Archive for May, 2007

MSNBC along with a number of other media organizations are reporting an attempt will be made to reinstate the “fairness doctrine.” This is of course, an attempt to counter the voice of talk radio since conservatives dominate that media.

No doubt, if achieved, this will be yet another control enacted by government to manipulate and confuse information in the free market place of ideas.

By why would they stop there; and just where will they stop?

In pondering those questions and the effects of laws which control or manipulate free speech, my imagination got the best of me — or, maybe not. What follows is a piece I have put together for the purpose of making a point,

Democrats: Bibles must contain Satan’s side

Democratic majority leader Nancy Pelosi revealed a proposal for a bill today that would require Bibles carry an opposing view.

As Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Reps. Steny Hoyer (D-MD) and Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) prepare to push the return of the Fairness Doctrine to the front burner, language is being discussed which not only targets talk radio, but the Bible also.

“No book has been so dominating, sold more copies, or been read more than the Bible, however, the bible is very divisive and only presents one point of view. In the name of all fairness, it’s time for that to change” Pelosi said.

The bill, if enacted into law would require bible publishers to provide, at their expense, an equal number of pages for Satan and his disciples to present their side of the story.

“For too long this book of hate has been allowed to spew one side unopposed, there must be a voice of reason to create an equilibrium of good and evil” Pelosi stated to loud applause before a group of activists from Democrats for Equal Voice In Literature and Scripture, also known as DEVILS.

On the Senate side, Hillary Rodham Clinton said that while she supported legislation which would require equal access for Satan to readers of the Bible, a conflict of interests may keep her from voting on an issue that would obviously benefit her lifetime employer.

When the senator was asked why Satanist don’t write their own bible, Clinton responded, “This is about a monopoly. There is no other book that is so widespread and with so many readers that has been the best selling book in the world for so long. If we are going to be fair about this, the only solution is to include an opposing view in the scriptures.”

While Satanist have in the past written many books, all of them have failed in comparison. “The fact is, scripture has been controlled for centuries, whenever anyone tries to add or take away anything, bigoted religious fanatics rise up to censor any diversity” Lou Seffer, founder of DEVILS, said in an interview.

House Democrats did not respond to a question on whether they will be able to find enough bipartisan support to pass the bill.


Read Full Post »

With the focus on the threat of Islamic terrorism it is easy to be distracted from other events that may have a greater impact upon the future and actually play into the hands of Islamic extremists. The article By Gary Dorsch entitled Can the “Axis of Oil” Topple the US Dollar, linked at the bottom, is quite long, but with the price of energy rising and the dollar devaluing it is well worth the read to get a clearer picture of where things stand now and what could unfold in the days ahead.

I would suggest that if you can’t find time or handle reading this much info on the web (I confess, I have a hard time finding time for this much information and thus skimmed it, but I intend to give it a thorough going over), that you skim over it to get the gist, as this writer is very knowledgeable on the issue and the article packed with information and loaded with details.

It is my opinion that having lost the arms race, Russia, along with other confederate states, is waging a global economic war against the west in general, and the US in particular. There is a great incentive for the Europeans in this financially because the Euro will continue to rise as the dollar declines and can eventually replace the dollar as the world’s main currency for exchange if they will only capitulate to the “Axis of Oil”.

Moreover, Russia is putting Europe over a barrel (of oil) as Europe has become dependent upon Russian imports of natural gas and petroleum for energy. This became obvious recently when Putin put the squeeze on gas export supplies and prices, and the Europeans started squealing.

The ramifications of globalization may not be as the western elitists intended when they decided they could export democracy by creating “free” global markets including totalitarian states hoping that capitalism would induce freedom.

In fact, the reverse may be happening as these authoritarian societies become wealthier and more powerful while continuing to exercise more and more control over their own nations and people while exerting pressure internationally.

Article Link:

Read Full Post »

[Alternative title: A liberal begins to figure it out]

Anyone on the right or left who is paying attention to global politics should realize by now that there has been a shift away from national sovereignty (unilateralism) to some degree in favor of multilateralism. Nationalist have always proclaimed the dangers of such policies. It is apparent however, that even those who favor a multi-polar global society realize that it is not without risk.

New World Disorder

David Ignatius | Washington Post Writers Group

[….]nearly everyone seems to agree that “unilateralism” in foreign policy is a bad thing. Leading the march of born-again multilateralists is Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who has been meeting with representatives of Syria, Iran and several dozen other nations in the hope that they can apply a collective tourniquet to Iraq, where America’s go-it-alone approach is failing.

The “neighbors” meeting is an example of the kind of cooperative problem solving that everyone favors, in theory. The difficulty is that nobody today has any real experience with how a genuinely multilateral system might work. And the more you think about it, the more potential obstacles you begin to see in the passage from unilateral hell to multilateral heaven.

The nuclear strategist Herman Kahn pondered this problem in a 1983 essay on “multipolarity and stability.” Kahn had made his name by “thinking about the unthinkable” – namely, the consequences of nuclear war between the United States and the Soviet Union. But he recognized that the bipolar world of the Cold War had an inherent stability……

Contrary to what it may seem, there is more stability in a world of nationalism than internationalism due to conflicting geopolitical, cultural, and national interests which will inevitably arise regardless of international law. Therefore, we are not ensured security or long term stability by capitulating to other nations or a group of nations in hopes of world peace. Peace, or least stability, is only possible through the exercise of strength, both politically and militarily if necessary. Stability is based on deterrence not friendship of nations or even common interest, for interest are fluid and may fluctuate or change completely putting nations at variance.

A multipolar world eventually would be stable, too, Kahn argued. [stable, but likely to evolve into totalitarianism] He hypothesized that by 2000, there would be seven economic giants – the U.S., Japan, the Soviet Union, China, Germany, France and Brazil – and that they would gradually work out orderly rules. The problem was the transition. The moment of maximum danger, Kahn warned, would be in moving from a bipolar to a multipolar world. We are now in that process of transition, and it’s proving just as volatile as Kahn predicted[…..]

I agree with the writer that we are in transition. I would add that this transition is particularly perilous for Israel. Israel is an outcast nation. No other nation is singled out for condemnation or draws so many resolutions at the United Nations. Israel is often not invited to participate in world affairs and in many cases disallowed participation; even in times of crisis after disasters when lives are at stake and Israel has offered to assist in the rescue and recovery efforts they have been denied.

It should come as no surprise then that the sacrifice of Israel is seen as the practical solution to the conflict in the Middle-East, and as a way to appease the appetite of Islamic nations in hopes that the so called Arab “moderates“ will gain control in their countries and coexist peacefully in the multi-cultural global mish-mash they hope to create.

This pragmatic globalistic approach is both an immoral and absurd way of thinking bordering on insanity.

[…]I listened to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad tell a news conference in Tehran last year that the post-1945 world order was ending. All of its institutions, starting with the United Nations, were becoming irrelevant, he argued. A new world would be shaped by rising powers who would create new rules of the international game.

At the time, I thought it was more of Ahmadinejad’s crazy rhetoric. But I suspect that this vision of a world in transition may be correct: We’re all multilateralists now [my note: Hillary before the CFR said “we are all internationalist” – close enough], but we inhabit a world that makes the Cold War seem like the good old days. Full article link

US hegemony is waning and there is a shift of global power currently taking place. Russia, China, and others will become major power brokers. There has been an attempt to forge a New World Order from before the time Bush Sr. was in office; however, the stickler has been, according to a recent Russian document, over whether this world order should be based on values or common interest.

The West has insisted on a foundation of human rights, the Russians and others maintain that common global interest should be the foundation. It appears the Russians may be winning out.

Question: What proportion of the world would believe that Israel ceasing to exist would be in the best or common interest of the world? The answer may or may not surprise you.

Even this liberal Washington Post writer David Ignatius who traveled to Beirut to attend the Hezbollah convention in 2003 and has referred to Hezbollah as “alleged terrorists” in his articles can see the transition taking place and dangers associated with it.

The US is going the way of ancient Rome, Israel would be wise not to follow. Nationalism is the only recourse against the consolidation of power at the international level.

Read Full Post »