, Vest has research interests in the thermal sciences and engineering applications of lasers and coherent optics. Like Rowen, he has an affinity with the Washington political establishment, corporate businesses and academia.

So there you have it. When the Commission is finished it will report to the President who is an inside establishment member belonging to Skull & Bones and an inside establishment family. Bush once bristled at a reporter’s question that he was tied to the Eastern establishment. But he and his policy-making cabinet members that he will presumably take up the commission’s report with are mostly members of the elite establishment.

They include Dick Cheney, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz to name the most visible, who all belong to the CFR.

So, the establishment will be reporting to the establishment in a post-election setting. President Bush apparently has no reason to fret about it.

Top

An Essay
By Richard C. Sizemore

Supreme Court justices are not only becoming more activist on the bench, they are also being more brazen in their out-of-robes speeches and appearances.

The trend has evoked more criticism about the impartiality of the Court and some of its justices.

Justices are, of course, stealthy and often meek during congressional hearings in their answers to or evasion of questions. Job security is the answer. Once on the Court, however, they can’t be removed except by impeachment, and it is almost impossible to oust a justice by that method as Thomas Jefferson learned early on.

Justices Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg are the latest to let their mouths, affiliations or social encounters with potential litigants bring pressure to have them recused from Court cases. But other justices, including Sandra Day O’Connor and Stephen Breyer also have been un-necessarily verbal in public, although they have escaped resusal pressure so far.

Scalia recused himself from one case involving the Pledge of Allegiance for public remarks he made about the subject. The case was argued before the Supreme Court in March ’04 without him on the bench.

His absence could affect the outcome and lead to a 4-4 tie that would be a defeat for proponents of the ‘’under God’’ phrase remaining in the pledge in the jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. It would not be nationally binding but would require another Supreme Court verdict to settle the case.

Assuming Scalia remains on the Court that means supporters of the pledge who are in substantial majority and a unanimous Congress will have an uphill fight on the issue in the future because of a ‘’lameduck’’ justice.

Scalia has enmeshed himself in other controversies as well. One involves the much publicized duck hunting trip with Vice President Dick Cheney who has appealed to the High Court a judge’s order that he produce documents concerning meetings of his task force on U.S. energy policy.

Scalia also went on another hunting trip with the governor of Kansas when the Court was considering cases from that state, according to The Los AngelesTtimes.

He has said he did nothing improper by participating in either hunting trip and has twice defended himself vigorously and once issued an unusual 21-page memorandum about it.

NO RECUSAL RULES

The question of whether a justice should step aside from participating in cases is left to the individual justice since there are no rules concerning the subject either by the Court or the Constitution.

Activist groups are often outspoken and call for the impeachment of justices either from participating in upcoming cases or for decisions they have already rendered.

Recent examples are for the impeachment of the so-called ‘’felonious five’’ that voted to stop the Florida election count that effectively put George W. Bush in the White House. They were Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices O’Connor, Thomas, Scalia and Kennedy, all Republican presidential appointees. Is that coincidental?

In another case critics called for impeachment of the ‘’sodomistic six’’ for their votes in the Lawrence v. Texas sodomy case. That involved Justices, O’Connor, Kennedy, Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer who were the majority in the case. All were Republicans except Clinton appointees Ginsburg and Breyer.

Justices are given life tenure, and the Constitution provides a narrow opening for impeachment that requires evidence of ‘’treason, bribery, or high crimes and misdemeanors.’’ Thomas Jefferson tried to curb the Court via this method and did have one federal judge by name of John Pickering removed, but he was an easy target because of his drunkenness and questionable sanity.

Then Jefferson instigated impeachment proceedings against Justice Samuel Chase an early Supreme Court activist, but he failed to get the necessary votes from Congress to unseat Chase. Jefferson abandoned this strategy although he detested both the Court and its leader who was his cousin, Chief Justice John Marshall.

OUTSPOKEN SCALIA

Scalia is known for his stinging dissenting opinions that are often sarcastically critical of the majority opinion such as in the Texas sodomy case. But he also can be biting in his speeches such as the one in New Orleans in March ’04 when he criticized the Court for having ‘’...liberated itself from the text of the Constitution.’’

He cited as examples the right to abortion, homosexual sodomy and state- paid lawyers.

In that speech Scalia also criticized the confirmation process for nominated justices and said a so-called conservative judge is politically frozen out of the process today.

Contrasting the change since he was confirmed as President Reagan’s nominee, he noted he was approved by a 98-0 Senate vote. But he never mentioned a point made by Henry J. Abraham in his Justices, Presidents and Senators in which Abraham said being in the right place at the right time often determines whether justices make the Court or not.

In Scalia’s case he had a lot going for him in addition to his ‘’impeccable professional and personal attributes’’ in the words of Abraham. First, his nomination in 1986 followed a protracted and bitter crusade before Justice William H. Rehnquist was finally elevated to Chief Justice. That might have weakened the opposition in Scalia’s favor.

Second, Republicans controlled the Senate and Reagan was at the height of his popularity. Another favorable factor was Scalia’s Italian heritage that Abraham said was ‘’…not lost on Democrats with ethnic constituencies.’’ He was the first Italian Court appointee.

Contrast these conditions a year later when Democrats controlled the Senate and Reagan nominated Judge Robert Bork, who was crucified by members of the Senate Judiciary Committee with lies and distortions about his legal positions.

In any event, Scalia has lived up to his conservative credentials in spades as undoubtedly Judge Bork would have done had conditions not changed. Bork already had been confirmed a few years earlier for a seat on the Appeals Court for the District of Columbia.

GINSBURG

There is a move afoot by about a dozen congressmen to have Justice Ginsburg recuse herself from any future cases involving abortion because of her affiliation in the NOW Legal Defense Education Fund.

NOW has named a lecture series after the liberal justice, and the congressmen are concerned about her affiliation with the activist group that often files legal briefs in cases before the Court, although none are currently pending.

Ginsburg has defended her relationship with NOW and said justices are reluctant to recuse themselves because it could lead to a tie vote.

That logic appears to support a prejudiced majority rather than an impartial tie. In the latter case the people would at least break even.

Because of Scalia’s absence in the pledge case, the people have to settle for perhaps a tie or even defeat because he emerged from his robes to orate rather than keep his silence and do what he is paid to do – decide the constitutionality of cases before the Court.

Scalia knew very well that the Court has a bias against religion. Chief Justice Rehnquist had even spelled it out in a dissenting opinion. That should have made it all the more important for him to have remained silent since his vote is so vital in the pledge case and other religious litigation.

Supreme Court justices are supposed to decide cases and not make speeches and join clubs that might prejudice their opinion in the eyes of the public. They already get enough flak from their positions on various issues that the Court decides.

Impartiality or the façade of impartiality is why the Constitution gives them life-time tenure and makes it difficult to replace them. Their integrity and conduct is supposed to lend credence to an unbiased judiciary that determines whether the government and the people at all levels conduct business and their lives within the confines of the Constitution.

SPEECH APPEARANCES & CLUBS

There is a steadily growing interest in foreign legal developments by certain liberal justices on the Court both in speeches and Court opinions. Justice Kennedy’s opinion in the Texas sodomy case is a recent example. Kennedy referred to a 1981 gay rights opinion by the European Court of Human rights in writing the majority opinion in that case.

That, of course, led to Scalia’s criticism in his dissent that the Court should not ‘’impose foreign morals, fads, or fashions on Americans.

Judge Robert Bork in his book The Internationalization of Law was even more critical: ‘’Internationalism is illegitimate when courts decide to interpret their own constitutions with guidance from the decisions of foreign courts under their national constitutions. The American Constitution, for example, was framed and amended in the light of specific American history, culture and aspirations,’’ Bork wrote.

He also ripped Breyer in three other cases he cited where Breyer has looked abroad for constitutional guidance in deciding cases – one that Bork called ‘’risible.’’ He wrote that ‘’Breyer stated that he found ‘useful’ decisions concerning allowable delays of execution by the Privy Council of Jamaica, the Supreme Court of India, and the Supreme Court of Zimbabwe.’’

Judge Bork, an able jurist who the liberals denied a seat on the Court by questionable and despicable tactics, added: ‘’The question in each of these cases should have been the understanding of the ratifiers of the Bill of rights in 1791, not the current views of foreign nations.’’ Amen!

Breyer also defended his reliance on foreign courts in the Texas sodomy case during a tv appearance. He is a globalist or one-worlder, if you will, and is a member of the Council of Foreign Relations (CFR). Two other justices – O’Connor and Ginsburg – also belong to the CFR, an offshoot of a British Round Table group that one noted American historian claimed almost destroyed Western civilization.

(For more on the CFR see Terms and Organizations at the heading of this site)

Justice Ginsburg also has used the speaking circuit to promote reliance on foreign courts to decide cases such as the death penalty, gay rights and others. Incidentally, Ginsburg represented the ACLU before she joined the Court. The ACLU is a frequent petitioner before the Court that is involved in many of the cultural cases, particularly those concerning religion, such as the pledge case.

The ACLU has been on the opposite side of public religion since its inception. Impartiality is again a concern by some when the outspoken liberal justice participates in cases in which the ACLU is involved.

O’CONNOR SPELLS IT OUT

O’Connor not only spelled out her advocacy for more reliance on foreign court decisions in deciding domestic issues but also for giving a ‘’good impression’’ abroad. O’Connor knows that the Constitution gives the President and not the Court power to determine foreign policy and impressions abroad.

That evokes concern as to whether advocate justices like O’Connor, Breyer, Ginsburg and Kennedy should recuse themselves from all cases involving foreign matters because of their stated sentiments and CFR affiliation.

Speaking of clubs and affiliations, there is another worrisome matter that involves religion and the Catholic Church. That is a Catholic Church organization called Opus Dei.

Historical novelist Gore Vidal in his book Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace said there were two Supreme Court members of Opus Dei which he described as ‘…a secretive National Roman Catholic Order dedicated to getting its membership into high political, corporate and religious offices in various lands to various ends.’’

There are three Catholics on the Supreme Court, and Vidal quotes sources as ruling out Scalia, one of them, as being an Opus Dei member. You take it from there.

Should these two members come forward and tell us more about Opus Dei and whether it prejudices their opinions in matters that come before the Court?

With the liberal elites controlling who gets on the Court and ruling out conservative or constructionist nominees we the people have difficulty getting impartial interpretations of the great document that is supposed to guide our country.

The justices could at least give some semblance of impartiality by resigning from advocacy clubs and organizations and by being as publicly stealthy on the Court as they are in trying to get on it. That way they would be judged by their professional colleagues and the people only for the legal opinions they render. That also would prevent justices from becoming lameducks on certain issues.

If justices are to enter the cultural debate with their robes off, then they shouldn’t hide behind them when their activity provokes heat. They should be subjected to press conferences about their views just as politicians are.

Better yet, if they want to enter the cultural fray outside the Court, they should resign and take up writing or politics or some other profession.

Top

An Essay
By Richard C. Sizemore

There’s a global infringing frenzy afoot to undermine American sovereignty and deprive Americans their rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

Treaties, global organizations, the left-elite political class and foreign courts as well as globalist Supreme Court justices, who subordinate our constitution to foreign law, are the guilty parties.

The justices referred to include Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Sandra Day O’Connor and Anthony M. Kennedy, who relied on foreign courts to legalize sodomy. Here are some recent incidents of alien decisions that would intrude on our sovereignty and American rights:

--The European Union (EU) fined Microsoft Corp. a record $613 million and ordered it to strip certain features from its Windows operating system. The sanctions also included a fine on the company’s U.S. operations that are allowed by the Justice Department and a U. S. court ruling, according to a Microsoft official.

The EU ordered Microsoft to share more information with European rivals. It appeared to be a clear warning about what the company might include in its future operating systems. Does this mean that the EU is acting as an oversight regulator telling American businesses what they should incorporate into their products? It appears to be. It also overlooks U.S. anti-trust jurisdiction as well as U.S. court decisions.

Microsoft wants to build in new features such as internet search technology and swifter methods of finding files. Let’s hope it ignores the EU and proceeds with it.

--The World Trade Organization (WTO) has taken a step to police the Internet under its trade rules. The ruling involves social policy and values and specifically pertains to gambling. The WTO held that US. Policy prohibiting online gambling violates international trade law. The case was brought by the small island nation of Antigua and Barbuda. The Bush administration plans an appeal, and one lawmaker – Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) said: ‘’It cannot be allowed to stand that another nation can impose its values on the U.S. and make it a trade issue.’’

Several members of Congress said they might question participation of this country in future agreements under the auspices of the WTO.

--The United Nations’ World Court has ruled that U.S. law violated the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations and the rights of 51 Mexicans convicted of murder by not giving them the right to assistance from their government. The United States argued that Mexico’s request for consular help for the prisoners would be an intrusion into the American justice system. It would be contrary to the laws and customs in every city and state in the United States, U.S. attorneys argued. Some conservative Republicans, however, oppose the treaty, and President Bush apparently hasn’t made up his mind as of this writing.

In effect the World Court set aside an American rule of law in favor of its interpretation of the provisions of the Vienna treaty.

--There is another move in the Senate to confirm a United Nations treaty that would undermine U.S. sovereignty as well as U.S. security. It’s called the Law of the Seas Treaty. In a copyrighted article for Insight/News World Communications, Inc., J. Michael Waller wrote ‘’the culprits behind the sneak move (in the Senate), Capitol Hill sources say, are senior Republican senators and key figures in the administration of President Bush.’’ Waller adds that Vice President Dick Cheney and State Department officials support the treaty because it provides an international framework for competition for the ocean’s resources, including oil.

Waller quoted Peter Leitner, a senior strategic adviser in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, as saying the treaty would, among other things: a. make illegal President Bush’s initiative to battle proliferation of weapons of mass destruction; b. effectively deter the U.S. from intercepting vessels of terrorists no matter what they were carrying; c. gravely limit U.S. Naval or coast Guard ships from intercepting, searching or seizing suspect vessels at sea like those carrying nuclear devices from North Korea; c. add another international court to judge U.S. citizens.

There seems to be growing opposition in the Senate to the treaty signed by Bill Clinton in 1994 but never ratified. Rep. Ron Paul and 13 other congressmen have sent a letter to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist urging him to reject the treaty that Paul termed ‘’silly.’’

--The World Trade Organization (WTO) is also trying to tell Congress how to write our taxes. It wants our tax laws dealing with corporations changed (see Undermining Sovereignty on this site dated 12/6/03). Pascal Lamy, the French socialist who is trade commissioner of the European Union, even lobbied Congress for this change before WTO ordered sanctions on U.S. goods because of alleged U.S. corporate tax breaks that it called subsidies.

Congress Paul said no U.S. subsidy to its corporations was involved and that only a small part of the corporation’s income earned abroad was exempt from taxes. Paul also noted that most EU countries do not even tax their corporations on any income earned abroad. The point is the WTO is lobbying Congress and trying to tell it how to write our taxes.

--More from the WTO. It is now trying to run our farm policy. There is no need for farm-state constituents to contact their congressmen. The WTO will decide the issue. It has given Brazil a temporary ruling (such decisions mostly always become final) that U.S. subsidies to cotton growers are out of line and should be lowered. The ruling challenges how the government may pay farm subsidies in the future on corn, wheat, rice and other crops.

The Washington Post reported that the panel of judges sitting in Geneva, Switzerland, included one each from Poland, Chile and Australia. They overruled laws approved by the U.S. Congress.

--The North American Free Trade Association (NAFTA) also has gotten into the act. It has established the precedent of reviewing U.S. court judgments. In one case it ruled that a Mississippi’s court judgment violated international law but delayed a decision on awarding the investors in the company involved because of a residential conflict.

In another case the NAFTA tribunal under Chapter 11 of the NAFTA pact reviewed a Massachusetts Supreme Court decision against a Canadian real estate company after the U.S. Supreme Court declined its appeal. The NAFTA tribunal ruled the Massachusetts court did not violate international law. But the significance of the two cases is this:

Chapter 11 of NAFTA , which congressmen never read before passing, is surfacing now, and it means another layer of court review even above the U.S. Supreme Court. Put another way, an international tribunal is reviewing American court judgments. It means that Congress is annulling the constitutional rights of American citizens with treaties.

John Hightower in his book If the Gods Had Meant Us to Vote They Would Have Given Us Candidates first revealed the Mississippi case that involved
a family that owned a funeral home. The New York Times in April 2004 carried a story about both cases as if the powers in Chapter 11 had just been discovered. Many congressmen probably still don’t know about it.

Incidentally U.S. taxpayers pick up the tab for any of the unconstitutional judgments of NAFTA tribunal.

These cases illustrate the encroachments foreign entities are making on U.S. sovereignty and law through treaties, conventions and international tribunals often claiming power they don’t have. As an example, Judge Robert Bork in his book Coercing Virtue pointed out that the UN’s International Criminal Court ‘’…claims jurisdiction over every person in the world…’’ Bork wrote that the World Court insists its orders are binding on national courts.

Bork contends the liberals, or ‘’New Class’’ as he terms them, are worldwide and are bypassing ‘’American legislatures and courts by having liberal views adopted abroad and then imposed on the United States.’’

William J. Watkins, Jr., wrote in The American Spectator (4/6/04:

‘’ Justice Stephen Breyer has suggested that the ICJ’s (world court’s) interpretation of treaty obligations should be binding on the federal and state governments. Moreover, as matters currently stand, the Supreme Court recognizes that the federal government may regulate matters via the treaty power even if it would otherwise have no power to legislate on the subjects.’’

Watkins noted that the framers envisioned treaties covering only such external matters as war, peace, and foreign commerce, all of which fall under Congress’ delegated powers. Today, however, Watkins said that treaties seldom deal with peace, war, or foreign commerce, and are better characterized as ‘’international legislation.’’

TIME TO PULL OUT

As noted the U. N. is trying to control the wealth of the ocean floors; regulate American corporations; police internet trade rules; foist alien values on American citizens; control our military; reduce our national sovereignty and claim jurisdiction over us.

The U.N. and most country members usually vote against U.S. interests anyway. As an example, a memo circulating on the internet quotes figures from the State Department and U.N. of 18 Arabic/Islamic states showing they vote against the U.S. at least 67 percent of the time and go as high as 87 percent for Mauritania.

Some of these countries still receive U.S. foreign aid -- India, for example, gets $2 billion annually.

It is time to pull out of these treaties and conventions and rid ourselves of these world organizations, including the U.N., that threaten our sovereignty and constitutional rights.

And if that be isolationism, as the globalist elites undoubtedly would term it, so be it.

And let’s buy Stephen Breyer a one-way ticket to Europe, Zimbabwe or whatever country’s culture and courts he’d rather abide by than those of the United States and its Constitution. It would be good if he could take Ginsberg, O’Connor and perhaps Kennedy along with him. They don’t seem to like our customs, history or Constitution.

Top

An Essay
By Richard C. Sizemore

Voters in November will choose a new president or keep the incumbent, and in these perilous times they have to do a better job than they have in the past. The nation just can’t afford any more Bill Clinton’s and some of the other light weights egotists and misfits of recent years. There isn’t enough room for error.

Character should not be overlooked along with qualifications. A sheep skin from Yale or Harvard University, which some would be pleased to see shut down, isn’t enough. It is time these expensive, prestigious, once religious Eastern universities started teaching ethics along with other disciplines.

The process of choosing a president has long been broken and has been reduced to money raising, corporate sponsorship and the hiring of unsavory political promoters like snarling, hatchet man James Carville, devious Carl Rove, amoral Dick Morris or the late Lee Atwater. All are spinners of the first magnitude and in the business of promoting for a buck.

India, where the poor vote has as much weight as that of the power elite, has shown us how to make our voices heard even if the person they elected did resign for fear of her life.

In this country there is never much of a choice, and that will be true again this year. It’s Bush or Kerry. Both have Eastern establishment backgrounds and belong to the secret society of Skull & Bones, the most prestigious of the elite establishment’s organizations.

It brings to mind the book Jim Hightower of Texas wrote: If The Gods Had Meant Us To Vote They Would Have Given Us Candidates.

Voters, or more correctly the Supreme Court, in 2000 elected George W. Bush, and we know a little of his background, although much of his questionable dealings and inside affiliations are still clouded. So, let’s pose some questions about the new man on the block, John F. Kerry, the
presumptive Democrat nominee. Is he:

*Catholic or hypocrite? Hero or charlaton? For U.S. sovereignty or an elite globalist one-world? Far left-winger like the senior senator from Massachusetts? Most important of all, is he unfit to serve as his fellow servicemen charge?

FIRST, CATHOLIC OR HYPOCRITE?

Kerry wants to have all the benefits of his church without adhering to its tenets. As an example, he took communion amidst much fanfare on Easter Sunday, ’04, even though many Catholic cardinals and his own archbishop, Sean O’Malley of Boston, object to politicians against church doctrine doing so.

He apparently is as unfamiliar with church history as was Al Smith who, during his unsuccessful bid for the presidency, wanted to know ‘’what the hell is a encyclical? or John Kennedy who Peter De Rosa in his Vicars of Christ said was ‘’…probably not fully aware that he was contradicting centuries of Catholic teaching.’’

Kerry’s lack of church history and Catholic doctrine was demonstrated in rebuking fellow Catholics who demanded their bishops should sanction him for his support of such issues as abortions, homosexual unions and stem cell research.

Catholic columnist, author and commentator Pat Buchanan wrote that Kerry cited Popes Pius XXIII (who never existed) and Paul VI to justify his position: ‘’My oath privately between me and God was defined in the Catholic Church by Pius XXIII and Pope Paul VI in the Vatican (Council), which allows for freedom of conscience for Catholics with respect to these choices…’’ Buchanan quoted Kerry as saying.

Even if Kerry meant John XXIII who called the Second Vatican Council instead of the non-existent Pius XXIII, he still misrepresented the position of John XXIII and Paul VI who both staunchly opposed abortion.

Kerry has tried to take the same stance as John F. Kennedy. But he will have a tougher time doing so. First, Kennedy made his statement under one of the most liberal popes, Pope John XXIII, in the history of the church while Pope John Paul II is one of the most conservative.

Secondly, abortion was not the law of the land in Kennedy’s time, and other issues such as stem cell research and homosexual marriages were not items of contention. Kerry supports all of the above. The church opposes all, and Pope John II admonishes Catholic politicians that his guidelines are not negotiable.

If Kerry takes the presidential oath or affirmation of office to uphold and protect the Constitution, he cannot do that, especially in the case of abortion, and obey the edicts of his infallible Pope and church. But if he can’t be trusted to follow the tenets of his church, can he be trusted to uphold his constitutional oath?

That applies to other Catholic politicians as well including such well-known names as Sens. Ted Kennedy, Mary Landrieu (La.), Tom Harkin (Iowa), Joe Biden (Del),and Tom Dashle, and the 48 House Democrats, who signed a letter that warned the Church against punishing Catholic lawmakers who have sworn to uphold the Constitution.

Like Kerry, they are trying to usurp the tenets of the church and the infallibility of the pope formally established by Pius IX in 1870, although popes had been practicing the doctrine for 1800 years prior to that time. In other words, the pope and not the politicians, decides church policy via his bulls (papal edits) or encyclicals (circulars on church policy to the Bishops).

So, either the pope or the politicians are in charge. It can’t be both ways. Catholics can’t be barred from office under the Constitution’s Article VI that states no religious test is required to hold public office. In other words Catholic politicians can obey their church and still hold office, but they can’t obey the Constitution, if it conflicts with church doctrine, and still be true Catholics.

Kerry also is a divorced Catholic with a propensity for rich women. It wasn’t long ago that divorce was a central issue in Nelson Rockefeller’s bid for the presidency. As Ann Coulter has written, Kerry has been very dependent on a Ketchup heir for his meteoric political rise.

Popes have been lenient in modern times in terms of punishing or excommunicating rulers and politicians who have defied the Church. In the middle Ages, however, there was a perpetual war between kings and popes, the most famous case of which was probably the excommunicating of Henry IV of France by Gregory VII.

The pope made the king stand three days and nights in the snow at Canossa with only a rough woolen tunic to do penance before returning to the Church. Henry got even later, of course, by putting Clement on the throne forcing Gregory to flee for his life.

The fact remains, however, that the pope still has the power to excommunicate and to refuse communion to recalcitrant politicians. It’s just the gravity of the offense in the pope’s estimation and his will to use the infallible power he has.

BULLS AND ENCYCLICALS

Now we come to these cumbersome bulls and encyclicals and what the pope really, really means by them. Even some well versed Catholics such as De Rosa, a former Jesuit and priest, is confused. So why shouldn’t ordinary Catholics also be?

When the pope speaks ex cathedra – that is when he uses the authority of his office to define doctrine concerning faith and morals -- there is no question about what is meant to be infallible. But De Rosa thinks the pope should provide a list of ex cathedra statements, or ‘’criteria for recognizing them.’’

He points out that ex cathedra statements are rare, and he suggested that the definition of the immaculate conception in 1854 was the first. It was by Pope Pius IX, the first official, infallible pope. The only one since that time, according to De Rosa, was the one in which Pius XII ruled that when Mary died, she ‘’was taken up body and soul into heaven.’’

Pope John Paul II was apparently speaking ex cathedra when he admonished Catholics, and especially Catholic politicians, about not supporting abortion, stem cell research and same-sex weddings. But again, if that was so why do some Bishops still given communion to the likes of Kerry and others who defy church doctrine?

CATHOLIC OPPOSITION

There is growing opposition to Kerry within the Catholic ranks, and an organization –Catholics Against Kerry – has been established with a website (www.catholicsagainstkerry.com) to enlist support. It is devoted to persuading Catholics to oppose Kerry and claims he has regularly challenged the teaching of the Catholic faith.

That brings up the question as to whether Kerry can maintain the hold Democrats held on Catholics in the 2000 election in which they went all out for Al Gore. Republicans are working hard for the Catholic vote and especially Latinos who are overwhelmingly Catholic.

A poll conducted by Zogby International and reported by WorldNetDaily in May ’04 ‘’showed Kerry getting only 20 percent support among America’s 51 million Catholics on issues where he opposes the church’s position…’’

Another facet of the story is how much weight the church and staunch Catholics will have against Kerry since the Church has lost some of its moral credibility. This was brought about by the sexual scandal of priests against boys, and the lack of vigorous action by the Church hierarchy to clamp down.

THE CHURCH IN POLITICS

So what else is new? The Catholic Church has long been in politics. In fact, as De Rosa notes, it is ‘’…the only religious body in existence that is both church and political organization.’’ It is the only church to exchange diplomatic representatives.

There have been many instances of the Church’s intrusion into American politics. Pope John Paul II supports an organization called Opus Dei, and has canonized its founder.

The secretive international Roma Catholic order is dedicated to getting its membership into high political, corporate, and religious offices, according to historical novelist Gore Vidal, who claims two members are on the Supreme Court. He also names former FBI Director (or mis-director) Louis Freeh as member.

In 1980 two priests declined to run for re-election to Congress because of opposition by Pope John Paul II. Both priests – Robert F. Drinan (d-Mass.) and Robert J. Cornell (d.-Wis.) – were liberals. Two Catholic Bishops also challenged former New York Gov. Mario Cuomo for his stance on abortion just as some bishops today are challenging Kerry.

On May 10, ’04, 48 Catholic members of Congress warned that the threat of withholding the Eucharist from politicians by some Bishops would revive latent anti-Catholic prejudices. Instead of undermining the candidacy of John Kerry, which one legislator claimed was the reason, they are undermining the Catholic Church, he asserted.

It is ironic that the argument over the Eucharist, which Catholics believe represents the body and blood of Christ, is the same issue that split Calvin and Luther during the Reformation. Calvin believed it was symbolic, but Luther took lit literally, according to historian Will Durant.

PROTESTANTS IN THE FRAY

The Christian coalition has long put out voter guides for lawmakers to inform coalition members where they stand on social issues. Judges in 2004 in Georgia were asked their opinions on abortion, gay rights and prayer in school before running for office.

Pat Robertson, of course, has been in politics for some time and even sought the presidency several years ago.

A few years ago the Southern Baptists denounced the Disney organization and ABC for flouting Christian family values on its TV network. Messengers to the Southern Baptists Convention tried to oust Bill Clinton for immoral conduct and his stance on abortion and homosexuals.

The difference between Catholic and Protestants in politics is that in the case of Catholics, the flock technically must obey the infallible pope and church doctrine or face ex-communication or denial of full Catholic blessings such as communion. Protestants can interpret the Bible for themselves and remain church members in good standing although they disagree with the church.

Bible-toting Bill Clinton was an obvious hypocrite and liar under oath. Although John Kennedy was overlooked by his church, he, too, was an obvious hypocrite but received all the sacraments of the church and was given a Catholic burial in first class style.

Of all the presidents throughout history only three have not had church affiliations. They were Jefferson, Lincoln and Andrew Johnson. There undoubtedly have been other hypocrites among the list, but they would not chance running for office without claiming religion.

The Bushes have the waterfront covered. Bush I is an Episcopalian, Gov. Jeb down in Florida is a Catholic, and President George W. is a Methodist.

So, where does that leave Kerry? Technically, at least, it would seem that he has to be classified as a hypocrite. He could avoid that moniker by becoming an Episcopalian where just about anything goes.

(Kerry II will address the other questions posed above)

Top

An Essay
By Richard C. Sizemore

Whether the presumptive Democrat nominee, Sen. John F. Kerry, is a Catholic or hypocrite by flouting Catholic Church doctrine was explored in the first part of this essay, and the conclusion came up the latter.

The second part deals with the other questions posed, such as to whether he is a hero or charlatan? For U.S. sovereignty or an elite globalist one-world? Left-wing socialist, like the senior senator from Massachusetts, Ted Kennedy? And whether he is fit or unfit to serve as his fellow servicemen charge?

Kerry received three purple hearts for wounds received during service in Vietnam that gave him an early ticket home. But does that mean he was a hero? Not according to Thomas Wright and other colleagues that served with him in ‘’Swift Boat’’ operations during the war.

‘’No one wanted a purple heart because it meant we made a mistake,’’ Wright told WorldNetDaily in a copyrighted story. Wright, who at times commanded Kerry, said he had trouble getting him to follow orders. Retired Adm. Roy Hoffman said Kerry’s colleagues considered him self-serving and a ‘’loose cannon.’’

On May 4, ’04 about a dozen of Kerry’s superior officers held a television press conference in Washington to denounce him as unfit to be commander-in-chief of America. They were led by John O’Neill, now a Houston lawyer who served in Vietnam but not with Kerry. O’Neill debated Kerry in 1971 and called him a ‘’liar,’’ according to The Dallas Morning News.

O’Neill said Kerry has exaggerated his war record but reserved his harshest criticism for him as a high-profile anti-war activist after returning from Vietnam. Kerry slandered U. S. troops by saying they engaged in widespread war crimes, O’Neill asserted.

‘’We lost the war at home,’’ said Robert Elder, a member of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, because of Kerry and others like him.

Eleven of 19 Vietnam Swift Boat veterans have demanded that Kerry stop misrepresenting them in a picture as his supporters. They are now threatening to sue if he continues to do so.

One of the vets, Bill Shumandine, said: ‘’His use of a photograph with… (these) comrades with knowledge that 12 of them condemn him…is a complete misrepresentation to the public and a total fraud.’’

In an open letter to Kerry, the group said:

‘’We did not give permission for you to use a photo including our image, nor do we support you…We join our fellow Swiftees who believe that someone who heaped scorn and lies on his own unit for his personal political gain is not fit to be Commander in Chief.’’

Vietnam Vets for Truth is planning a rally in Washington to address what they call ‘’untruths’’ Kerry has allegedly spread about those who fought in Vietnam. Their slogan is ‘’Kerry lied while good men died.’’

Kerry was confronted by a Vietnam veteran Green Beret and another heckler on Memorial Day, 2004 at the Vietnam Memorial Wall in Washington for his criticism of soldiers and the war along with actress (Hanoi) Jane Fonda. He is having a hard time making his service in Vietnam a centerpiece of his campaign.

OTHER SKELETONS

There also are other skeletons in Kerry’s closet that could cause him a problem. One is violation of laws which forbid private citizens from negotiating with foreign powers.

Kerry admitted before a Senate committee that he met with two delegations from communist North Vietnam in Paris in 1970 to try and end the war. CNSNews.com quoted Jerry Corsi, a researcher and author, as saying Kerry violated a U.S. code that ‘’A U.S. citizen cannot go abroad and negotiate with a foreign power.’’

Maybe somebody should relay that to Jesse Jackson who comes to mind first for the same offense.

Kerry is also listed by a Ho Chi Minh City museum that honors Vietnam war protesters. It features a photograph of him, according to WorldNetDaily, ‘’being greeted by the general secretary of the Communist Party, Comrade Do Muoi.’’ WND said the snapshot was acquired by Jeffrey M. Epstein of Vietnam Vets for the Truth, which opposes Kerry’s bid for the presidency.

In 1970 The Havard Crimson conducted an interview with Kerry in which he said he supported eliminating the CIA and having the U.S. military deployed only by the authority of the United Nations, according to WND.

It would seem the moniker ‘’loose cannon’’ may be applicable in the senator’s case. He has some explaining to do if he plans an image change.

NATIONAL SECURITY AND SOVEREIGNTY

The Bush administration early on reversed the rush to undermine U.S. sovereignty by not entering world environmental and court organizations and not to let the corrupt United Nations call our foreign policy shots. His pre-emptive strike policy and the demonstration of it in Iraq denuded the U.N. and brought out the true colors of some of our so-called allies, particularly France and Germany.

Bush, nevertheless, continued on the path to global empire. That course, some pundits think, was reversed at Fallujah. At least the course of the Bush administration has changed since then toward a speedier exit from Iraq and ceding more authority to the Iraqis and the U.N.

Bush’s policies in terms of U.S. sovereignty are still strong, however, compared to those of Kerry who, as one congressman put it, is ready to ‘’outsource’’ the entire foreign policy of the United States. He is also seeking more help from NATO.

Sen. Zell Miller claims Kerry, along with Ted Kennedy, are the co-chairmen of the Handwringers of America. He claims Kerry’s national security policy is ‘’to vacillate and retreat and hand over the leadership to the United Nations.’’

Kerry’s policy does call for strengthening U. S. alliances with more dependence on the U. N. It also calls for using soft power, which means diplomacy, intelligence and, of course, money, more effectively. Kerry also wants to modernize the military, but it’s hard to imagine the Democrats doing a better job on that issue. He supports Bush’s ‘’Road Map’’ policy on Israel and Sharon’s plan for annexing West Bank land.

In addition to surrendering additional U.S. sovereignty, Kerry’s policies call for a couple of more high-level government positions at a cost he hasn’t revealed at this writing. One would be a White House non-proliferation coordinator to safeguard nuclear weapons and materials. The other would oversee all bio-terrorism programs.

Kerry would curtail U.S. production of nuclear weapons, negotiate a global ban on production of highly enriched uranium and plutonium, and engage in talks with North Korea. He also would seek the help of Russian scientists to develop vaccines and antidotes for bioweapons.

All of these programs call for working closer with the dubious U.S. allies and the United Nations, on which Kerry so heavily relies.

AL AND BILL

Two staunch supporters of Kerry’s now are Al Gore (who formerly supported Howard Dean) and Bill Clinton, who is suspected of promoting Hillary for vice president on the Kerry ticket. They are now joining Kerry in criticizing Bush’s foreign policy.

It takes a lot of gall for these two to criticize anybody’s foreign policy, but gall they are not short of. For eight long years bungled so badly that some critics charge their misfeasance led to 7-11. Clinton’s policies were so bad it is difficult to find a starting point.

Hear is a small list: Clinton’s appeasement policy with China and his and Gore’s illicit campaign money from the same source; he got us evicted from Somalia and the African Horn, which emboldened the Islamic terrorists on their way to 7-11; He failed to get to the bottom of the Oklahoma City bombing and the downing of TWA Flight 800, which some critics and investigators think were cover-ups; he allowed technology exports to China and engaged wag-the-dog bombing of Iraq and made feeble attempts at going after Osama bin Laden.

Look at the terrorist attacks that occurred on his watch with little or no response: The first attack on the World Trade Center, the bombing of the Khobar Towers in 1996 and two embassies in East Africa in 1998 and the U.S.S. Cole. Let us also not forget the Oklahoma City and TWA 800 disasters, which are highly suspect of terrorist involvement and possibly cover-up for re-election purposes.

Clinton’s memoirs were released in the summer of 2004 (some pundits think early for political reasons to promote Hillary), and Ann Coulter’s critique will probably be as interesting as the book.

The Democrats are hand-wringing and calling Iraq, as Gore put it, ‘’the worst strategic fiasco in the history of the United States.’’ Gore also advocated for the firing of six high-ranking Bush officials and called the President incompetent and untrustworthy. Wow! This from a man who served under a man who lied under oath and will go down in history as the only known president who was administered oral sex in the White House by an intern and who reportedly also masturbated there.

Some competency, some trustworthiness, some legacy.

But for all the politics, shame and blame, where are we in the fight with militant Islamic terrorists who are more state-supported than anyone apparently wants to admit?

Well, we have a foothold in the Middle East and a base from which to operate in Iraq; we have deposed a tyrant who, if he didn’t already have them would have obtained WMD’s that are available as events in Pakistan have shown. And anyone that thinks Saddam would not have used them doesn’t deserve to be dignified with an explanation.

And that goes for anyone who thinks diplomacy will bring peace with the Islamic militants, which, as noted, are not confined to outlaw groups but involve state support. This is war, and a long one. We will suffer more casualties, not just overseas but here at home, and neither the United Nations nor so-called allies and alliances can address the problem. We must go it alone and accept what help we can get but not depend on it.

Senator Miller said Kerry voted against every weapons system that won the Cold War. Miller claims Kerry would be a threat to U.S. national security if elected.

Whether he’s a threat or not may be arguable, but on the issue of sovereignty or globalism, the answer appears to be clear. He would give up more U.S. sovereignty to alliances and especially entry into more world organizations.

THE HOME FRONT AND FITNESS

Bush and Kerry both supported trade treaties that have cost dearly in lost manufacturing jobs but now Kerry is catering to the labor vote by blaming Bush for the loss. He proposes eliminating tax loopholes for those that move their headquarters overseas and create jobs there. He also would expand tax credits for companies that create jobs at home

The Massachusetts senator would require companies that ship jobs abroad to tell the Labor Department and the workers when, where and why the jobs are moving.

Kerry vowed not to cut social security; he supports the biggest union in the nation – the National Education Association – and as well as a more money for education and a subsidy for college students who perform community work.

He is critical of rising health care costs. So far he has introduced a costly program for reimbursement of health care costs that would make the government a secondary insurer for employers, workers and private insurers. (Let’s hope he doesn’t put Hillary Clinton in charge of the plan).

On the fiscal front, Vice President Cheney charges he is hiding the extent of his plans for raising taxes. He agrees with Bush on amnesty for illegal aliens but disagrees on Supreme Court justices.

The latter is an important issue, and the justices who are nominated to the High Court will determine the direction of the nation in the raging cultural war. It should be at the top of voter’s priorities in making their decision. The economic philosophy of the candidates is also important because the next president almost assuredly will be called on to replace Alan Greenspan.

On the oil front, Kerry is calling for higher gasoline taxes and more pressure on oil-producing nations to hike production. In the long run he wants to decrease the nation’s dependence on foreign oil and increasing its reliance on cleaner-burning forms of energy. That includes subsidies for ethanol and the agribusiness where the farm votes lie.

SUMMING UP

Kerry, like all political aspirants for the highest office, devotes much time finding fault with the incumbent. He is doing that on a daily basis, but there is little of substance in his message.

Howell Raines, former editor of The New York Times wonders if Kerry’s is connecting with voters in all of his critical appearances and ads. In the Guardian newspaper he used words like ‘’ponderous’’ and ‘’pompous’’ to describe him.

As noted in the first part of this essay, both Bush and Kerry are bluebloods of the Eastern elite establishment, and both belong to the most prestigious secret society in the nation – Skull & Bones – that has clout in charting the nation’s direction.

The elite, establishment will be a winner whichever candidate wins.

Again, in this election year there is just not a choice. The election process is broken. It needs fixing badly. But it is not at the point of flipping a coin, not this year. Kerry is carrying too much baggage and has too many skeletons in his closet and too many left-wing Democrats surrounding him to assume the Oval Office. Maybe his shipmates have a case about his fitness.

That leaves George W. Four more years as a lame-duck may make him even more adventurous, and one has to wonder about the debt he may pile up and the secrecy of his administration. At least he won’t have to get up every day and board the big bird to go campaigning, and will have more time to tend to his office.

It may be arguable whether that will be good or bad.

But rather than change horses in mid-stream, we’ll go along with Bush on grounds Kerry is misfit for the office just as Bush I claimed Clinton was. Clinton proved it. But let’s not give Kerry that chance. We can’t afford to.

If the Gods would only give us candidates.

Top

An Essay
By Richard C. Sizemore

Calvin Coolidge is reputed to have said as photographers snapped a picture of him on a pair of skis: “I stay fit by avoiding the big problems.”

George W. Bush avoids confrontation with grass roots Texans by staying out of his adopted state during the Texas Republican Party Convention. The party’s conservative platform probably would have suited Coolidge better than Bush.

For three consecutive conventions now Bush, who apparently takes the state’s vote for granted, has been conveniently absent. He was out of the state in 2000 and 2002 campaigning and making speeches. This year he was in Europe for the D-Day anniversary and meetings with European leaders.

Could it be that his considerable clout had anything to do with setting the GOP convention date to coincide with D-Day? One can’t help wondering about these frequent, convenient coincidences.

Despite flaunting his West Texas roots and adopting its macho image, Bush’s ideology aligns with that of the Eastern Establishment. His views are as incompatible with those of Texas grass roots Republicans as Southern Baptists’ are to those of Episcopalians.

Yet, Republicans continue to give him their vote. Maybe they just would prefer a candidate with a Republican label regardless of his ideology because, obviously, Bush’s doesn’t fit with theirs. He comes closer than Democrats though.

COMMENDATIONS

The platform this year commended Bush in a couple of places – for reducing taxes and for the execution of the war in Iraq and even supported his pre-emptive war strategy. But it indirectly reprimanded and castigated him for many of positions he supports and the platform opposes.

The Republicans present an anomaly in supporting Bush and vehemently disagreeing with many of his policies. How the Eastern Establishment Bushes were able to invade Texas, make a killing in its oil patch and take over the political machinery is a mystery, unless money and influence could possibly be the answer.

Texans are proud people. They place ‘’native Texan’’ on their license plates and point the direction to interstate highways for rust belt invaders who don’t agree with their concept of the state’s mores. Yet, they let Eastern carpetbaggers take over the state’s political machinery just as the Clintons did New York.

There are some areas such as abortion, stem cell research and gay marriages where Bush and the platform agree, but for the most part there is an ideological split.

The platform this year opposes gay marriages, sodomy, which the Supreme Court upheld, prolific immigration, partial birth abortion, multiculturalism at the expense of U.S. sovereignty and stem cell research. It supports the public display of the Ten Commandments and the reciting of the pledge of allegiance in schools.

It wants the Patriot Act reviewed for any violation of constitutional rights, supports English as the official language, and opposes all forms of amnesty for illegal migrants, and it wants the International Monetary Fund ‘’and other international financing agencies’’ (presumably including the World Bank) eliminated.

DEMOCRATS DERIDE

Democrats semi-annually jump on the platform with harsh criticism and contend it is out of touch with mainstream Texans. The Democratic platform is usually more generalized, but it got more specific this year and differs sharply on issues such as:

Church-state separation, privatization of Social Security (the GOP is for it) and abortion and the minimum wage which Democrats want increased the GOP wants repealed.
Despite the conservative platform, Republicans keep winning and Democrats keep loosing, and the grass-roots Republicans keep writing their far-right positions in the platform.

It calls for GOP officeholders to read the platform and indicate if they agree with or oppose each plank in it. Most, including President Bush, ignore this provision because it is not binding. Bush is not reliant on the official party’s money and gets his funding from private sources nationwide.

The 2004 platform continues to call for trimming government with the eliminating of several government agencies and departments, and this year called for pulling out of the World Trade Organization (WTO). It also called for the ‘’cessation of further negotiations of the Free Trade Area of the Americas agreement.’’ But it did not specifically mention NAFTA, which adds considerably to the Texas economy.

The platform ‘’opposes the expansion of free trade at the expense of national security and national sovereignty,’’ but, surprisingly, it called for Senate ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST). That treaty, signed by Bill Clinton in 1994, would, according to pundits and some congressmen, undermine both U.S. sovereignty and security. It is reported to be supported by Vice president Dick Cheney and State Department officials because it provides an international framework for competition for the ocean’s resources, including oil.

But critics claim that it would, among other things, effectively deter the U.S. from intercepting vessels of terrorists and add another international court to judge U.S. citizens.

Rep. Ron Paul and 13 other congressmen have sent a letter to Senate majority leader Bill Frist urging him to reject the treaty that Paul termed ‘’silly.’’

The platform again called on the president not to bypass Congress in making executive decisions and using any power that is not explicitly granted to him in the Constitution. It also directed him to end all existing emergencies and abolish the War powers Act of 1973.

And again the platform advocated rescinding U.S. membership in the United Nations and to evict the organization from U.S. soil and not require U.S. service personnel to wear U.N. uniforms. It retained its position that the IRS should be abolished and that the Federal Reserve Board should be audited, and that the personal income and other taxes should be eliminated.

A new plank in the platform urged Congress to withhold appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in cases involving abortion, religious freedom and ‘’all rights guaranteed under the Bill of Rights.’’

To downsize government, the platform would abolish: The Bureau of Alcohol , Tobacco and Firearms; the position of Surgeon General; the EPA, and Departments of Energy;, HUD, Education, Commerce and Labor and the National Endowment for the Arts.

It also endeared itself with Congress by calling for abolishing the Congressional retirement system, and President Bush and former presidents by eliminating their full salary or full staff for a period of six months after retirement. ‘’Presidents should accept the same retirement that the top ranking Armed Forces person receives upon retirement,’’ the platform stated.

So, there you have it. Now you get the idea of why President Bush would rather be in Europe, or possibly even in Philadelphia, or campaigning out of state when the grass-roots Texas Republicans sound their gavel for order.

But you can make book that the President will return with his hand out for votes now that the smoke has cleared.

Top

An Essay
By Richard C. Sizemore

In its long history the Supreme Court has handed down many irrational and unconstitutional decisions, but one inane ruling that has done much harm to the Republic and we the people gets little attention.

It is the 1866 decision of the High Court that held a private corporation is a natural person under the Bill of Rights and the 14th amendment to the Constitution. Since that time corporations also have been given added independent rights under other constitutional amendments, including the 1st, 4th, 5th and 6th.

Not even the manufactured Roe v. Wade decision on abortion, the deliberate ignoring of congressional intent in labor and education discrimination cases, the misinterpretation, deliberate or otherwise, of the religion clauses that has driven religion underground, the Florida election intrusion or the recent right to engage in sodomy top the corporation-as-people lulu.

But nowhere in the Constitution are corporate rights to be found, just as the right to abortion is not mentioned. But as people under the High Court’s arbitrary decision, corporations are protected by the Bill of Rights that includes freedom of speech and other privileges granted to and meant for individual, live citizens.

The free speech right permits a corporation with its vast resources to dominate public thought, buy politicians and thereby control local, state and federal legislation. In other words, it pits the individual citizen against the tremendous financial resources of the corporation.

But corporations are exempted from many of the responsibilities and liabilities of citizenship. They also have another advantage of citizens since they have eternal life in addition to civil rights with no civil responsibilities.

THE INFAMOUS RULING

The infamous ruling was handed down in 1886 in a tax case styled Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific Railroad. The Supreme Court Justice at the time was Morrison Remick Waite, a friend who had lobbied President Grant for the job. The famous decision was given two years before Waite’s death.

It is interesting that the case hasn’t drawn more attention nor the justices who wrote it received more infamy. As an example, Waite is given favorable treatment by Supreme Court scholar Henry J. Abraham, professor emeritus from the University of Virginia, in his book Justices, Presidents and Senators.

Abraham’s describes him as ‘’rather undistinguished, non-controversial, quietly efficient, well-liked.’’ He is accorded a rating of ‘’near great’’ among justices of the Court.

Regardless of what other decisions he may have been involved in, it seems inconceivable that they could have given his professionalism restitution from the taint of this one case, which is not to be found in the index of cases mentioned by Abraham in his 330-page book. It appears it wasn’t important enough.

The Court never heard formal arguments in the case, and said it did not want to hear any arguments. How’s that for going in with open minds?

MOVE TO REVERSE

Now, after 118 years, there is a move to have the decision reversed. The Berkeley, Calif., City Council has passed a resolution calling for constitutional amendments that would reverse the decision and make corporations simply corporations and not people.

Council members hope to get a grass-roots movement going nationally to gain support for the resolution. But as meritorious as this project obviously is, it is doubtful it will get anywhere. First, there is just too much corporate money to defeat it, and secondly, as some learned jurists have noted, the establishment and longevity of a law practically ensures its continued existence.

Considering the abuses of corporations, however, it would, if successful, reverse a criminal trend and correct innumerous wrongs from post Civil War days through the robber barron period to Enron and the myriad crimes committed by corporations today.

They include the outsourcing of jobs and leaving communities to clean up their waste as they relocate overseas for cheaper wages and less responsibility; control of the media and domination of politics; intrusion into college and professional sports with their logos and money; plundering the planet and disrupting local economies in the name of global economics; disregarding anti-trust and other laws; raising the cost of drugs and health care; book-cooking for profit; contamination of the food supply via corporate farming as well as downgrading U.S. sovereignty by denying allegiance to any country.

I could go on and on but that is enough to illustrate the need for putting some manners on the corporations and to take back the control of them that states once held. One whereas in the Berkeley City Council’s resolution explains a lot:

‘’Whereas, this corporate influence is transforming our government from one that is ‘by and for the people’ to one that is by and for corporate interests; corporate influence over our government denies citizens our right to govern through a representative democracy and subjects us to minority rule by the wealthy few; and corporate influence has made it difficult to maintain a living wage, a clean environment, affordable health care, and quality education for all;…’’

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

Corporations date back to the 16th Century and were given limited rights by the English Crown that could be withdrawn at any time. Even several of the early American colonies were chartered as corporations.

But the founding fathers wanted nothing to do with kings or corporations, and they were not even mentioned in the Constitution. Those corporations that were chartered early in the nation’s history were kept under strict surveillance by the states.

They were chartered to serve the public interest and limited to specific business activities and were required to dissolve if their charters were not renewed.

During the Civil War, corporations took advantage of huge profits and the expansion of business westward, especially railroads. They started to buy state legislatures and gained a hold on legislation for their benefit. President Lincoln was so moved about the trend that he expressed concern that wealth would be aggregated to the few and that the Republic would be destroyed.

But the trend toward control of state legislatures continued until states began bidding to see who could offer the most in the way of corporate rights. New Jersey and Delaware were in the forefront of the movement, and Delaware took the lead and still holds it. The infamous 1866 ruling of the Supreme Court opened the flood gates.

You know the rest of the story from the Rockefellers, Morgans, Vanderbilts and others in the robber barron era to the abuses of Enron, Halliburton, WorldCom Inc., Adelphia Communications, HealthSouth, Tyco International Ltd., and Westar Energy Inc., to name a few.

Prosecutors have begun going after more high-level executives such as Kenneth Lay of Enron, John J. Rigas of Aldelphia, Martha Steward, Dick Grasso of the New York Stock Exchange, Gary Winnick of Global Crossing Ltd., and others.

Whether this trend will continue may depend on the political climate. Certainly politics forced the hand of the administration and led to more action from the Securities and Exchange Commission and less visible support for Bush cronies such as Ken Lay. The political states were too high.

WHAT TO DO?

Ralph Nader, former Texas Agriculture Secretary Jim Hightower, and David C. Korten, who wrote When Corporations Rule the World all have good suggestions for curbing corporate power and making corporations more responsible to the public and getting them out of politics.

The Berkeley City Council also is on the right track in calling for constitutional amendments to deny constitutional rights to corporations even if it is an uphill fight.

Hightower in his long-titled book There’s Nothing in the Middle of the Road but Yellow Stripes and Dead Armadillos points out there is no quick fix, but suggests a corporate charter with teeth would help.

Strict terms on corporate privileges would include ‘’making corporate board members and managers individually responsible for the malfeasance of their enterprises and reestablishing term limits on each corporation’s charter.’’ He also backs a constitutional amendment stating a corporation is not a person.

Go Berkeley! Let’s hope your initiative spreads like a prairie wild fire. This may be the most meaningful move to come out of California (sometimes referred to facetiously as the land of fruits and flies) in its entire whacky history.

Top

An Essay
By Richard C. Sizemore

What goes on behind the super-secret closed doors of the super rich elites that plan the resource ownership and direction of Western civilization? Sen. John Edwards, Sen. John Kerry’s running mate, knows.

In fact, he has briefed Kerry, according to The New York Times. Will he brief we the people? Absolutely not! The rules of the elite planners forbid it, and they eschew democratic participation in their affairs.

In fact, Kerry like President Bush, belongs to another super-secret society – The Order of Skull & Bones -- which has the most clout of sister organizations in charting the course of the U.S.A. Both are elitist organizations controlled mostly by wealthy Eastern families.

For a self-made millionaire who flaunts his ‘’po-boy’’ background, Edwards is hobnobbing with the crème de la crème of the elite. Despite his often critical remarks of the elites in his bid for the Democratic nomination against Kerry, Edwards attended the latest meeting of the clandestine Bilderbergs in Stresa, Italy, in early June, 2004.

As a matter of fact, his performance there in a debate on American politics with Ralph Reed, a Republican political strategist, was decisive in Kerry’s selection of him as a running mate, according to news reports of the meeting.

(For more information on the organizations mentioned please see the heading ‘’Terms and Organizations’’ at the heading of this site. But forget the word ‘’conspiracy’. The elites and the Eastern press will dub you a clod if you think a conspiracy ever has or ever could happen).

The Bilderberg name came from a hotel where the founders first met in Holland in 1954. Memberships include powerful West Europeans and North Americans but no Japanese who are included in other organizations such as the Trilateral Commission founded by banker David Rockefeller.

You need not apply until you cross the elite line determined by wealth or prestige, mostly wealth. Like Edwards and Bill Gate’s wife you can make it if you first make your stash, but not always.

Bilderberg is involved in the global aspirations of the continents mentioned and prefers no publicity whatever, not even its membership list. The American Free Press (AFP), however, has obtained a list of the participants this year and also reported on some of the happenings. AFP’s penetration of the secret group is comparable to the first penetration of the meetings of the former influential Business Council by a few reporters from the Washington press corps back in the 60s.

In the book Trilateralism, Peter Thompson of the London Collective, State Research, writes: ‘’Bilderberg …is part of an increasingly dense system of transnational coordination.’’ He adds, ‘’Democratic interference in foreign policy is avoided in so far as possible, throughout the Western capitalist democracies.’’

SPONSORSHIP AND GOAL

The meetings are sponsored by corporations, and globalization is the goal with the elites in charge, of course. Secrecy is demanded.

The argument that planning the world’s and our Republic’s future is done better in privacy by those in control is wearing a little thin. So is the argument that participants won’t speak openly if their remarks are made public. Is that any way to run a Republic?

Vice President Dick Cheney demanded secrecy in setting the nation’s energy policy; Hillary Clinton did the same in trying to develop a costly taxpayer health care policy; the incompetent CIA operates in total secrecy and furnishes unreliable data; the Federal Reserve Board handles the people’s money and credit in secrecy; the President takes us to war on the basis of inadequate intelligence data and secretly changes policy in Iraq when Iran invades and causes havoc to boost his re-election chances.

In short, we the people are left in the dark on the most profound decisions that affect our future.

The elite organizations such as the Bilderbergs, Skull & Bones, Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), and Trilateral Commission plan our future mostly behind closed doors for the benefit of world government and the enhancement of the wealth of their members.

PROTECTED BY THE MEDIA

Even representatives of the press, such as Donald Graham, chairman and CEO of the Washington Post Co. and his late mother, Katherine Graham, members of the New York Times and others have cooperated to keep the policies of the Bilderbergs secret. They drew a special thank you from globalist David Rockefeller who said the Bilderbergs couldn’t have done business without their cooperation.

In his memoirs Rockefeller gloated about his accomplishments as a globalist.

AFP estimated there were 127 at the meeting in Italy this year and 33 were Americans. Other Americans who attended this year’s confab in addition to Edwards, Graham, Rockefeller and Reed, included:

Henry Kissinger, Bill Gates’ wife, Melinda, Max Boot of The Wall Street Journal and member of the CFR; Vernon E. Jordan, former attorney in the Clinton Administration; Robert Kagan of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, William J. Luti, deputy undersecretary of Defense; Timothy F. Geithner, and William J. Mcdonough, president and former president of the New York Federal Reserve Bank, respectively; Richard N. Haas, president CFR, Richard C. Holbrooke, former assistant secretary of state and an adviser to John Kerry; Sen Jon S. Corzine (d, N. J., chairman and CEO, Goldman Sachs, and Richard N. Perle, former chairman of the Defense Policy Board appointed by Donald Rumsfeld. Perle was pressured to resign his post for business conflicts.

EDWARDS AND KERRY

So what’s all this got to do with Edwards and Kerry? It exposes their real allegiance instead of the façade of being good ‘ole boys close to the people, even though they have a left-wing agenda. In fact some critics contend they are farther left than the ticket of Walter Mondale and Geraldine Ferraro. Even left of Ted Kennedy, according to the Boston Herald.

Ann Coulter in a recent internet column took Edwards to task for catapulting into the elite class as an attorney specializing in baby cerebral palsy cases where he received a third of the settlements. He claimed caesarian operations would have spared the babies in the face of scientific studies refuting this.

Anyway, Edwards became a millionaire while insisting he didn’t care about the money, Coulter wrote.

Fear of law suits increased the number of caesarean sections and drove many obstetricians out of business because of the high cost of malpractice insurance. So, the poor people Edwards claims to represent are hard pressed to find doctors to deliver their babies, according to the left-wing basher.

The kicker in all of Edward’s court room antics is a summation he gave in a $6.5 million verdict on behalf of a six-year-old girl who had suffered brain damage at birth. The New York Times reported: ‘’…he stunned onlookers by saying he felt the infant speaking through him to the jurors. It was a risky move, but he pulled it off.’’

Even though he was there, however, he can’t tell us what went on at the Bilderberg meeting or whether he agrees with its agenda and whether he is a member or was an invited guess.

Perhaps he can pull some of his ESP skills and find out what Kim Jong II is up to in North Korea, or Ali Khamenei in Iran or Wen Jiabao in China, or Vladimir Putin in Russia, or even the French who have collaborated with the Iranian Shiite invasion of Iraq, for example.

This would help some of the Clinton advisors, who are bound to be present in a Kerry administration, use the extraordinary negotiating skills they have along with lots of money and appeasement treaties make the connivers behave, at least for awhile.

Wouldn’t we all be blessed to get some of these people back in government or in positions of policy-making? I’m talking about Madeleine Albright, who was oblivious to the fact that she was Jewish and who was sure her negotiating skills and handouts had pushed Kim Jong a few feet of right with promises never, never to build or sell nuclear weapons or fire his no-dong missile. She’s advising Kerry along with her former boss, Bill Clinton, whose foreign policy stank.

Then there’s Sandy Berger and Richard C. Holbrooke and retired Gen. Wesley Clark and Clinton’s policy director, Robert Gordon, all on Kerry’s advisory team. This old Clinton crowd that did so much to fight terrorists by denigrating the military and intelligence services is just what we need to right the ship of state.

Kerry and Edwards are of the same ilk, and all their pandering to the poor and downtrodden doesn’t alter the fact. They are members of the elite class as demonstrated by their organization memberships and bank rolls.

So is Bush you say, and you are right. He has many faults, but being left of Mondale, Ferraro and Ted Kennedy is not one of them. Nor is he an appeaser or a United Nations-phil.

It’s a pity we have to vote against in this country instead of for just because one slate is so obviously unacceptable. (For more, see Kerry II on this site).

Top

An Essay
By Richard C. Sizemore

Did 13 U.S. Representatives violate their oath of office and subject themselves to impeachment by seeking United Nations oversight in the upcoming presidential election?

The congressional group led by Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas displayed a blatant disregard for the Constitution, which gives authority to ensure integrity of our elections to the states and Congress.

They were turned down by the U.N.’s Kofi Annan on grounds the request had to come officially from the U.S. Government. So, they went to Secretary of State Colin Powell and asked him to intervene.

Powell also turned them down, but Johnson’s office put a spin on the State Department’s reply that made it sound like a victory because it said it had invited the same overseas group to observe the 2004 election that was on hand for the 2002 congressional elections.

That is the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), of which the United States is among the 55 members. It has no authority, but it, like journalists or anyone else, is free to publish what it sees. This amounts to another foreign entanglement in which the United States has no business, and U.S. membership in it is also constitutionally challengeable.

Had the State Department sought U.N. intrusion it would have been as guilty as the 13 congressmen in surrendering U.S. sovereignty to a foreign entity. Even its solution to apparently appease Johnson and her colleagues is questionable.

According to Worldnetdaily in a 7/21/04 story on the internet election officials in Florida say the European organization will not be ‘’allowed access to the voting booths. If so, Florida election officials have finally done something right. We’ll see.

The State Department reply to Johnson never mentioned anything about contacting the United Nations, which she and the other representatives asked to ‘’monitor’’ the election.

Now let’s get ‘’monitor’’ straight. The Synonym Finder by J. I. Rodell includes reprimander, admonisher, overseer, cautioner and warner among synonyms for monitor. That’s a little different from simply observing.

Do we need our sovereignty compromised by the U.N. intruding into our elections and reprimanding or admonishing us for any miscues? Rep. Steven Buyer (R.-Ind.) has introduced an amendment opposing U.N. participation. Several other congressmen also have complained.

Too bad some lawmaker hasn’t had the guts to call for impeachment. That won’t happen because Eddie Bernice would undoubtedly play the race card, and politicians are wary of that, even though race has nothing to do with it. The issue is sovereignty and the representatives’ obligation to uphold it.

OATH

‘’I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; …I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same:…’’ goes the key part of the oath or affirmation for office that anyone seated in Congress must take.

The question is: How can a person that takes that oath and lobby to denude U.S. sovereignty by giving oversight election supervision to a corrupt outside foreign organization like the U.N.?

‘’Imagine going to your polling place on the morning of November 2 and seeing blue-helmeted foreigners inside your local library, school or first station,’’ Rep. Buyer said.

Larry Klayman, founder of Judicial Watch who is running for the Senate in Florida, charges ‘’the U.N. is a direct threat to U.S. sovereignty.’’ It obviously wants world domination and holds that its treaties (and courts) override the constitutions of nation states. Klayman wants the U.S. to withdraw from the U.N. as does the Republican Party of Texas and some others.

Our participation in the U.N. is constitutionally questionable. The 1945 U.N. Participation Act has never been challenged in the courts. Opponents still claim the Senate illegally ratified it as a treaty.

It certainly conflicts with our Constitution which all Congressmen swear to protect. Even the entry of the Supreme Court into the 2000 Florida presidential election has been challenged as unconstitutional by some scholars.

The Senate approved the U.N. Charter after only six days of debate compared with 90 days and the rejection of Woodrow Wilson’s League of Nations proposal.

Other foreign entities such as the World Trade Organization, NAFTA, the European Union (Microsoft case), and the U.N.’s International Criminal Court are also encroaching on our sovereignty. The ICC claims jurisdiction over every person in the world.

In addition, some of our Supreme Court justices are openly deciding cases on the basis of overseas courts instead of our own Constitution.

The U.N. is trying to control the wealth of the ocean floors, regulate American corporations, police internet trade rules, foist alien values on American citizens, control our military and claim jurisdiction over us.

Most U.N. members usually vote against U.S. interests. We surely don’t need an organization that has allowed rogue nations like Cuba and Syria to chair its Human Rights Commission looking into human rights violations in the United States.

It is surprising that Kofi Annan turned down the request of the U.S. lawmakers because as Samuel P. Huntington points out in his book, Who Are We? Annan believes that national sovereignty ought to give way to individual sovereignty. Huntington adds:

‘’This principle provides a basis for the United Nations to intervene militarily or otherwise in the domestic affairs of states, a practice explicitly prohibited by the United Nations Charter.’’

Yet Klayman points to a presidential directive (PDD-25) that he says was drafted by the U.N. and signed by former President Clinton that says U.S. soldiers ‘’can be placed under United Nations auspices against their will.’’ (another reason why the Senate should have voted Clinton out of office) At least one soldier has been court-martialed for refusing to wear the U.N. insignia.

VIOLATIONS

Yes, there were election violations in the last presidential election, especially in Florida. They have been detailed in several books, and some investigations have been conducted. You can believe the integrity of the results or not.

There is no question that there should be more oversight in the upcoming election to see that no voter’s rights are violated and that every vote is counted. It’s appalling that we can’t have fair elections in this country, but we have experienced unfair ones several times. Lyndon Johnson’s first senatorial election in Texas, which, arguably, propelled him ultimately to the White House; John Kennedy’s win in Chicago (compliments of Mayor Daley) and the Florida mess are major examples.

Policing elections can be done by state courts, official election organizations or by a non-partisan group appointed by Congress. We don’t need unconstitutional foreign intrusion into our election process that is outlined in the Constitution. Lawmakers should not place any court, document or entity above the Constitution.

EDDIE’S SKELETONS

Speaking of oversight, Ms. Johnson is not without skeletons in her closet. It is ironical that while she ignores the Constitution in calling for foreign intrusion into our election process, she invokes it in her questionable hiring and firing practices.

According to a story (4/11/04) by Todd J. Gillman in The Dallas Morning News she ducked work place discrimination charges by invoking a little-used constitutional clause. It says lawmakers can’t be sued for actions related to official ‘’speech and debate.’’

Gillman also quoted a former administrative assistant of Johnson’s as publicly accusing her of making her aides perform domestic chores, which she denied.

According to ‘Gillman, Rep. Christopher Shays (R.-Conn.) said it was ‘’shocking’’ that Johnson invoked ‘’speech debate’’ to duck workplace discrimination laws.

It’s even more shocking that she and her 12 other colleagues ducked the Constitution which they swore to uphold. The others are:

Julia Carson, Indiana, Jerrold Nadler, Edolphus Towns, Joseph Crowley and Carolyn B. Maloney, all of New York, Raul Grijalva, Arizona, Corrine Brown, Florida, Elijah E. Cummings, Maryland, Danny K. Davis, Illinois, and Michael M. Honda and Barbara Lee of California, William Lacy Clay, Missouri.

Top

An Essay
By Richard C. Sizemore

Members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence could have a field day if they wanted to get serious about looking into the clouded past of CIA nominee Porter Goss. That is, if a former naval intelligence officer’s charges are credible.

For openers, Lt. Commander Al Martin wrote in The Conspirators: Secrets of an Iran-Contra Insider that ‘’Goss was secretly reprimanded and fined $365,000 by the House Ethics Committee…’’ He adds that nobody who has ever tried has been able to get documentation about it. Maybe the committee can.

Martin, who refers to him as the ‘’infamous/sinister’’ Porter Goss, stated he ‘’made millions…through the Destin Country Club Development Group (in Florida), ‘’ and in Iran-Contra deals as well as the Harken Energy scam in which President Bush was accused of insider stock trading.

Even the main stream press concedes Goss is one of the wealthiest members of Congress, with assets of between $6- and $24 million last year, according to AP’s My Way News. It reported he has large holdings in IBM, Wal-Mart Stores and GE, but it did not say where he made the investment money.

Martin also has a web site www.almatrinraw.com. On 6/21/04 he wrote a scathing indictment of Goss who he charged was ‘’forced out’’ as a CIA agent. ‘’

The main line press reports a mysterious infection forced Goss’ retirement
From the CIA to an island in Florida near Fort Myers that was later incorporated as Sanibel by Goss and two other CIA retirees.

Goss was elected to the City Council and later to Congress where he has served since 1989. He has a long association with the Bush family, according to Martin.

LITTLE PRESS ATTENTION

The mainline press has given little attention, if any, to Martin’s expose although a reputable historian, the late Antony Sutton, commended Martin for naming names and dotting the eyes about Iran-Contra – ‘’from Janet Reno to Oliver North to the Bush family, drug smuggling, real estate fraud, weapons smuggling – all in the name of the United States government.’’

This book can be purchased from Barnes & Nobel and was published by National Liberty Press, LLC., Pray, Mont.

In his book, Martin said he was in on several fraud deals with Jeb Bush and that the whole Bush clan was knee deep in fraud deals connected with Iran-Contra government insiders. He wrote ‘’Jeb kept letting…Goss into all of his deals’’ (including) crossover transactions that he had with his brother, Neil…’’

If Martin’s claims have credibility then why hasn’t the mainline press reviewed the book and asked the parties charged to verify or disclaim the allegations? Some of the stuff may be too hot too investigate and perilous to life. Martin himself wrote that he is in hiding because, he claims, at least 400 people who knew too much have already been sent to untimely deaths and another 1200 were jailed for what they knew about Iran-Contra. (for more see the column ‘’Is and Was’’ on this site for 9/31/02)

Most of the parties charged by Martin in his book, including Goss, hold or have held high government positions and can be asked about it by concerned government officials or by interested reporters. Apparently, the former choose to ignore Martin’s book, and the press doesn’t do anything about it.

Where are the big shot investigative, high-profile Washington reporters when we need them? Since they are silent, members of the Intelligence Committee have the opportunity to question Goff and call others that Martin names.

CONFIRMATION PREDICTED

But The NewYork Times reported in a 8/12/04 story that Democrats it surveyed said they would not oppose Goss. Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Ks.), chairman of the Intelligence Committee, predicted Goss would be confirmed. John Kerry has said he would not make the nomination a campaign issue.

The ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee – Rep. Jane Harman (Calif.) – has warned Senate Democrats not to try to block Goss’ nomination. Since the Senate confirms or rejects presidential nominees, Harman, of course, has no vote.

But, she said on NBC’s Meet the Press, ‘’to get stuck in a fight about Porter Goss…is not where we ought to be this fall. Does that mean she would have Democrats be more interested in their own welfare than that of the country by not cleaning up the mess at CIA?

The people deserve better, and the tough questions should be asked to find out which shoe fits where.

Democrats don’t want to be painted as obstructionists for delaying the war
on terror by rejecting Goss or delaying his confirmation. They remember 2002 when their opposition to a Homeland Security proposal cast them as being opposed to the nation’s protection and cost them at the polls.

But politics should become secondary and the nation’s interest first at a time when the inept and dysfunctional CIA drastically needs overhauling.

With Goss’ appointment, President Bush stands to give the impression of acting swiftly on the 9/11 Commission’s recommendations. He also may get some help in the close Florida vote, and if he is defeated for re-election, he will have an inside CIA man should there be snooping into the two Bush administrations.

CRONIES AND REHABS

Bush is good at naming old cronies and ‘’cabal’’ members to his administration from the Reagan-Bush I days, and Goss is another one of them. Bush has even rehabilitated a couple of former players by slipping them quietly into the mix.

These two are Robert C. McFarlane and Adm. John M. Poindexter who were assigned to the State and Defense Departments, respectively. Both were former national security advisers in the Reagan Administration and both were convicted in the Iran-Contra scandal. Bush I pardoned McFarlane, and Poindexter got off on a technicality for having been given Congressional immunity for testifying.

Poindexter later drew heat in his Pentagon post for his part in developing an electronic spy surveillance network. He resigned.

Others brought back from Reagan-Bush I days include Vice President Dick Cheney, of course, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice, national security adviser, Secretary of State Colin Powell and his deputy, Richard Armitage.

Every member of the committee should read Martin’s book before the hearings begin. With access to the library of Congress nearby, they have no excuse not to. They also should read the column Martin wrote about Goss, which I have referred to. Then they can decide for themselves whether Martin has credibility, as Dr. Sutton and others have attested.

For those senators in a hurry I refer you to pages 40,135,146,190 and 305 for references about Goss. But for the whole story and all the names of those involved and their alleged misdeeds, read the entire book.

Let’s hope that some senators with integrity show up for the hearings and put national security ahead of politics in approving or rejecting Goss to head the CIA. But don’t count on it.

.

Top

An Essay
By Richard C. Sizemore

Despite faulty intelligence and clueless so-called diplomats, the brave men and women of U.S. armed forces did something for Iraq’s people and Iran’s militant rulers that they could never have done for themselves. They deposed Saddam Hussein, the Iraqi tyrant.

But America is now engaged in a different war in Iraq from the one it started out with, and the winner, still to be determined, will either be the United States or Iran. U.S. diplomats apparently never foresaw this.

Iran, which has humiliated America several times, lost no time in taking advantage of Hussein’s defeat by funding, inciting and recruiting militant Islamists to try and make Iraq ungovernable. It wants us out so it can establish an Islamist regime and become king of the Islamic hill.

Iran has given sanctuary to Osama bin Laden and his ranking members in al-Qaeda; incited the militant Shiites, Sunnis, Kurds and Turkman in Iraq that Hussein kept in check and supported terrorist attacks to oust any U.S.-sponsored government in Iraq. It also has recruited and supported al-Qaeda’s entry into the Iraqi fighting.

Iranian President Mohammad Khatami said on 8/23/04 ‘’We have never taken sides in favor or against any group or faction in Iraq.’’ Anyone who believes that should see me about a cheap ocean-front lot for sale in Arkansas.

Belatedly, our myopic policy-makers got the picture of what was happening, and the administration hawks including Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld wanted to go after Iran, dubbed a part of the axis of evil by President Bush. But the administration changed policy in the middle of the stream from aggressive to not expanding the conflict, and even appeasement of terrorists.

The reason: Bush thought it would help his re-election chances by not expanding the conflict. So, the quagmire in Iraq continues, and the terrorists resume their attacks with more determination. The latest tactics are kidnappings and beheadings to incite fear and withdrawal of coalition forces. Iran rubs our noses in it again by flaunting its nuclear arms and vowing not to give them up and to rid Iraq of American influence.

It now claims it has a missile that can strike Israel and U.S. interests in the Middle East, and it has also adopted a policy of pre-emption if it feels threatened by Israel or the United States.

In short, U.S. forces ousted Hussein, but the outcome of the war is still to be decided. We are now fighting a different war that involves all of Islam led and funded by Iran.

President Bush said on July 19 that ‘’we’re digging into the facts to determine if there was’’ a connection between Iran had a role in the 9/11/01 attacks in New York. The President’s remarks coincided with the 9/11 Commission’s report that it had uncovered evidence that many of the 9/11 hijackers had traveled through Iran from Afghanistan.

Remember what Yossef Bodansky wrote in his book, bin Laden, the Man who Declared War on America: ‘’Virtually all major and spectacular terrorist strikes are state sponsored…’’ He implies Iran, and possibly Iraq, were both involved in 9-11 in some capacity.

Does anyone read this guy? In his new book he gives more information and blame for our ignorant intelligence and policy than the 9-11 Commission does. After all, he is a military analyst and former consultant to Congress and the Defense Department. Why is he apparently overlooked by people trying to get to the bottom of 9-11 and the machinations of Saddam Hussein?

U.S. policy makers could have learned a lot about Islam, and maybe avoided some of the Iraqi pitfalls, had they read this book. If they did read it, they evidently ignored it. Bodansky apparently would make a good candidate to head the CIA and get some people on the ground instead of relying almost solely on technology and faulty information.

Although expanding operations in the Middle East are now apparently on hold in favor of diplomacy, there are reports surfacing that the United States might seek a regime change in Iran if Bush is re-elected. But the tactics would not involve invasion of the rogue nation but rather assistance to Iran’s anti-theocracy population, so the stories go.

Hossein Mussai Khomeni, a theological scholar and grandson of the Grand Ayatollah Kohemeni, is among the group opposing the present Iranian regime, but he had better beware because terrorists, believed to be sponsored by Iran, killed a theological acquaintance who shared the same sentiments, Bodansky relates.

There also are printed reports that Israel is ready to attack Iran’s nuclear power facilities if Russia supplies rods for enriching uranium. The United States, so the reports infer, would not restrain Israel as it has in the past with its questionable Oslo Accords and Bush’s new Road Map strategy for peace with the Palestinians, which largely restrained Israel, supported Yasser Arafat, and accomplished nothing.

One day U.S. diplomats may wake up to the fact that the Palestinian militants won’t settle for peace until Israel is removed from what they consider their land. They should know after more than a trillion dollars spent and thousands of lives lost with no end in sight that these Mickey Mouse plans aren’t working and never have.

Planting Israel in Palestine, with Harry Truman’s political support, was a mistake from the start and has caused nothing but trouble since. The United States should either support Israel all the way and unleash its military for all-out war with the Islamists, or help Israel form a nation somewhere else and get out of the Middle East.

After all other sites were proposed for a Jewish state at one time or another and included Argentina, Uganda and Madagascar. But most Jews wanted the so-call ‘’Promised Land.’’ As Paul Johnson in A History of the Jews points out …’’the Israeli state ended with 80 per cent of Palestine and (other) frontiers…The Palestinian Arabs ended with no state all: just the Gaza Strip, and the West Bank run by Jordan.’’

And therein lay the trouble that has continued to escalate to this day with no end in site. Johnson makes the case that had Roosevelt lived, Israel may not have come into being. He adds: ‘’Neither the American State Department nor the British Foreign office wanted a Jewish state. They foresaw disaster for the West in the area if one were created.’’ How right they were.

Obviously, Israel pulling up stakes will never happen. The United States is in the Middle East to stay. It is dependent on oil, and the competition for it with China and India is making it more costly. This oil dependency is also taking away an economic cudgel the U.S. might use against Iran – blowing up its oil facilities and disrupting its economy to bring it to heel.

With oil shortages and depression of the U.S. economy clearly a threat, it is an enigma that no crash programs are in the work for alternate fuels or for conservation, even though demand grows and supplies shrink.

It also is incredible that the war in Iraq is being fought on a business- as-usual basis at home, without a national emergency declared or the nation put on a war footing. Lyndon Johnson tried that in the Vietnam War, and the nation paid dearly for the blunder.

ISRAEL A LOSER

In the long run it appears that Israel will be a loser, especially if the United States ever withdraws its support, which is unlikely. But if it survives, it will surely live in a state of war as it has done since its creation. But the odds of winning will probably decrease, and increased terrorism is almost assured.

That’s because the Islamist’s who hate Israel are gaining strength in weapons, resources (oil money) and unity. In the weapons category, The Daily Star in a copyrighted internet story 7/27/04 reported that Israeli military intelligence warned that Hizbullah has developed rockets with ranges of up to 205 kilometers (about 230 miles) capable of reaching Tel Aviv from Southern Lebanon.

In his latest book The Secret History of the Iraq War, Yossef Bodansky reports that in 1996 German intelligence presented America and its allies with material showing that Iraq had developed a cheap, unmanned aircraft with a range of 700 kilometers (1,126 miles) that could threaten European cities as well as the U.S. Atlantic Coast and presumably Israel.

The drone is made of plastic and plywood and is equipped with an accurate navigation system. It can carry 30 to 40 kilograms of biological or chemical material, and it is almost impossible to detect because of its size, slow speed and lack of metal parts.

Then there is Iran and its clandestine nuclear weapons program, which the State Department now acknowledges. The U.S. is trying to form an alliance against Iran’s nuclear program and using diplomacy as its first step. Iran, as noted, has rejected these efforts and adopted a policy of belligerency.

These weapon advancements are cited to illustrate that the militant Islamist nations are gaining in their ability to conduct war against their arch enemy. Atomic weapons are now available to just about any nation or terrorist group with the money to buy them.

Israel has won every engagement with the Arab nations so far, but it can lose only once while the Arabs have been able to lick their wounds and come back again.

Israel’s welfare is closely tied to the outcome of the bogged down war in Iraq.

Here’s a scenario offered by Bodansky if the United States fails in Iraq and is forced to withdraw ignominiously: Shiites will take over Baghdad, and ‘’for the first time since the 6th Century, B. C., the Persians will control the Mediterranean coast and the bulk of the Persian Gulf.’’ It also would dominate virtually all the oil and gas resources of the Middle East.

That would indicate that the United States has no option but to fight a war to the death with all of Islam. Its chances of withdrawing from Iraq and saving face or some semblance of victory do not appear bright at this point. Terrorism is escalating, and all of Islam seems to be united in hating America and any government supported by it in Iraq.

The Bush team made a blunder by invading in Iraq on the basis of faulty intelligence and policy-making decisions, or as a vendetta against Saddam Hussein. It gave priority to deposing Hussein and trying to foist democracy on Iraqi’s rather than pursuing regional stability.

Still, if it should beat the odds and win in Iraq and establish a pro-Western regime, the region in Tehran will be stifled and soon collapse, Bodansky predicts. Let us pray that happens and that his prediction is on the mark.

Top

An Essay
By Richard C. Sizemore

Even if the United States could have proved Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction (WMD), and it probably could have on at least a couple of occasions, invading Iraq was obviously not a sound decision.

U.S policy-makers in the Bush Administration may call that hindsight, but they are paid to have foresight, which they patently were lacking.

Hussein was not an immediate threat to the United States. If overall conditions in the Middle East had been known and considered by the Bush Administration, the rational conclusion should have been the status quo. There wereother problems in the Middle East not to mention North Korea and China.

Incidentally, Jane’s Defense Weekly has reported, according to Reuters, that North Korea is deploying nuclear missiles that may have range enough to strike the United States. This is another reason the Bush Administration should not have gotten bogged down in a land war in the Middle East.

It is evident that U.S. policy-makers didn’t understand Islam or the different ethnic groups in Iraq, and had skewed ideas about the occupation’s outcome. They did not give enough attention to regional stability.

Arguably, Iran was more of a threat than Iraq, even though Hussein had WMD’s, despite the 9/11 Commission’s report bent on getting unanimous approval with no political toes stepped upon. Iran also was and is pursuing atomic weapons. Its defense ministry also said it has tested a medium-range ballistic missile that can reach Israel, according to Reuters.

As a result of invading Iraq, the United States is now engaged in a total war with all of Islam and bogged down there in a costly adventure that appears even more difficult to extricate our troops from than was the case in Vietnam. The question of a Bush family vendetta cannot be overlooked considering the administration’s fixation on deposing Hussein at all costs.

Yossef Bodansky in his The Secret History of the Iraq War notes that Iraq was a secular nation under Saddam and had eradicated fundamentalist movements. But he pointed out that the United States by defeating Hussein freed Iraqi fundamentalism, both Shiite and Sunni, who, along the Kurds, al-Qaeda and militant Islamist from throughout the Middle East, are now fighting U.S. occupation forces.

Once unleashed after Hussein was deposed, these ethnic groups in Iraq turned out to hate us worse than him. But our so-called intellectual diplomats were completely oblivious to the fact that this could happen.

The so-call ‘’Vulcans,’’ running U.S. foreign policy for the Bush Administration, failed to recognize the grass-roots hatred of Americans by these fundamentalists who were set free and encouraged and financed by Iran to terrorize U.S. troops.

They have now been joined by Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda and militants from other Islamic nations supported by Iran and Syria.

FOREIGN POLICY CHANGE

In his book The Rise of the Vulcans, James Mann notes that these advisers who included Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Colin Powell and his deputy, Richard Armitage, changed U.S. foreign policy from containment to aggression, pre-emption, and unmatchable power for world domination.

Breaking with the cold war containment strategy, Mann wrote, the Vulcans sought a more confrontational approach. They espoused democracy for the Middle East and political transformation of the entire region.

Incidentally, the name Vulcan comes from the Roman god of fire and Rice’s home in the steel city of Birmingham, Mann noted.

The Vulcan’s knowledge of conditions in Iraq was just as flawed as U.S. intelligence was about WMD’s, and Bodansky even goes so far as to use the word ‘’ignorant’’ to describe U.S. intelligence. U.S. policy-makers misjudged the fighting capabilities of the Iraqi military, the hostility toward U.S. soldiers and the difficulties of establishing a new government in Iraq, he charged.

They painted a rosy picture of Iraqis rushing to greet U.S. armed liberators and joining them happily in setting up a democracy to replace the Hussein regime.

Examples quoted by Bodansky: Wolfowitz said ‘’An explosion of joy will greet our soldiers.’’ Richard Perle, Pentagon adviser who resigned under pressure for his business dealings, ‘’I think Saddam’s army will defeat Saddam.’’ And Rumsfeld argued‘’A hated regime could be removed without waging war on an entire country.’’

Should some heads should roll here? George Tenet was allowed to retire with pension and more respectability than he deserved, but nobody else has been held accountable. Tenet should have been ridden out of Washington on a rail. Perle should never be given a job in Washington, and Wolfowitz should be fired. Armitage has a shady past dating back to the Iran-Contra affair, according to Navy Lt. Commander Al Martin who wrote The Conspirators. Martin alleges he acted with the CIA ‘’to authorize narcotics trafficking.’’

Condolezza Rice should be reduced to teaching piano for several reasons. Rice, whose sponsor was the Council on Foreign Relations, should be held accountable for her role in formulating the obviously flawed Vulcan policies. Any expertise she has isn’t showing in foreign policy gains so far.

Dick Cheney has earned a pink slip, but he won’t get it unless voters reject Bush in November. Cheney is carrying too much baggage to be useful, if he ever was, to the country. Rumsfeld, who historical novelist Gore Vidal refers to as a ‘’stand up comic,’’ is a borderline case. Powell should stay, even if he has a little taint of nepotism.

If it weren’t for the alternative of Kerry and Co, Bush should be included. His administration has surely fowled up big time in Iraq. But Kerry and the Democratic incompetents present a dismal prospect for change.

The nation desperately needs viable presidential candidates, men of stature and principle. The voters don’t have much of a choice.

Tenet, a Clinton appointment, has spent several appearances before Congress defending the CIA, and Bush has spent about as much time defending Tenet. Bush also had defended Rumsfeld and Rice. He has now replaced Tenet with Porter Goss, former CIA agent with a closet full of skeletons. Some Democrats charge the choice was made by Bush for political reasons, but Goss is expected to be approved anyhow. (see Questioning Goss on this site 8/20/04).

NEGOTIATING WITH TERRORISTS

Contrary to Bush’s declaration that we would never negotiate with terrorists, U.S. leaders in Iraq did just that, according to Bodansky. The United States ‘’…reached a cease fire accord with the Mujahedin ul-Khalq in Iraq—a cult-like Iranian opposition group controlled by Iraqi intelligence and officially considered a terrorist organization by the United States.’’

The 4,000 terrorists were allowed to keep their weapons including tanks and artillery under certain conditions.

The administration also reached a truce with Moqtada al-Sadr, who led the insurrection at Fallujah supported by Iran. He was granted a truce, which was better treatment than he deserved, and later violated the truce and demonstrated again that deals can’t be struck with terrorists. Al-Sadr is sponsored by Iran. He is vacillating about surrendering and vacating from sacred shrines in Najaf at this writing. Iran denies it is supporting him.

Several military experts have complained that Rumsfeld sent the troops in without adequate ground combat capability that they moved ahead of their supply lines and were short of basic needs.

Gen. Tommy Franks, who commanded the troops, said in his new book, American Soldier, that several concepts of the war projected a maximum of 250,000 troops would be needed instead of he 170,000 deployed. He also complained about faulty intelligence, and said he believes that Iraq had WMD’s and that he was surprised they were not used.

Syria, not mentioned as a member of the axis of evil, has been in collusion with Iran and Hussein forces in Iraq and also has harbored terrorists and provided them sanctuary, funds and transportation to and from Iraq. It also accepted Iraq’s WDM’s and kept billions of Saddam’s money safe for military use.

Bush Administration investigators have now belatedly discovered that Hussein moved WMD’s into Syria before the invasion of Iraq, The Washington Times reported on 8/16/04.

One other member of the axis, North Korea, helped build undetectable underground facilities to help hide Saddam’s WMD’s, Bodansky reports. These facilities may one day be found, and the Bush Administration’s contention that Hussein had WMD’s corroborated. Don’t close the book on that, but, even so, the justification for war is still arguable, considering the overall picture.

WMD’S

Bodansky’s book is laced with references to WMD’s and Hussein’s threat to use them before he adopted a defensive rather than an offensive policy and shipped the weapons to Syria, Libya, and who knows where else? He cites two instances where the United States had an opportunity to expose Hussein’s possession of WMD’s to justify its support for invasion.

One, was in January, 2003, when the British raided a terrorist safe house in Manchester, England, and recovered ricin, which provided proof of cooperation between Iraqi military and intelligence and al-Qaeda. This showed the availability of operational weapons of mass destruction in Iraq as well as the fact that Iraq was training al-Qaeda terrorists in the use of chemical weapons.

But for political reasons, President Bush preferred to support Tony Bair’s pressure to keep Israel at arms length and not to implicate Yasser Arafat. Bodansky points out that the American public was never told about ‘’…one of the strongest and most explicit justifications for the war in Iraq.’’

So far, reports show no indication that the political and costly 9-11 Commission ever questioned Bodansky, although it concluded there was no direct connection between al-Qaeda and Iraq. Well, here’s the smoking gun. They should have called this military analyst and Congressional adviser to testify. He appears to have more information than they do without political inhibitions or aspirations.

The other incident occurred during a parade in Baghdad about a year before the war started when Hussein displayed his arsenal in a parade. ‘’There is no doubt the missing weapons systems existed…’’ wrote Bodansky. He blames the American intelligence agencies for incompetence in not discovering the weapons – both conventional and WMD – before they were hidden. They were on display for our intelligence, if we had any, to record.

Gen. Tommy Franks also relates in his new book American Soldier that Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak and Jordan’s King Abdullah and other Mideast leaders said Saddam Hussein possessed WMD’s a couple of months before America attacked Iraq.

There also was cooperation between Iran, al-Qaeda and Hussein. In the mid-1990’s, as an example, bin Laden sent Aymon al-Zawahiri, his second in command, to Iraq to discuss establishing training bases, Bodansky related in his first book printed before 9-11.

A fatwa also was issued by a Tehran-sponsored group that provided the legal and theological justification for Islamist cooperation with Hussein, even though he had fought both Iran and Iraqi Islamists. The fight against foreigners was more important than Hussein’s misdeeds and deserved cooperation with him, the fatwa explained.

To rule out cooperation between al-Qaeda and Hussein without a smoking gun or written confession doesn’t satisfy the old adage ‘’Where there’s smoke there’s fire.’’ There was plenty of smoke, and the conventional belief of deep hatred between them isn’t anchored in concrete.

There are even reports surfacing now that Hussein gave financial support to bin Laden from the $10 billion he skimmed from the U.N.’s oil-for-food program. The reports note that bin Laden was about bankrupt after he was kicked out of Sudan and most of his assets confiscated.

As for the 9-11 Commission’s report of not having specific evidence for Iranian involvement in the preparations for the 9-11 assault, Bodansky claims that is simply official Washington’s ‘’favorite excuse for not facing reality and not doing anything.’’ He wrote that for SMCCDI: daneshjoo.org on 7/26/04.

‘’The intelligence services of terrorism sponsoring states are the sole known providers of such know-how’’ as the precision attack of 9-11 and other strikes, Bodansky claims. He advocates U.S. confrontation of the entire question of Iran’s terrorism sponsorship.

LEVEL THE FIELD

If the United States is forced with no alternative but to fight all of Islam to prevent Iran from taking over all the Middle East and its oil reserves, which it feared Hussein would do, then it should level the playing field of war.

The Islamists in Iraq hide behind their mosques, women and children and sacred sites and icons to take advantage of U.S. troops. Yet they cry foul and when U.S. troops attack them in these locals or inadvertently kill civilians, although they feel free to do so while shooting at Americans. They showed little regard for innocent people on 9//11/01.

Their Imams preach hatred from the mosques throughout Islam and incite their subjects to war against the invader in the name of Allah. They issue fatwas sanctioning killing and beheading under Islamic law.

In addition, Islamic radicals in Iraq, long repressed under Hussein, are now targeting the country’s minority Christians and car-bombing worshipers. In August, 2004, as an example, about a dozen were killed and many injured.

Instead of trying to pacify and placate these terrorists, the United States should declare that all mosques be open for inspection for arms or sanctuary for militants. Those that refuse should be open to attack if circumstances require it.

Another suggestion would be to arrest all Imams preaching hatred from their mosques and reserve the right to monitor services. Inciting the mobs should not be a concern since the Imams are already doing that. Terrorists should not be shielded just because some Imam issues a fatwa sanctioning brutal killings in the name of Allah. Apparently, al-Qaeda can always find an Imam somewhere to issue a fatwa making whatever they want to do legitimate and holy.

CLINTON LEGACY

The failures of the Clinton Administration’s intelligence and indecisive policies range from his anemic wag-the-dog bombings during his Lewinsky affair to the, as David N. Bossie put it in his book on Clinton’s intelligence failures, ’’denigration of…the U.S. military and intelligence services (that) exposed America to (several) terrorist assaults’’ that led to 9/11.

Consider what happened on Clinton’s watch and it seems clear why Sandy Berger stuffed his socks and pants with classified material:

The first World Trade Center bombing; the Murrah Federal Building blast (only Tim and Terry, McVeigh and Nichols, respectively, were involved but never, never any Iraqi militants that reporter Jayna Davis bravely and painstakingly proved; the shooting down of TWA Flight 800 (it was mechanical failure, stupid, not a flying bomb); the Khobar Towers blast in 1996; attacks on two U.S. embassies in East Africa in 1998, and the USS Cole blast in 2000.

Now, with all this going on it would seem the Clinton Administration would have gotten the message that there were terrorists involved. Bossie chalks up the 9-11 attack as Clinton’s legacy.

Bodansky points out that under the Clinton Administration there was near total disengagement from covert operations inside Iraq. That’s one reason U.S. intelligence was so bad during the war. So, we definitely don’t need the Clinton crowd in again.

U.S. troops as well as civilians have paid the price for these unnecessary mistakes from both administrations. It tempts one to say a curse on both your houses.

But there is only a choice between Bush and Kerry so, let’s drop the latter and hope the former drops some of the Vulcans, if voters don’t drop him first.

Top

An Essay
By Richard C. Sizemore

The nuclear threat is back, and it is even more critical than the one the United States faced during the cold war with Russia.

This time instead of worrying about one single nation with rational leaders (except for Stalin) who recognized a destructive end if the weapons were used, we now have 35 or 40 countries either in possession of or know how to build an atomic weapon.

The leaders of some of these nations and rouge groups like Osama bin Laden’s al Qaeda and off-shoot regional groups are fanatics who have acquired the weapons for use and not for protection or for a chip to use in diplomatic negotiations. As one wit aptly put it ‘’We have nuts with nukes.’’

Some of the weapons also are different and include dirty, small, portable bombs that can be smuggled into our porous borders. Some may even be smuggled aboard airplanes and assembled on board. Some of hese small bombs don’t have to be delivered by complex missiles and guidance systems as was the case in the cold war or in a possible future major nuclear conflict between nations.

There are, of course, other threats from chemical and biological weapons by the terrorists and rogue nations, but the proliferation of nuclear weapons through the black market is spreading like a prairie wild fire.. Experts are in a quandary about how to stop it, if indeed it is possible to do so. Two plans have been offered, one by President Bush that is probably as unworkable as the treaty already in existence. The other is by a United Nations nuclear expert that would cost us our sovereignty and let the corrupt U. N. handle global nuclear security.

One thing experts are sure of, however, is that the 1970 treaty that restricted nuclear arms to five nations – The United States, Britain, France, the Soviet Union and China – is obsolete. Dr. ELBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) of the United Nations, calls for revision of that treaty. ‘’We must abandon the traditional approach of defining security in terms of boundaries,’’ wrote ELBaradei for The New York Times.

ELBaradei wants any facilities that can manufacture fissile material to be placed under multinational control. President Bush’s proposal didn’t go that far. Had he done so it would have renewed the argument of why the original five nations are allowed to posses nuclear weapons while others are not.

In the story written for the Times (2/12/04), ELBaradei said if stronger measures are not used by the international community ‘’We risk self-destruction.’’ He called for universalizing the export control system and enacting binding, treaty-based controls while preserving the rights of all states to peaceful nuclear technology. He also advocated power for IAEA to conduct inspections in all countries.

Both plans by President Bush and ELBaradei would criminalize the acts of people who seek to assist others in nuclear proliferation.

ELBaradei noted that fewer than 20 percent of the 191 United Nations members have approved a protocol that would allow broader inspection rights. He emphasized that the present treaty allows any member to withdraw from it on three month’s notice. North Korea, for example, has already done so, Iran appears ready to, and India is having second thought about signing the nuclear agreement.

Unless action is taken, ELBaradei predicted the black market supply network will grow and ‘’eventually, inevitable, terrorists will gain access to such materials and technology, if not actual weapons.’’

PAKISTAN AND BLACK MARKET

The machinations of Abdul Qadeen Khan, so-called father of Pakistan’s nuclear bomb, and his selling of plans to help build the bomb to rogue nations has been well documented in world headline news. His clients included Iran, North Korea and Libya and who knows who else?

The black market extends to Malaysia and Europe. Khan is known to have had connections to a uranium enrichment plant in The Netherlands and was even convicted by a Dutch court in absentia on charges of stealing designs. A German firm also is involved in the scheme.

And when it comes to nuclear proliferation, the United States and Russia were in the business first during the cold war. The United States supplied China, either directly or indirectly as a buffer against Russia, and Russia supplied India and other of its former USSR states before the Soviet break-up.

No one knows for sure how many nuclear or rogue groups Khan, the religious fanatic, sold nuclear weapons or know-how to. In addition to the countries mentioned Syria and Egypt are on the suspect list. Syria also harbored nuclear technicians from Iraq and is reported to be seeking a deal to get them into Iran in exchange for nuclear technology.

Iran claims its nuclear activity is for peaceful purposes, although its need for peaceful nuclear power is suspect. And former CIA Director George Tenet noted in congressional testimony; ’The difference between producing low-enriched uranium and weapons-capable high-enriched uranium is only a matter of time and intent, not technology.’’ It would be difficult for intelligence officials to ‘‘confidently assess whether this red line has been crossed,’’ he added.

It is ironic that the nuclear proliferation started in the United States where the first bomb was fashioned and used. Faulty diplomacy and lax security are to blame for the proliferation from the start. U.S. so-called diplomats always seem eager to give away technology to advance their position.

As an example, even before the United States has developed an operational defense missile system, it is is forming a network that eventually will require the sharing of critical information and coordination among nation members that might include Japan, Taiwan, Australia and India and possibly others. The U.S. government also is reported to be exploring the possibility of having Russia supply radar
to use with the missile defense system. Yet, staying far ahead of all countries in arms and technology is one of President Bush’s critical goals.

Taxpayers, of course, pick up the tab for diplomatic mistakes. They paid for the original weapons that our leaders at the CIA, State and Commerce Departments and CFR (Council on Foreign Relations) experts, who have infiltrated the government, let go one way or the other to other countries.

IRAN

Sen. John Kerry’s would supply Iran with nuclear fuel. The Bush Administration is even reported to be considering changing its hard stance and entertaining a similar proposal supported by European countries. Recall that the Clinton Administration supplied North Korea with nuclear material and look what happened.

An AP dispatch on 9/12/04 reported that Iran offered European governments assurances that it would never produce nuclear bombs in exchange for recognition of its right to enrich uranium.

The Europeans and Washington, so the story goes, are prepared to discuss a package of incentives for Iran that ‘’could include access to imported nuclear fuel. ’’The European diplomats emphasized the talks were at the initial stage. Let’s hope they never get past that stage.

In his excellent book, Islam and Terrorism, Mark A. Gabriel, Ph.d and former professor of Islamic
History at Al-Azhar University in Cairo, Egypt, tells us why. He emphasizes that the fundamentalist government in Iran is the main exporter of terrorism in the Middle East. It cannot be trusted.

That is why Saddam Hussein went to war with Iran. He did not want to share power with the fundamentalists. Even his pursuit of atomic weapons was in part to deter any invasion by Iran, according to Charles Duelfer, the CIA’s top weapons adviser.

Musmmar Quaddafi of Libya also opposed Iran’s fundamentalist movement that is hell-bent on world domination in the name of Islam.

Contrary to President Bush’s misleading statement that Islam is a peaceful religion, Dr. Gabriel points out that it is not. He notes that while Islam started out peaceful, it evolved into a militant doctrine to conquer the world by whatever means it takes including lies and deceit. The main difference between Islam and other religions is that Islam sanctions killing to promote the advancement of Islam, writes Dr. Gabriel.

Iran i has bragged that it has a missile with a 2,000km range that can reach Israel and U.S. bases in the Middle East. It also has taken steps to enrich uranium and stated it has a goal of attaining an atomic bomb by early 2005. Now it claims it may forego nuclear weapons for its right to enrich uranium to be recognized.

Iran has also exported terrorism to Iraq now that Hussein as been deposed. If it wins in Iraq and U.S. forces are forced to withdraw ignominiously, it will control the Middle East and all of its oil.

That is why pundits thought the Bush Administration would probably make a change in policy toward Iran if Bush won another term. They thought the policy would be to support the considerable pent up opposition to the present fanatic regime, rather than invasion.

There also is the possibility of either the United States or Israel striking the Iranian nuclear sites. It will not be as easy, however, as the strike made by Israel on Saddam Hussein’s facilities. That is because Iran has spread its locations out and also probably moved some of them underground.

And that is why the U.S. recently sold 500 ‘’bunker buster’’ bombs to Israel that have the capacity to penetrate any underground facilities.

Make no mistake about it, however. Iran is as great a threat as Saddam Hussein ever was. Dr. Gabriel emphasizes that Islam as practiced by Iran permits likes and deceit to promote world domination. And that is why Iran can’t be trusted in any nuclear deals.

KHAN EXPERTISE

Khan is a metallurgist and his expertise is in building centrifuges – hollow tubes made of sufficient hardness they can spin fast enough to separate fluid components. In this case enrich uranium for nuclear weapons production. Khan opened a global black market for nuclear weapons to rogue nations and militant groups.

Experts have been quoted as saying Pakistan’s bombs resemble designs that China tested and sold to Pakistan during the cold war. That was done with the blessing of the United States, according to Al Martin, a former naval intelligence officer who wrote The Conspirators. China sold nuclear weapons to Pakistan as a buffer to the Soviet Union and India, which was supplied with similar weapons by Russia, according to Martin.

Back then, Martin relates, it was called the Colby Doctrine of containing Soviet expansion by supporting anti-Soviet factions. Colby was former CIA Director William Colby, who died mysteriously in the Wicomico River in Maryland in 1996 after paddling off into it alone. He headed the CIA from 1973 to 1975. The CIA was involved in the Iran-Contra arms deals as well as in Pakistan and, you name it.

The buzzards of faulty U.S. diplomacy, security and greed are coming home to roost now. And -- since diplomacy and fiscal aid are not reliable as deterrents to prevent the spreading of nuclear arms -- that apparently leaves civil defense against small attacks and missile defense against large ones as the only options for public protection. The former is being ignored, and the latter is moving at a snails pace, and some experts insist it accelerates the arms race.

With so many lives and the future of Western Civilization at stake, we the people, who have long been ruled out of decision-making by the elite establishment, have a right to ask: How did we get in this mess? As stated, the spread of nuclear arms originated in the United States where the first atomic bomb was fashioned.

Spies such as Julius and Ethel Rosenberg and others gave a big boost to the Russian program. Our security was, as it mostly always is, inadequate. And make no doubt about it, Stalin who not only caught up but surpassed us in nuclear might at the time of his murder, was ready to nuke us. Stalin by Russian historian Edvard Radzinsky makes this point clear.

Spies were not the only contributors to nuclear proliferation, however. The elite foreign affairs boys in our policy-making departments that were and are saturated by the great thinkers in the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) also gave away our technology in balance of power and arms for profit deals. If we are ever nuked it may very well be because of some of these deals.

SOME BACKGROUND

The United States claims North Koreans obtained its nuclear capability from our dubious ally, Pakistan. But where did Pakistan get that original capability? From the United States originally via Israel and China that was provided thermonuclear weapons by the United States during the cold war with Russia, Martin points out..

Russia got friendly with India or vice versa, and the former USSR supplied India with nuclear weapons during the cold war. India is an enemy of Pakistan, and they feud over religious differences and a little area in North India called Kashmir. They are now trying to negotiate a peaceful solution. So, when India got nuke capability, the omniscient CFR and CIA gurus rushed to see that Pakistan got the same weapons.

Israel and South Africa along with China, with U.S. approval, helped Pakistan obtain its first nuclear weapons. Pakistan has since upgraded its arsenal and developed its own capability thanks to Khan and others. Why hasn’t President Bush applied harsher treatment toward Pakistan for its black market operation?

The reason, of course, is because the United States needs the help of Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf in its pursuit of al Qaeda and its operatives along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. The U.S. government and Pakistan have stepped up their efforts to track bin Laden.

The United States also has another reason for not leaning harder on Musharraf who pardoned Khan and let him keep his ill gotten gains after a public apology. Musharraf has stated unequivocally that Pakistan won’t give up its weapons. Neither will Iran. That leaves diplomacy and the offering of carrots (money and aid) as the methods for dealing with Musharraf.

The question of what would happen to the nuclear bomb if Musharraf were killed also is of concern to U.S. officials. There have already been several attempts on his life, and Muslin leaders have called for his hide. His demise would not only concern the bomb but also the United States in its efforts to track al Qaeda operatives.

That leads to the question of what we do with other rogue nations that take the same stance as Pakistan and Iran and North Korea. What happens to President Bush’s new seven-point plan if other nations don’t buy it? The treaty we have now that Bush does not want to re-negotiate is a gentlemen’s agreement and not binding on any nation that signed or didn’t sign it.

Bush’s seven-point plan calls for making it more difficult to sell nuclear equipment on the black market by limiting shipments of fissionable material to states that do not already have ‘’full-scale, functioning enrichment and reprocessing plants.’’

That clearly makes the nuclear programs of Iran and North Korea illegal, but how about Pakistan, Israel and India? Even Japan, Brazil, and some developed countries in Europe that have nuclear power plants may be suspect. Every nation, it seems, wants nuclear reactors. Bus as Tenet pointed out there is a fine line between low-enriched uranium and weapons grade uranium.

MONOPOLY EXTENDED

Bush’s program in effect extends the nuclear weapons monopoly to the original five states plus the others like Israel and Pakistan that we obviously don’t plan to do anything about. The other members of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) have long resented this monopoly.

The president appealed to the 40-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group that sells most of the nuclear technology to refuse to sell equipment to any country not already equipped to make nuclear fuel.

China, one of the five nations with approved nuclear capability, endorsed Bush’s policy, but Russia said it still plans to sign a deal to ship fuel for Iran’s power plant in defiance of United States pressure.

With the know-how to develop nuclear weapons becoming more widespread and some have-not nations like Iran, Saudi Arabia and others sitting on rich oil reserves plus the potential growth of other countries such as Brazil, Argentina and Venezuela, chances of keeping the spread of weapons in check are bleak.

It would help if we stopped giving away U.S. technology paid for dearly by U.S. taxpayers and clamped down on exports by U.S. arms merchants such as Hughes Electronics Corp., Boeing Satellite Systems and Loral Space & Communications Ltd.

President Bush has stated that U.S. policy is to stay so far ahead in technology and arms that no other nation can match us. We should be constantly aware that rogue nations and terrorists can cause an awful lot of casualties and ruin without matching us in technology as 9-11 proved.

Our diplomats also should remember the old adage about not playing with fire and, especially, NUKES!

Top

An Essay
By Richard C. Sizemore

President Bush consistently strives to drive home his point that America is safer and the world is better off now that Saddam Hussein has been deposed in Iraq. Is that so?

Conditions resulting from the war do not support his position. Let’s look at where we were and where we are.

Before the invasion of Iraq there was relative stability among Middle East nations, although some, and probably Iraq and surely Iran, were supporting terrorists. So was Iran, Syria and factions in Saudi Arabia. But Hussein posed no immediate threat to the United States with WMD’s as charged. He was in check, and U.S. and British planes were flying over his territory and looking down his windpipe every day.

Sanctions were in place, although they were being violated by the corrupt United Nations, Hussein himself, and other nations such as Russia and France. The sanctions clearly were not working and needed to be corrected and strengthened.

The United States could have campaigned for cleaning up this mess by publicizing the corruption and demanding the oil for food program, which it supported, be cut off if it were not cleaned up. It also could have threatened to cut of U.S. funding to the United Nations.

Although Hussein deserves a high place in the historical pantheon of world butchers such as Stalin, Hitler and Arafat, he was still of use to the United States as a pawn in balancing power in Middle East. Balancing power in that area had been U.S. policy from the days of the Eisenhower Administration.

Hussein had the fundamentalists such as the Shiites, Sunnis, Kurds and other militant factions in check. When the United States deposed him it freed these groups to loot and fight and oppose U.S. occupation or any U.S.-sponsored government.

Hussein also had repulsed Iran’s attempt to export its terrorism and Islamic world domination doctrine to Iraq. He acted as a buffer between Iran and the spread of its fundamentalist doctrine by competing with the militant Iranian regime for leadership of the Middle East.

Had the United States successfully secured Iraq, it is true it would have been a threat to Iran and Syria with its presence on their borders. But the plan was flawed from the start with faulty intelligence, to few troops, misjudged results by out diplomats of selling democracy and getting support from Iraqi natives, plus no workable plan for withdrawal.

In other words the plan went awry, and we not only are not the threat to Iran and Syria that our so-called intellectual diplomats envisioned, Iran and Syria could turn out to be the winners. If we can’t secure the peace and oust the foreign terrorists, who have entered Iraq with the help of Iran and Syria, they will be the winners. If so, it will control most of the oil in the Middle East and be king of the Islamic hill.

ISLAM IS NOT PEACEFUL

It needs to be emphasized in this country that Islam is not a peaceful religion, but a militant one. Mark A. Gabriel, Ph.d and former professor of Islamic history at Al-Azhar University in Cairo, Egypt, emphasizes this point in his book, Islam and Terrorism. ‘’Sixty percent of the Quranic verses talk about jihad…(and) jihad became the basic power and driving force of Islam,’’ Dr. Gabriel writes.

If President Bush believes Islam is a peaceful religion as he has stated, he is mistaken and misleading the American people, even if he did it to placate certain Islamic factions.

Americans also should not look at mosques as churches. Dr. Gabrield points out they are used to support jihad (religious war), and the Islamic world is ruled from the mosque. ‘’Throughout Islamic history…all movements of jihad (have) come out of the mosque,’’ Dr. Gabriel writes.

U.S. officials may belatedly be realizing this fact. U.S. helicopters fired on a mosque near Baghdad after insurgents opened fire on Marines from the sanctuary, according to an AP report on 10/13/04.

The regime in Iran lead by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei practices fundamentalism to the hilt. It has spread modern terrorism to all of North Africa, including Libya, which has resisted it, Tunisia, Algeria, and the Sudan. Hussein in Iraq and Muammar Quaddafi in Libya opposed the movement. Now that Hussein is in prison Iran has less opposition.

And with the United States spread thin and bogged down in Iraq, Iran also is continuing to advance its nuclear bomb and missile aspirations and defying efforts to curtail them. It is reported now to be seeking recognition of its right to continue enriching uranium by pledging not to make a nuclear bomb.

Europeans are tending to support this position and trying to influence the United States to join it. Iran would be provided nuclear fuel. The United States wants U. N. sanctions against Iran but is listening to the European position. Iran is vacillating.

But it should be clear that Khamenei can’t be trusted any more than Hussein could.

North Korea also is pursuing its atomic weapons programs, and Syria, which harbored Iraqi’s atomic technicians and WMD’s, also is in the act. When the cat’s preoccupied or away, the mice will play.

The point is, the United States would have been better off in maintaining regional and world stability had it not gotten bogged down in Iraq. And that goes even if Hussein had had WMD’s, which he probably did despite all of the high-powered reports to the contrary. He either sent them to Syria or hid them underground, some experts believe.

In the hunt for Hussein’s WMD’s not enough attention has been focused on Syria which was very friendly with Hussein before the war, and let its borders be used by terrorists during the war and to this day, according to these experts.

The United States should clamp down on Syria, which appears to be getting a free ride in the terrorist war. As The Washington Post reported on 10/12/04: ‘’Syria’s government has been a longtime sponsor of terrorism, a stockpiler of missiles and chemical weapons, and an unapologetic ally of Islamic extremists; it has allowed hundreds, if not thousands, of insurgents to stream across its borders to fight U.S. forces in Iraq.’’

WHERE WOULD WE BE?

Where would we be today if we had not invaded Iraq? There probably would still be no significant changes in the Middle East. We would not be bogged down in another war we are faced with losing. A thousand or more of our young men would not be dead, and Hussein would still be corralled. Taxpayers would be better off by $150 billion or more and counting.

We would not be fighting all of Islam in the Middle East because deposing Hussein unleashed every militant Muslim who wanted to die for Allah. The only sure way to get to Heaven for a Muslim is to die in jihad for the promotion of Islam.

This belief has served as a recruiting tool for volunteers from throughout the Islamic world regardless of borders. A chance to fight the infidels in the name of Allah is the ultimate for a true believer of Islam.

STUDY

As this column was being written the Associated Press carried a story from the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University, an Israeli think tank, that concluded: ‘’The war in Iraq is hurting the war on international terrorism.’’

It went even further and stated the war did not damage international terror groups and deflected attention and assets from other centers of terrorism, such as Afghanistan. An Israeli retired general, Shlomo Brom, noted the war drew Islamic extremists from other parts of the world to Iraq.

As noted in other essays on this site, Bush advisers failed to see the reaction or consequences from an Iraqi invasion or that democracy could not be foisted on Iraq’s people. They clearly had no plan for withdrawal and did not send enough troops to secure the peace.

The possibility for peaceful elections is not bright, and even the Sunni’s are reported to be reluctant to participate. The likelihood of peace in Iraq is bleak, considering the terrorists groups there such as al-Qaeda and splinter
offshoots supported by Iran and sympathizers in other Islamic nations.

And what happens when Saddam Hussein is brought to trial and found guilty, which is the only rational verdict that can be rendered? Does that stir up more militancy? Probably.

What about the militant groups that are now surrendering their weapons for cash and choosing to join in the election process? Is there a chance for peace with foxes in the hen house?

WRONG SIGNAL FOR HUSSEIN

As for Saddam Hussein, the reason he hates the United States so much was because of the first Gulf War in which Bush I fouled up going in and getting out. His ambassador was reported at the time to have given Hussein the wrong signal as to what the United States would do if he invaded Kuwait.

Iraq claimed Kuwait and its oil, and there may have been some historical validity to the claim. Bush I had dealings in Kuwait’s oil patch through a company in which he held an interest. In any event the Bush I ambassador should have made it unequivocally clear what its position was early on.

The United States had supported Hussein in his war with expansionist Iran. He had reason to believe we would support him again or at least not to oppose him.

So, that brings us to President George II and his statement that ‘’He (Hussein) tried to kill my dad’’ who was visiting Kuwait. And that raises the question of whether the war was a vendetta against Hussein by George W. that clouded overall terrorist policy.

OTHER ISSUES

As for the extraneous issues about the war such as alliances, going to the United Nations for approval and preemptive strikes, Bush II established some precedents and protected U.S. sovereignty – a rare thing by recent presidents. He deserves credit for this.

The United States should not have to depend on a foreign debating society to protect its sovereignty or to go to war. John Kerry would do so. But, if elected, he won’t get any troops and little else in the way of help from nations such as France or Germany. Reliance on the United Nations to run U.S. foreign policy should not be an option, and Bush was right not to do so.

But whether the war was the right thing is another matter. And one other thing, he should have asked Congress for a declaration of war and not a resolution, and he also should have put the nation on a war footing instead of doing business as usual.

No, Mr. president, we are not better off for having gone to war in Iraq. The venture has netted us nothing but Hussein, an insecure foothold in the Middle East, and the enmity of all Islam.

The nation paid an almost prohibitive price for the bloody tyrant, Hussein, when he could have been used.

Top

An Essay
By Richard C. Sizemore

President Bush consistently strives to drive home his point that America is safer and the world is better off now that Saddam Hussein has been deposed in Iraq. Is that so?

Conditions resulting from the war do not support his position. Let’s look at where we were and where we are.

Before the invasion of Iraq there was relative stability among Middle East nations, although some, and probably Iraq and surely Iran, were supporting terrorists. So was Iran, Syria and factions in Saudi Arabia. But Hussein posed no immediate threat to the United States with WMD’s as charged. He was in check, and U.S. and British planes were flying over his territory and looking down his windpipe every day.

Sanctions were in place, although they were being violated by the corrupt United Nations, Hussein himself, and other nations such as Russia and France. The sanctions clearly were not working and needed to be corrected and strengthened.

The United States could have campaigned for cleaning up this mess by publicizing the corruption and demanding the oil for food program, which it supported, be cut off if it were not cleaned up. It also could have threatened to cut of U.S. funding to the United Nations.

Although Hussein deserves a high place in the historical pantheon of world butchers such as Stalin, Hitler and Arafat, he was still of use to the United States as a pawn in balancing power in Middle East. Balancing power in that area had been U.S. policy from the days of the Eisenhower Administration.

Hussein had the fundamentalists such as the Shiites, Sunnis, Kurds and other militant factions in check. When the United States deposed him it freed these groups to loot and fight and oppose U.S. occupation or any U.S.-sponsored government.

Hussein also had repulsed Iran’s attempt to export its terrorism and Islamic world domination doctrine to Iraq. He acted as a buffer between Iran and the spread of its fundamentalist doctrine by competing with the militant Iranian regime for leadership of the Middle East.

Had the United States successfully secured Iraq, it is true it would have been a threat to Iran and Syria with its presence on their borders. But the plan was flawed from the start with faulty intelligence, to few troops, misjudged results by out diplomats of selling democracy and getting support from Iraqi natives, plus no workable plan for withdrawal.

In other words the plan went awry, and we not only are not the threat to Iran and Syria that our so-called intellectual diplomats envisioned, Iran and Syria could turn out to be the winners. If we can’t secure the peace and oust the foreign terrorists, who have entered Iraq with the help of Iran and Syria, they will be the winners. If so, it will control most of the oil in the Middle East and be king of the Islamic hill.

ISLAM IS NOT PEACEFUL

It needs to be emphasized in this country that Islam is not a peaceful religion, but a militant one. Mark A. Gabriel, Ph.d and former professor of Islamic history at Al-Azhar University in Cairo, Egypt, emphasizes this point in his book, Islam and Terrorism. ‘’Sixty percent of the Quranic verses talk about jihad…(and) jihad became the basic power and driving force of Islam,’’ Dr. Gabriel writes.

If President Bush believes Islam is a peaceful religion as he has stated, he is mistaken and misleading the American people, even if he did it to placate certain Islamic factions.

Americans also should not look at mosques as churches. Dr. Gabrield points out they are used to support jihad (religious war), and the Islamic world is ruled from the mosque. ‘’Throughout Islamic history…all movements of jihad (have) come out of the mosque,’’ Dr. Gabriel writes.

U.S. officials may belatedly be realizing this fact. U.S. helicopters fired on a mosque near Baghdad after insurgents opened fire on Marines from the sanctuary, according to an AP report on 10/13/04.

The regime in Iran lead by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei practices fundamentalism to the hilt. It has spread modern terrorism to all of North Africa, including Libya, which has resisted it, Tunisia, Algeria, and the Sudan. Hussein in Iraq and Muammar Quaddafi in Libya opposed the movement. Now that Hussein is in prison Iran has less opposition.

And with the United States spread thin and bogged down in Iraq, Iran also is continuing to advance its nuclear bomb and missile aspirations and defying efforts to curtail them. It is reported now to be seeking recognition of its right to continue enriching uranium by pledging not to make a nuclear bomb.

Europeans are tending to support this position and trying to influence the United States to join it. Iran would be provided nuclear fuel. The United States wants U. N. sanctions against Iran but is listening to the European position. Iran is vacillating.

But it should be clear that Khamenei can’t be trusted any more than Hussein could.

North Korea also is pursuing its atomic weapons programs, and Syria, which harbored Iraqi’s atomic technicians and WMD’s, also is in the act. When the cat’s preoccupied or away, the mice will play.

The point is, the United States would have been better off in maintaining regional and world stability had it not gotten bogged down in Iraq. And that goes even if Hussein had had WMD’s, which he probably did despite all of the high-powered reports to the contrary. He either sent them to Syria or hid them underground, some experts believe.

In the hunt for Hussein’s WMD’s not enough attention has been focused on Syria which was very friendly with Hussein before the war, and let its borders be used by terrorists during the war and to this day, according to these experts.

The United States should clamp down on Syria, which appears to be getting a free ride in the terrorist war. As The Washington Post reported on 10/12/04: ‘’Syria’s government has been a longtime sponsor of terrorism, a stockpiler of missiles and chemical weapons, and an unapologetic ally of Islamic extremists; it has allowed hundreds, if not thousands, of insurgents to stream across its borders to fight U.S. forces in Iraq.’’

WHERE WOULD WE BE?

Where would we be today if we had not invaded Iraq? There probably would still be no significant changes in the Middle East. We would not be bogged down in another war we are faced with losing. A thousand or more of our young men would not be dead, and Hussein would still be corralled. Taxpayers would be better off by $150 billion or more and counting.

We would not be fighting all of Islam in the Middle East because deposing Hussein unleashed every militant Muslim who wanted to die for Allah. The only sure way to get to Heaven for a Muslim is to die in jihad for the promotion of Islam.

This belief has served as a recruiting tool for volunteers from throughout the Islamic world regardless of borders. A chance to fight the infidels in the name of Allah is the ultimate for a true believer of Islam.

STUDY

As this column was being written the Associated Press carried a story from the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University, an Israeli think tank, that concluded: ‘’The war in Iraq is hurting the war on international terrorism.’’

It went even further and stated the war did not damage international terror groups and deflected attention and assets from other centers of terrorism, such as Afghanistan. An Israeli retired general, Shlomo Brom, noted the war drew Islamic extremists from other parts of the world to Iraq.

As noted in other essays on this site, Bush advisers failed to see the reaction or consequences from an Iraqi invasion or that democracy could not be foisted on Iraq’s people. They clearly had no plan for withdrawal and did not send enough troops to secure the peace.

The possibility for peaceful elections is not bright, and even the Sunni’s are reported to be reluctant to participate. The likelihood of peace in Iraq is bleak, considering the terrorists groups there such as al-Qaeda and splinter
offshoots supported by Iran and sympathizers in other Islamic nations.

And what happens when Saddam Hussein is brought to trial and found guilty, which is the only rational verdict that can be rendered? Does that stir up more militancy? Probably.

What about the militant groups that are now surrendering their weapons for cash and choosing to join in the election process? Is there a chance for peace with foxes in the hen house?

WRONG SIGNAL FOR HUSSEIN

As for Saddam Hussein, the reason he hates the United States so much was because of the first Gulf War in which Bush I fouled up going in and getting out. His ambassador was reported at the time to have given Hussein the wrong signal as to what the United States would do if he invaded Kuwait.

Iraq claimed Kuwait and its oil, and there may have been some historical validity to the claim. Bush I had dealings in Kuwait’s oil patch through a company in which he held an interest. In any event the Bush I ambassador should have made it unequivocally clear what its position was early on.

The United States had supported Hussein in his war with expansionist Iran. He had reason to believe we would support him again or at least not to oppose him.

So, that brings us to President George II and his statement that ‘’He (Hussein) tried to kill my dad’’ who was visiting Kuwait. And that raises the question of whether the war was a vendetta against Hussein by George W. that clouded overall terrorist policy.

OTHER ISSUES

As for the extraneous issues about the war such as alliances, going to the United Nations for approval and preemptive strikes, Bush II established some precedents and protected U.S. sovereignty – a rare thing by recent presidents. He deserves credit for this.

The United States should not have to depend on a foreign debating society to protect its sovereignty or to go to war. John Kerry would do so. But, if elected, he won’t get any troops and little else in the way of help from nations such as France or Germany. Reliance on the United Nations to run U.S. foreign policy should not be an option, and Bush was right not to do so.

But whether the war was the right thing is another matter. And one other thing, he should have asked Congress for a declaration of war and not a resolution, and he also should have put the nation on a war footing instead of doing business as usual.

No, Mr. president, we are not better off for having gone to war in Iraq. The venture has netted us nothing but Hussein, an insecure foothold in the Middle East, and the enmity of all Islam.

The nation paid an almost prohibitive price for the bloody tyrant, Hussein, when he could have been used.

Top

An Essay
By Richard C. Sizemore

President Bush consistently strives to drive home his point that America is safer and the world is better off now that Saddam Hussein has been deposed in Iraq. Is that so?

Conditions resulting from the war do not support his position. Let’s look at where we were and where we are.

Before the invasion of Iraq there was relative stability among Middle East nations, although some, and probably Iraq and surely Iran, were supporting terrorists. So was Iran, Syria and factions in Saudi Arabia. But Hussein posed no immediate threat to the United States with WMD’s as charged. He was in check, and U.S. and British planes were flying over his territory and looking down his windpipe every day.

Sanctions were in place, although they were being violated by the corrupt United Nations, Hussein himself, and other nations such as Russia and France. The sanctions clearly were not working and needed to be corrected and strengthened.

The United States could have campaigned for cleaning up this mess by publicizing the corruption and demanding the oil for food program, which it supported, be cut off if it were not cleaned up. It also could have threatened to cut of U.S. funding to the United Nations.

Although Hussein deserves a high place in the historical pantheon of world butchers such as Stalin, Hitler and Arafat, he was still of use to the United States as a pawn in balancing power in Middle East. Balancing power in that area had been U.S. policy from the days of the Eisenhower Administration.

Hussein had the fundamentalists such as the Shiites, Sunnis, Kurds and other militant factions in check. When the United States deposed him it freed these groups to loot and fight and oppose U.S. occupation or any U.S.-sponsored government.

Hussein also had repulsed Iran’s attempt to export its terrorism and Islamic world domination doctrine to Iraq. He acted as a buffer between Iran and the spread of its fundamentalist doctrine by competing with the militant Iranian regime for leadership of the Middle East.

Had the United States successfully secured Iraq, it is true it would have been a threat to Iran and Syria with its presence on their borders. But the plan was flawed from the start with faulty intelligence, to few troops, misjudged results by out diplomats of selling democracy and getting support from Iraqi natives, plus no workable plan for withdrawal.

In other words the plan went awry, and we not only are not the threat to Iran and Syria that our so-called intellectual diplomats envisioned, Iran and Syria could turn out to be the winners. If we can’t secure the peace and oust the foreign terrorists, who have entered Iraq with the help of Iran and Syria, they will be the winners. If so, it will control most of the oil in the Middle East and be king of the Islamic hill.

ISLAM IS NOT PEACEFUL

It needs to be emphasized in this country that Islam is not a peaceful religion, but a militant one. Mark A. Gabriel, Ph.d and former professor of Islamic history at Al-Azhar University in Cairo, Egypt, emphasizes this point in his book, Islam and Terrorism. ‘’Sixty percent of the Quranic verses talk about jihad…(and) jihad became the basic power and driving force of Islam,’’ Dr. Gabriel writes.

If President Bush believes Islam is a peaceful religion as he has stated, he is mistaken and misleading the American people, even if he did it to placate certain Islamic factions.

Americans also should not look at mosques as churches. Dr. Gabrield points out they are used to support jihad (religious war), and the Islamic world is ruled from the mosque. ‘’Throughout Islamic history…all movements of jihad (have) come out of the mosque,’’ Dr. Gabriel writes.

U.S. officials may belatedly be realizing this fact. U.S. helicopters fired on a mosque near Baghdad after insurgents opened fire on Marines from the sanctuary, according to an AP report on 10/13/04.

The regime in Iran lead by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei practices fundamentalism to the hilt. It has spread modern terrorism to all of North Africa, including Libya, which has resisted it, Tunisia, Algeria, and the Sudan. Hussein in Iraq and Muammar Quaddafi in Libya opposed the movement. Now that Hussein is in prison Iran has less opposition.

And with the United States spread thin and bogged down in Iraq, Iran also is continuing to advance its nuclear bomb and missile aspirations and defying efforts to curtail them. It is reported now to be seeking recognition of its right to continue enriching uranium by pledging not to make a nuclear bomb.

Europeans are tending to support this position and trying to influence the United States to join it. Iran would be provided nuclear fuel. The United States wants U. N. sanctions against Iran but is listening to the European position. Iran is vacillating.

But it should be clear that Khamenei can’t be trusted any more than Hussein could.

North Korea also is pursuing its atomic weapons programs, and Syria, which harbored Iraqi’s atomic technicians and WMD’s, also is in the act. When the cat’s preoccupied or away, the mice will play.

The point is, the United States would have been better off in maintaining regional and world stability had it not gotten bogged down in Iraq. And that goes even if Hussein had had WMD’s, which he probably did despite all of the high-powered reports to the contrary. He either sent them to Syria or hid them underground, some experts believe.

In the hunt for Hussein’s WMD’s not enough attention has been focused on Syria which was very friendly with Hussein before the war, and let its borders be used by terrorists during the war and to this day, according to these experts.

The United States should clamp down on Syria, which appears to be getting a free ride in the terrorist war. As The Washington Post reported on 10/12/04: ‘’Syria’s government has been a longtime sponsor of terrorism, a stockpiler of missiles and chemical weapons, and an unapologetic ally of Islamic extremists; it has allowed hundreds, if not thousands, of insurgents to stream across its borders to fight U.S. forces in Iraq.’’

WHERE WOULD WE BE?

Where would we be today if we had not invaded Iraq? There probably would still be no significant changes in the Middle East. We would not be bogged down in another war we are faced with losing. A thousand or more of our young men would not be dead, and Hussein would still be corralled. Taxpayers would be better off by $150 billion or more and counting.

We would not be fighting all of Islam in the Middle East because deposing Hussein unleashed every militant Muslim who wanted to die for Allah. The only sure way to get to Heaven for a Muslim is to die in jihad for the promotion of Islam.

This belief has served as a recruiting tool for volunteers from throughout the Islamic world regardless of borders. A chance to fight the infidels in the name of Allah is the ultimate for a true believer of Islam.

STUDY

As this column was being written the Associated Press carried a story from the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University, an Israeli think tank, that concluded: ‘’The war in Iraq is hurting the war on international terrorism.’’

It went even further and stated the war did not damage international terror groups and deflected attention and assets from other centers of terrorism, such as Afghanistan. An Israeli retired general, Shlomo Brom, noted the war drew Islamic extremists from other parts of the world to Iraq.

As noted in other essays on this site, Bush advisers failed to see the reaction or consequences from an Iraqi invasion or that democracy could not be foisted on Iraq’s people. They clearly had no plan for withdrawal and did not send enough troops to secure the peace.

The possibility for peaceful elections is not bright, and even the Sunni’s are reported to be reluctant to participate. The likelihood of peace in Iraq is bleak, considering the terrorists groups there such as al-Qaeda and splinter
offshoots supported by Iran and sympathizers in other Islamic nations.

And what happens when Saddam Hussein is brought to trial and found guilty, which is the only rational verdict that can be rendered? Does that stir up more militancy? Probably.

What about the militant groups that are now surrendering their weapons for cash and choosing to join in the election process? Is there a chance for peace with foxes in the hen house?

WRONG SIGNAL FOR HUSSEIN

As for Saddam Hussein, the reason he hates the United States so much was because of the first Gulf War in which Bush I fouled up going in and getting out. His ambassador was reported at the time to have given Hussein the wrong signal as to what the United States would do if he invaded Kuwait.

Iraq claimed Kuwait and its oil, and there may have been some historical validity to the claim. Bush I had dealings in Kuwait’s oil patch through a company in which he held an interest. In any event the Bush I ambassador should have made it unequivocally clear what its position was early on.

The United States had supported Hussein in his war with expansionist Iran. He had reason to believe we would support him again or at least not to oppose him.

So, that brings us to President George II and his statement that ‘’He (Hussein) tried to kill my dad’’ who was visiting Kuwait. And that raises the question of whether the war was a vendetta against Hussein by George W. that clouded overall terrorist policy.

OTHER ISSUES

As for the extraneous issues about the war such as alliances, going to the United Nations for approval and preemptive strikes, Bush II established some precedents and protected U.S. sovereignty – a rare thing by recent presidents. He deserves credit for this.

The United States should not have to depend on a foreign debating society to protect its sovereignty or to go to war. John Kerry would do so. But, if elected, he won’t get any troops and little else in the way of help from nations such as France or Germany. Reliance on the United Nations to run U.S. foreign policy should not be an option, and Bush was right not to do so.

But whether the war was the right thing is another matter. And one other thing, he should have asked Congress for a declaration of war and not a resolution, and he also should have put the nation on a war footing instead of doing business as usual.

No, Mr. president, we are not better off for having gone to war in Iraq. The venture has netted us nothing but Hussein, an insecure foothold in the Middle East, and the enmity of all Islam.

The nation paid an almost prohibitive price for the bloody tyrant, Hussein, when he could have been used.

Top

An Essay
By
Richard C. Sizemore

‘’To the end he could not comprehend.’’

That’s Judge Robert Bork’s assessment of Sen. Arlen Specter’s understanding of constitutional law after seven hours of arduous explanations to him by the constitutional law scholar.

Specter, who is in line to head the Senate Judiciary Committee, wants to dictate who gets on the High Court by sharing his views on abortion and other social issues.

The Pennsylvania senator has infuriated conservatives by stating at a recent news conference that strongly anti-abortion judicial nominees might have trouble winning confirmation in the Senate. His comments have led to a movement to oppose him as well as two websites (NotSpecter.com and NotArlen.Com) for that purpose.

An organization representing about 1200 Orthodox rabbis has taken a strong stand against Specter as has the Gun Owners of America, evangelists and others. Pray-ins also have been held in Washington against him. Despite the opposition, however, Specter is expected to win the seat for which he has so long coveted. Members of the Judiciary Committee already have approved him although the formal vote won’t come until January.

That’s because the good ‘ole boy network and seniority systems of the two dominant political parties are sacrosanct to the detriment of the people and good government. A good example of it is the House rules change to protect Majority Leader Tom DeLay if he is indicted by a Texas grand jury on charges of political corruption.

As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Specter would control the confirmation process of Supreme Court nominees as well as the members of the committee staff. That would have a bearing on the political and judicial philosophy of the committee, some observers contend.

Specter’s ideological views are far to the left of conservative Republicans, and he voted against former President Ronald Reagan’s nomination of Bork, a former constitutional law professor at Yale University, former solicitor general and former federal judge for the District of Columbia.

The flamboyant and outspoken senator recently stated there are no giants on the present Court. If that is so it may well be because of Specter’s prejudices and failure to comprehend Judge Bork’s position and the fact that he was indeed a judicial giant.

Specter is now backtracking from his statement about anti-abortion judicial nominees and said he is ‘’very respectful’’ of the president’s constitutional authority to name Court members and would apply no ‘’litmus test’’ to nominees. So, he is for abortion, as an example, but will support judges who oppose it. Yea, right, Arlen.

He bolted against Ronald Reagan when he voted against Bork and tried to persuade other members to do the same by his prolonged questioning and misrepresentation of Bork’s position. So, why would he not bolt again since his new term is longer than that of President Bush who is now a lame duck president who will become lamer as he gets further into his second term?

‘’PARTICULARLY DECEPTIVE’’

Judge Bork on a radio talk show described Specter as ‘’particularly deceptive,’’ according to ‘WorldNetDaily. Bork charged the senator ‘’votes in a very liberal fashion until he gets close to an election. And then he begins to vote in a conservative fashion.’’

Specter’s statement about offering fair hearings to any of the president’s nominees doesn’t amount to much. Sen. Joseph Biden, former Judiciary Committee chairman, claimed he gave Judge Bork a fair hearing. But it is clear certain members of the committee, including Specter and Biden, had their minds made up before the hearings and never changed. Bork said told Biden the hearings were fair in so far as he got to respond to questions.

The NotSpecter.com site quotes the American Conservative Union as giving a lifetime rating of 43 out of 100 for Specter. His fellow Pennsylvania Republican colleague, Sen. Rick Santorum, has a rating of 87. ‘’Specter even earned an abysmal 0% rating in (the) 107th (Congress), the same score that Ted Kennedy and John Kerry received.’’

On top of that WND cites two Pennsylvania newspaper interviews with Specter in which he promised to block pro-life and ‘’extremist’’ judges appointed by President Bush.

Bush supported Specter in his campaign for the Senate this year, but at that time the president was trying to win Pennsylvania for himself as well as keep control of the Senate. Whether Bush will use his behind-the-scenes influence to help conservatives defeat Specter for the judiciary chairmanship remains to be seen.

Majority party Senate rules traditionally choose the senior member as chairman, but the rules are not binding even though they are almost always followed. Should he be defeated, ‘’a consummation devoutly to be wished’’ by conservatives, Sen. John Kyl of Arizona is next in line. The rules also could be changed to permit Sen. Orin Hatch to continue as chairman. But don’t expect it to happen.

BORK’S PATIENT EXPLANTIONS

During Judge Bork’s confirmation hearings, Specter questioned Bork in meetings that the senator requested and, of course, during the hearings. In his book, The Tempting of America, Judge Bork refers to it (p.305-6):

To the end he could not comprehend what I was saying about the
first amendment, the equal protection clause, the trend to construe
the Constitution in the light of the original understanding, or the
dangers of letting judges decide cases with no more authority or
guidance than a phrase not in the Constitution, such as ‘’fairness’’
or ‘’the needs of the nation.’’ Because I was, out of necessity,
patient with him, a lot of people not versed in constitutional law
got the impression that this was a serious constitutional discussion.

Before the tv cameras and his Senate colleagues, the senator also tried to give the impression that he was engaged in a weighty discussion of constitutional theory with Bork, which the jurist treated with derision in his book.

Not only will Specter be instrumental in the selection of nominees for the Court, he also will probably be involved in choosing a new Supreme Court Justice.

But before that happens, President Bush’s appointment of Al Gonzales, the White House counsel and long-time friend of the president’s, to be the new attorney general must be considered by the committee.

There are reports that the president has named Gonzales to replace John Ashcroft as a stepping stone to the High Court. He would be the first Hispanic AG.

Gonzales is sure to be questioned sharply about his role in bypassing the Geneva Conventions in relation to terrorist prisoners with a state at Guantanamo, Cuba; his support of the Patriot Act and his position on civil liberties; the death penalty, which he supported in Texas, and other conservative positions he has taken on social issues. He also worked for the law firm of Vinson & Elkins and represented both Enron and Halliburton, and may be grilled about their questionable and illegal operations.

Considering that Gonzales may be a future nominee for the Supreme Court, he can count on rigid and prolonged questioning from liberals. In addition, liberal lobbying groups such as the ACLU, People For, and Americans United for the Separation of Church and State also can be expected to get in the act, as well as the once professional but now political American Bar Association.

Republicans with a 55-44 majority in the Senate still do not have the 60 votes needed to break a filibuster.

PROMOTED THOMAS

In his lobbying for the judiciary position and rebuttal of criticism caused by his post-election remarks about judicial nominees, Specter noted that he not only voted for Justice Clarence Thomas but led the fight in his behalf. He has been quoted, however, as stating he regretted his support of Thomas.

The NotSpecter.now website printed an e-mail from Joel Mowbray, a journalist who quoted Douglas Urbanski, a Hollywood producer who met Specter in 1996 when he was running for president.

Urbanski said Specter told him he regretted not questioning Anita Hill as well as his support of Thomas. ‘’Specter made it clear that he didn’t think much of Thomas…’’

That is important because Thomas is reported to be on Bush’s lost of possible nominees to become chief justice if Chief Justice Rehnquist resigns or becomes incapacitated.

In the hearing on Thomas’ nomination the Judiciary Committee vote was a 7-7 tie, although he was approved by the full senate by a narrow 52-48 count. Without the support of Specter and the considerable influence of former Sen. John Danforth in whose office he had worked, Thomas would not have made it.

Now we have the possibility of Thomas facing Specter again -- this time with a strong conservative voting record on the Court plus Specter’s statements about not liking him.

Theodore Olson, former solicitor general, predicts a ‘’political firestorm’’ in the Senate over Bush’s nominees. One already is brewing over Specter, who supports abortion and is cool to Bush’s support of tort reform and other conservative issues.

So let the hearings begin. With or without Specter as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, the hearings should provide enough clowns grandstanding before the klieg lights to make them entertaining.

Specter will be there masquerading as a constitutional expert whether he’s chairman or not. If anyone speaks constitutional reasoning to him it won’t matter because he either will not comprehend or have his mind made up. To the end.

The specter of Specter makes conservatives mad enough to expectorate.

(A related essay appears on this site in 2003 titled The justice Nominating Process)

Top