Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Religion/Politics’ Category

The false dichotomy between faith and reason

All thought must have a foundation of beliefs in order to process information for reasoning. Being that we are constantly forced into making decisions, other than being bipolar, we have no option but to embrace a set of beliefs to predicate our decisions upon. Although there are many ideologies upon which to form a foundation of thought, they can be reduced into two basic categories, herein referred to as spiritual and material, or sometimes distinguished as faith and reason(religion and science). Keep in mind that these terms are not precise seeing that the materialist will show a spiritual side and does place faith in something, and the spiritual man is not without reason or necessarily in denial of science, although a part of his reason is based upon a trust that there are things in existence which cannot be seen or proven by man, but nonetheless, are a reality. Therefore, there is a false dichotomy between faith and “reason”, because everyone who believes anything, or holds any ideology or belief system, embraces both. But even so, when faith is misplaced, reason becomes corrupted.

Because of conflicts between spiritual and material(worldly) foundations of thought, there becomes a necessity to choose one over the other as the predominate basis in making choices; for you cannot establish a direction in life based upon uncertainty. As it is written: “You cannot serve God and mammon”. It is easy for one to say they are agnostic, but in practice when making certain choices, some decisions must be made by faith; and the rejection of a faith often is in itself an opposing faith, or a faith against a faith. For if we are to believe anything, we must base trust in what knowledge is. And we cannot always do that solely on what is proven or accepted as fact because of the many unknowns. For even with all we know, there are gaps in our knowledge created by unknowns. It is often necessary to fill these gaps, which we attempt to do by reasoning. This means that along with provable certainties, we also all choose to believe some things which are only accepted by faith. This is true whether we believe in God or not. For while one can claim only to believe in science, it is almost impossible, because at this point scientific knowledge is too incomplete by itself to completely support an ideology. And because it is incomplete, one who believes only in science is often forced to interpret what the science means, which gives birth to theories. This too becomes faith wherein one puts trust in his own reasoning. For we cannot make any sense of anything without first laying a foundation of what we accept as knowledge. And without this foundation, we are tossed to and fro being unstable and confused. Herein lies the Great Division between the spiritual man and the carnal man sometimes referred to imprecisely as, science versus religion, or reason versus faith. In reality, those terms create a false dichotomy; for faith is hardly without reason, nor is secular reasoning completely devoid of faith.

A secular belief system based solely upon scientific reasoning places more limitations on knowledge than does a system based upon faith in God, in part because the secularist will reject knowledge received by revelation or through testimony of a personal experience. While often this can be the correct thing to do, there are cases where revelations, experiences, and testimonies are indeed true. Even an event that takes place with no witnesses still happens. So likewise, the rejection of all things that cannot be proven also will include some truths. Nonetheless, by doing so, secularists put academia in the position of being the exclusive arbitrators in determining what qualifies for knowledge and biases arise wherein there is often an exclusion of the beliefs and knowledge held by others if it dose not conform to their ideology.

Because of the gaps in knowledge, to connect the pieces together, secularists are themselves forced to resort to faith to manufacture links, often at best based upon circumstantial evidence. They rely upon theories to arrive at explanations and conclusions. In doing so, however, their explanations often tend to create even more questions, which in turn demands an even greater faith and an expansion of theories. Thus, in many cases, the materialist ends up being no less believing, no less devoted, no less fanatical, nor any less evangelical, and far more wildly imaginative than his religious counterpart.

Nonetheless, when popular ideas and theories gain enough traction in intellectual circles, they often become accepted as a reality and are incorporated and “certified” as knowledge, even without sufficient supporting evidence. Thus, pure science is undermined and in many cases, the occupation embraces faith and becomes a profession with a ‘religious’ nature. Agenda driven ideologies become dogma and are embraced by the academics, creating numerous instances wherein things are treated as indisputable fact when at best they are unknown. But then too, many things which are indeed true are treated as falsehoods or dismissed. The end result is science ceases to be as scientific as it claims.

H.G. Wells, whom I have often cited, a man sold solely on science and reason, exhibits his faith in the following words,

“There was no Creation in the past, we begin to realize, but eternally there is creation; there was no Fall to account for the conflict of good and evil, but a stormy ascent. Life as we know it is a mere beginning….“ “……We have still barely emerged from among the animals in their struggle for existence. We live only in the early dawn of human self-consciousness and in the first awakening of the spirit of mastery.”

This is a statement of faith and a religious expression of secular-humanism wherein mankind is essentially evolving to the status of being “God”. To further illustrate this religious aspect of secular humanism embraced by materialists we can continue with Wells’s writing where he says,

“Man’s soul is no longer his own. It is, he discovers, part of a greater being which lived before he was born and will survive him. The idea of a survival of the definite individual with all the accidents and idiosyncrasies of his temporal nature upon him dissolves to nothing in this new view of immortality…..……The first sentence in the modern creed must be, not “I believe,” but “I give myself.”

Thus accordingly, the secular mindset holds that creation is and of itself; there is nothing more. Man’s sole purpose is not as an individual but in being a “part of a greater being”(the collective). It is to give himself to the “being” for the advancement of mankind (the being) to higher levels. As individuals alone we have little to no value, but as a apart of the collective, we are as single cells in the immortal body of humanity. Our sole purpose of existing is to help advance the immortal body of civilization through the stages of evolution. Cells die, but they are replaced by new and the body lives. Collectively, we are the supreme being. There is no God above us. It is this vein of thinking that puts mankind above all and invites justification for man to act as God, to decide who is innocent and who is guilty, who should live and who should die. The lives of individuals become dispensable if deemed a liability to the advancement or benefit of the body of humanity. This rejection of faith in God creates a faith, albeit, an atheistic one with all the aspects of a religion.

Wells was an understudy of Thomas Huxley (“Darwin’s bulldog“) and his writing exemplifies the strain of thought that was widespread in academia in the early 1900s. Wells was not an originator of this thought but was indoctrinated into this line of thinking in the universities and rejected faith in God.

It was this worldview which gave birth to the eugenics movement to facilitate evolution in the process whereby the “superior” elements supersede the weaker. The ideology spread worldwide and particularly throughout institutions of “higher” learning. The introduction of this into Germany was inspirational in the Nazis’ determination that the Aryans were the most advanced race, and thus, not only had the right, but an obligation to the future of humanity to supersede the inferior elements which were destroying the world and slowing the evolutionary process. Only those deemed the most perfect had value, the lives of all others were disposable and worthy of life only as long and in as much as they were useful in the advancement of the Übermensch.

By this time, the Soviet Union also had already promoting the unrealistic concept of perfection in a material world, but more emphasis was placed on the march toward social perfection rather than genetic superiority. The result, however, was no better under Communism than it was under Nazism; but even though the Communists were responsible for many more deaths than the Nazis, communism has not not attained to the same degree of stigma. As a result, today even in western societies, Marxist ideologies are woven into progressive socialist agendas and Darwinism is foundational in governmental education.

The words of Vladimir Lenin, “We may regard the material and cosmic world as the supreme being, as the cause of all causes, as the creator of heaven and earth,” may be well and widely accepted throughout universities everywhere.

Well over a hundred million lives have fallen victim to materialists ideologies which are essentially based on the concept that man is the supreme being and that the supreme men are “God.” How this repeats itself in the future is yet to be seen, but it will be seen if man continues down that road.

Arbitrary Morality

According to secular humanism, not only have the species been evolving, but law is “living and breathing” and also evolving. For law, having no source other than from those persons who create it, is relative, arbitrary, and at this point incomplete. Thus, whatever seems the most expedient or beneficial at the moment is deemed acceptable. The problem however, is that what benefits some may be totally devastating for others.

From this conflict of interests comes the concept of the “common good” wherein the benefits for society as a whole are weighed against the rights, freedoms, or even the lives of those whose suffering would seem small in comparison to the benefits reaped by society. In all actuality, however, the benefit of the elite ruling class carries more weight than the “common good” of society, and it is arrogantly viewed by them as being the same.

In the elitists mind, if a few years of holocaust purges out the “corrupt” and “inferior” elements of humanity and brings a thousand year reign of a superior and more perfect civilization, then so be it, it was merely a part of the process. Besides, how much future suffering will be avoided by eliminating the “sub-humans” and their posterity who were spared being born? The overall gain is a plus. This type of rational is the direct result of reason absent a faith in God. It is the place reason always ends when it travels alone.

Faith or Reason

Reason absent faith has proven itself a force of destruction. By the same token, faith absent reason is no less destructive than reason without faith. Man cannot live without faith; he is intellectually paralyzed without it. On the other hand, by faith alone without reason, man is also lost. Only when knowledge is perfect can reason be perfect; and a faith that is not misplaced possesses the same virtue as knowledge; for indeed, it is knowledge.

As many have been destroyed by the reasoning of the Godless, a great many have also been destroyed by faith in a “God”. What the two have in common, however, is materialism. For the as the Godless have based their ideology upon the physical world, those religions responsible for the murder of countless individuals did the same by establishing their faith in the physical realm. For although they professed to be spiritual, in practice their deeds were physical, aimed at fulfilling worldly ambitions. This is as true of the Church of Rome it is of Islam today.

Although the evangelical Christian may preach about hell, the Islamic fanatic believes it his duty to expedite your arrival as soon and as horrifically as possible. The faith of the former is in the spiritual; he awaits a kingdom, and judgment is carried out by God alone in his time. On the other hand, the latter acts in the place of God, to execute judgment and establish a physical kingdom of “God” on earth. The pursuit of an earthy kingdom was the ambition also of Roman Catholicism, of both the Nazis and Communists, and it is also the vision of “progressive” elitists today.

Thus, religions that base their actions on the establishment of a kingdom in the physical realm have more in common with communists, fascists, and other secular collectivists who seek to do the same, than they do with those who base their faith on an everlasting omnipotent Creator, who has endowed men with a free will and inalienable rights!

Reason alone did not bring freedom, it did not create rights, nor did it bring justice; it has always done the opposite. For reason never travels alone; it is always accompanied by ideology. And reason is to be a servant of faith, a helper to bring invisible principles into the knowledge of a physical world as a constant foundation. For, if we are to avoid catastrophe, we must balance faith with reason, reason with faith, but the redeeming virtue of reason comes from faith.

RAS – 2007

Read Full Post »

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 »

There has much discussion over the meaning of the words “Ismail Ax” which were written in red and discovered on the arm of Virginia Tech shooter Cho Sueng Hui when his body was found.

One of the most convincing and reasonable explanations I have read comes from an article by Jerry Bowyer entitled, Ismail Ax: The Shooter Was Another ‘Son of Sacrifice’

Without going into the details of Bowyer’s explanation, in his final paragraph Bowyer discusses one of Cho’s writings and concludes,

“Cho Sueng-hui cum Ismail Ax hated the American society to which he had been brought 15 years earlier. His play McBeef (a poor pun from an English Lit major on Macbeth) is one endless screed against the corruption of American culture. A cheesy re-telling of Shakespeare’s Hamlet, it involves a young man abused by his step-father, a former NFL football player. The son, throws epithets at his father calling him a ‘Catholic priest’. And makes derisive comments about McDonalds. It seems that none of the foundational structures of Western Civilization, Christianity, capitalism, family, are spared his rage. In other words, he really meant what he said in his last words: “you (that is us, America) made me do this.”

It seems apparent that there is a certain mind-set which some people develop that can manifest itself in various forms such as Nazism, Communism, Islam, or in this case, even an improvised freelance set of personal beliefs without a home. Furthermore, in western styled democracies there is a degree of this antagonism which works through ideologues who ascribe to the extreme right, or the even more prevailing leftist dogmas; although, other than instances involving activist such as Timothy McVeigh or Ted Kaczynski, reactions usually tend to be less extreme.

However, this catalyst of hatred can find a home in any civilization and Islamic culture has made an institution of it, which sees itself as a victim and everything else as an irredeemable evil which can only be destroyed.

I have no doubt that this is the spirit that built Islam and that currently Islam is the most visible example of this frame of mind.

But beware, Islam is not the only breeding ground, it is but one vehicle, and we would best remember how many people the Communists and Nazis slaughtered in their quest.

Islam is a conspicuous enemy but not the only one affected; there are other nations and societies, which if they come to possess enough power, will create a conducive environment in which the people can be convinced they are victims and the “us versus them” mentality can be exploited and flourish.

It is a mistake to believe that the force which drove this young man is not prevalent to varying degrees in many places. It would be easy to write-off what happened at Virginia Tech as an aberration which produces a few isolated cases from time to time. Notwithstanding, this mentality of hatred, if it gains traction within a society, can become mainstream and embedded in the culture as evidenced by what took place in Germany 70 years ago, or what took place under Stalin or Mao, or what is occurring presently in Islamic societies.

Read Full Post »

Christianity and Judaism in juxtaposition of Islam

Is there the possibility that Islam will go through a reformation such as the Reformation of Christianity which took place in Europe transforming the religion? To answer this we must first understand the nature of the religions.

The Bible can be made to say almost anything if you pick and choose from it. Such was the case with Christianity, for it was the absence of scriptural information which contributed to the manipulation and persecution of the people by the Church in the Dark Ages. The violence perpetrated by Christianity for the most part came at a time when it was unlawful to posses copies the holy scriptures unless you were a member of Church hierarchy.

The Church changed only because the people became more informed. For beginning from the time that the full text of the Bible became available to the common people, there started a movement which first lead to Protestantism and has resulted in the Evangelical movement today. This transformation did not happen over night and there still exists today remnants of the old totalitarian Romanistic Christianity of yesteryear. Notwithstanding, at present, many Christians now hold Israel and the Jewish people in high esteem; and this favor comes NOT in spite of Christian scriptures, but because of them, for it was disclosure of the full text which turned the tide against anti-Semitism in Christianity.

This change is impossible within Islam for there are no undisclosed versus in the Koran that are being withheld. Therefore, it is not possible that by releasing more information a context of goodwill and peace will emerge.  In fact, for Islam the opposite is true; for the reverse must be done and Koranic scripture must be taken away or annulled rather than revealed to make Islam a religion of peace.

Judaism on the other hand never preached world conquest or the coercion of all of mankind by the sword. There was a commandment for the conquest of Canaan but it was limited to a specific area and directed at 7 specific groups in those areas; also it was limited to the time it took to subdue the land, after which Israel would exist in peace among the nations to become an example to the nations.

Israel was told that they could make peace with all nations which offered peace except those seven which were appointed to destruction. Why were they appointed to destruction? – According to scripture they were murderous people who were sacrificing their children in burnt offerings and were beyond reform.

How many people today would object to a UN resolution empowering civilized nations to go against a blood thirsty nation that was burning their first born children on alters and threatening the world? (However, the UN would not do that nor would nations follow, for it is happening today in the sense that Islam is sacrificing its children even unto the death by teaching its new generations to become martyrs – first born, second born, third born, all of them)

To sum it all up, Islam will not reform, it is the antithesis of Judeo-Christian beliefs. The conflict between Christianity and Judaism is theological more than political, we can live with differences, but Islam is political and totalitarian. In the end it will defeat all or will be defeated.

Read Full Post »

There are basically four groups of thought regarding the advent of a New World Order. We will call them, the skeptics, the anti-globalist left, the anti-globalist right, and the internationalist.

The first group are the skeptics who believe that the New World Order exists chiefly as an imaginative idea embraced by paranoid conspiracy theorists, or else it is an unrealistic ambition that is not attainable anytime soon due to the many obstacles and complex divisions of the world’s cultures.

The remaining three groups do believe that the world is converging into a global society, however, they differ on their perspectives of it. The first of these three groups are the anti-globalizationist on the left who believe that there is a conspiracy consisting mostly of powerful right-wing elitist who are bigoted, racist, and predominately white. These greedy white elitists who are obsessed with gaining more wealth and power reside for the greater part in the United States and fall into the fascist category having embraced a vision akin to Hitler‘s. Furthermore, they are seen as preying upon the ignorance and bigotry of conservatives and fundamentalist Christians in order to build a power base wherewith they can take control of society and further their imperialistic global agenda through U.S. power.

The next group of believers is a counter group to the former. Many adherents are conservative and religious. They also believe that there is a movement towards a one world controlled society which they attribute to secular progressive socialism. For the religious people in this group, a part of the foundation for their belief is derived from scriptures which depict a totalitarian global society in the last days united against God and his people. This world government determines to force all the inhabitants of world to submit to international law and sets its face against Christianity and Israel.

Others are convinced of a movement towards a socialist one world society simply by current tends, the weakening of nation-states in favor of international consensus, social and economic globalization, relaxation of borders, and the growing reliance on the United Nations along with recent movement towards an authoritative global judicial system.

Interestingly enough, groups on the left and right opposing the New World Order see each other as behind the move towards it, even as they both cite many of the same sources and point to the same evidence and events to substantiate their belief that a movement exists. They even go as far as acknowledging many of the same proponents who are pushing for a new world order, but they relegate them to each other’s side. There also exists a fringe in both groups that ascribe to the belief that there is a sublime Zionist plot involving Jewish internationalist which are the master-minds of behind this global conspiracy – This in light of the fact that the preponderance of individuals who advocate a world federation of nations are not Jewish, some are anti-Semitic, and most are anti-Israel.

In the last group are the cosmopolitans, internationalist who believe in the emergence of a global society, embrace the vision of it and facilitate its establishment. Many of those who fit into the anti-globalization left category fit into this group also, for their hostility to globalization is not an objection to a one world government, but to the shape and consistency of such a government. Generally speaking, leftist who oppose globalization do support international law but hate global capitalism. The answer to globalization in their view is world socialism fashioned upon Marxist philosophies. Thus leftist will support internationalism if it meets their specifications.

Who is right?

Is there truly a conspiracy for a one world order? If so, is who is behind it, and is it viable?

It is my belief that there does exist a movement towards internationalization. It is not a conspiracy in the traditional sense per se but rather a course of natural developments brought on in large part by BIG BUSINESS and global financial institutions who hold international interests.

For while the idea of a new world order may conjure up images of Hitlarian individual with political power who takes over the world by military force, what actually has happened is national interests are merging into common international interests.

Because the assets and financial interests of Giant corporations and banks are spread around the globe they have an agenda to protect and as much as possible continue to grow them. What we are seeing then is the globalization of economics and shared resources creating the necessity for control and harmony that can only be achieved by a universal governing system. And a universal governing system demands a degree of conformity among those who are governed.

Politicians in order to obtain power require the backing of these financial giants if they are to be viable candidates. They must be willing to service the financial institutions and international agenda in exchange for support. Therefore, not only have corporations merged with other corporations, but corporations have merged with politicians who will do their bidding in exchange for power. For this reason many of the higher up politicians share the same globalist agenda as international corporations, for through their collective power they imagine to practice social engineering on a global scale.

I often cite HG Wells who perceived this development taking place and said that world socialism was inevitable due to modernization of communications and transportation, which would dissolve national borders.

It’s the economy stupid!!!!!! Big business benefits by an international consumer base, societies have more goods at lower prices, but there is a trade off in that it changes the world we live into a global society which will lead to monopolies not only in commerce but in politics.

A globalsociety would not necessarily be bad if it was a just a free society that regarded individual rights, but because there will exist a monopoly of power it will over time become tyrannical. In his inaugural lecture at Cambridge University, Professor Lord Acton declared, “Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

The corruption of United Nations should be an indication of how the consolidation of power at the international level will work. If it is as bad as it is with limited powers, what would such a body do with unlimited power?

There is no room in this New World Order for Israel as a Jewish Nation or for American unilateralism or American patriotism or for free independent states.

Government consolidation of power works just like in economics where powerful corporations consolidate and merge to increase power, eliminate the competition and create a monopoly. The only difference is that instead of it being for money it is for power – although money and power are close relatives which overlap.

Why would it work differently? Why, when it happens, do people shrug it off as just “conspiracy theory”? The term “conspiracy” is used purposely with a connotation implying paranoia or delusion in order to discredit the notion.

Whether in business or politics, consolidation of power is a natural evolution of the stronger devouring the weaker, due in part to man’s flawed nature which introduces greed and unrestrained desire into the equation – Why would it take place in business but not in politics?

Today because of the power of high technologies and communications consolidation and control can take place on a larger scale and micro-management is possible to a greater degree than any time in history. Humanity today is in a place where it can realize not only the greatest benefits but the greatest oppression in history all depending on how the consolidation of power is used.

The historical trend is that gradually over time when the consolidation of power becomes great enough, those with that power use it to overcome the competition either by assimilation or elimination. Why then should it seem unreasonable that so many like minded people and organizations could eventually gain control and weed out opposition, not only in economics but in the higher levels of government? Without some separation of powers and nations corruption is destined to become universal and that is the threat we all face.

Read Full Post »

There has been much debate surrounding the facts of what actually took place over the past decade in the former Yugoslavia – who were the good guys, who were the bad guys, or if they were all bad guys. The larger issue however, is the intervention of NATO by the international community, for this will have longer lasting effects and greater ramifications globally in the future. What has been expressed here is a concern that the use of NATO in the Balkans is a harbinger of how the international community may settle future conflicts.

There is widespread political advocacy for an approach of multinational consolidation of power to manage world affairs and elitists in mainstream media support this notion. The common belief of these media elitists may well be expressed in Andy Rooney’s statement on CBS’s “60 Minutes” (October 12, 2003) when he said referring to the United Nations: “There has to be some power in the world superior to our own.”

This is merely and echo of Walter Cronkite, who received the World Federalist Association’s 1999 global governance award, and declared that “we must strengthen the United Nations as a first step toward a world government” and that America must “yield up some of our sovereignty.” Afterwards Hillary praised both Cronkite and the WFA in a video-taped address.

When Bill Clinton was president his agenda was to facilitate international law and one step was that he signed the Treaty of Rome for the International Criminal Court, although he was unable to get it ratified. He also wrote a letter of support for world government to the World Federalist Association (which has now merged with the Campaign for United Nations Reform to form Citizens for Global Solutions (motto: Building a World Community Under Law)

Who is the World Federation that these elitists praise and support? – WORLD FEDERALIST ASSOSIATION.

Why is this important and what does it have to do with Serbia, Israel, the USA and the rest of the world? – Because, Kosovo was, and still is in the process of global engineering, and it won’t stop there.

On January 13, 1993 Warren Christopher discussed with Sen. Joseph Biden’s Committee on Foreign Relations the possibility of NATO becoming a peacekeeping surrogate for the U.N. “to foster the creation of a new world order.”

That is exactly what happened later in the former Yugoslavia and we are likely to see more of it in the future in the Middle-East with Israel being the focal point.

Why do I say that? Read the mindset of elitist politicians.

When Joe Biden U.S. and Senator Chuck Hagel (Republican from Nebraska) returned from their trip to the Middle -East Hagel said,

the Middle-East has moved “from periphery to center” in the U.S. foreign policy strategy and called on U.S. leaders to develop “a fabric of global alliances and coalitions” to deal with the region.

[this is a call for the consolidation and assertion of power by multinational coalition]

“America can no longer hover ‘over the horizon’ to defend and promote its interests in the Middle East. America must work through a multilateral, long-term coalition,”

“Ideologies, both nationalist [Zionism] and religious [Islam], animate and radicalize the politics of the Middle East, much like Europe hundreds of years ago.”

[In singling out nationalism, he seems to be blaming Israel’s nationalism as much as Islamic terrorism]

“Palestinian terrorist attacks against Israeli citizens continue, and Israeli Defense Forces have killed women, children, and UN employees, and new Israeli settlements continue to be built on the West Bank. This cycle of violence must end.”

[Self defense is equated with terrorism as part of the cause]

In the Middle East as in Northeast Asia, our interests in disarmament and regional stability are best served by working with our allies, not by acting impulsively, preemptively, or unilaterally.

Fifty years ago last month, General Dwight D. Eisenhower was elected president. I mention this because this anniversary reminds us of Eisenhower’s policy of multilateralism … clear thinking, collective security,……America, now more than ever, requires steady statecraft, through coalitions of common interest,……. Henry Kissinger put it well in a Washington Post op-ed last week when he wrote that: The ultimate challenge for U.S. foreign policy is to turn dominant power into a sense of shared responsibility……….as if the international order were composed of many centers of power………”

“President Truman and General Marshall were architects of a post World War II world that formed alliances for collective security and coalitions of common purpose to deal with the realities and complications of a new world order. Organizations like NATO and the United Nations were part of – and remain integral to – this new hopeful world with new dangerous challenges.”

Now contrast that thinking the thinking of John Bolton in his 2001 essay THE RISKS AND WEAKNESSES OF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT FROM AMERICA’S PERSPECTIVE where he writes,

Explicitly espousing a foreign policy of “assertive multilateralism,” President Clinton launched an ambitious experiment in a U.N.-led “nation building”…[he] engineered a series of international agreements……..This penchant for multilateral solutions also reflected an enduring if often badly mistaken legalism that has permeated American foreign policy during the twentieth century….

No international organization that exists today honestly meets any acceptable test for accountable law-giving, law-interpreting, or law-enforcing institutions….

…..Proponents of international governance see the United States as the chief threat to the “new world order” they are trying to create. Small villains who commit heinous crimes can kill individuals and even entire populations, but only the United States can neutralize or actually thwart the “new world order” itself…..

[The Treaty of Rome] We are nowhere near the end of the list of prospective “crimes” that can be added to the statute. Many were suggested at Rome and commanded wide support from participating nations. The most popular was the crime of “aggression,” which was included in the statute but not defined. Although frequently easy to identify, “aggression” can at times be something in the eye of the beholder.Thus, Israel justifiably feared in Rome that its preemptive strike in the Six-Day War almost certainly would have provoked a proceeding against top Israeli officials. Moreover, there is no doubt that Israel will be the target of a complaint concerning conditions and practices by the Israeli military in the West Bank and Gaza. The United States, with continuous bipartisan support for many years, has attempted to minimize the disruptive role that the United Nations has all too often played in the Middle East peace process. We do not now need the ICC interjecting itself into extremely delicate matters at inappropriate times.

Any surprise Bolton is gone? Anyone who stands against them is demonized and targeted for elimination.

In my opinion, the elitists’ view is that there needs to be a new world order – a multi-national collectivist union that works together as an arbitrator and enforcer not only to judge nations but to impose “peace,” “stability,” and to serve “ justice”

Kosovo is a precedent for the future.

Read Full Post »

On February 2, 2007 an article appeared in UK’s The Daily Telegraph entitled EU Plans Far-reaching ‘Genocide Denial’ Law reveals that legislation is to be taken-up by the EU in the spring which raises issues of prosecution of free speech. It appears that under the law a person could face up to 3 years imprisonment espousing their views.

According to the article the law would be a double edge sword which could cut many ways depending upon the personal views of those who wield the power of it at the moment. It is another example of how traditional values are being replaced by collective consensus which then find their way into legislation. Even more disturbing is that in this case the law would be supranational.

EU Plans Far-reaching ‘Genocide Denial’ Law

People who question the official history of recent conflicts in Africa and the Balkans could be jailed for up to three years for “genocide denial” under proposed EU legislation.

Germany, current holder of the EU’s rotating presidency, will table new legislation to outlaw “racism and xenophobia” this spring……

…..Deborah Lipstadt, the professor of Modern Jewish and Holocaust Studies at Emory University, Atlanta, believes the German proposals are misplaced. “I adhere to that pesky little thing called free speech and I am very concerned when governments restrict it,” she said yesterday.

“How will we determine precisely what is denial? Will history be decided by historians or in a courtroom?”

Berlin’s draft EU directive extends the idea of Holocaust denial to the “gross minimisation of genocide out of racist and xenophobic motives”, to include crimes dealt with by the International Criminal Court.

The ICC was set up in 2002 following international outcry about war crimes and alleged genocides in the former Yugoslavia and in Africa. It was felt that the courts in those countries were either unable or unwilling to ensure justice was done.

The draft text states: “Each member state shall take the measures necessary to ensure that the following intentional conduct is punishable: ‘publicly condoning, denying or grossly trivialising of crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes as defined in’… the Statute of the ICC.” [There you have it, the International Court decides what you can and can’t say based on what they say is a “crime” or what is not – Do you see the implications for Israel and other nations who are in the minority opinion of international consensus? – me]

General Lewis MacKenzie, the former commander of UN peacekeepers in Bosnia, courted controversy two years ago by questioning the numbers killed at Srebrenica in 1995.

He took issue with the official definition of the massacre as genocide and highlighted “serious doubt” over the estimate of 8,000 Bosnian fatalities. “The math just doesn’t support the scale of 8,000 killed,” he wrote.

Balkans human rights activists have branded Gen MacKenzie an “outspoken Srebrenica genocide denier” and, if approved, the EU legislation could see similar comments investigated by the police or prosecuted in the courts after complaints from war crimes investigators or campaigners.

A German government spokesman said: “Whether a specific historic crime falls within these definitions would be decided by a court in each case.”

If agreed by EU member states, the legislation is likely to declare open season for human rights activists and organisations seeking to establish a body of genocide denial law in Europe’s courts. [Good for the clerical jobs market, US and Israel hating NGOs will be filing lots and lots of paper work – me]

European Commission officials insist that the legislation is necessary: “racism and xenophobia can manifest themselves in the form of genocide denial so that it is very important to take strong action”……..

Full Content of Article Here

An emotional cause that garners strong support is often used as an inroad to power. While many still sympathize with or feel guilt for what happened during the Holocaust, laws such as this could set a dangerous precedent which may cut in any number of directions. Once again we have another example of a cultural movement towards an authoritarian collective society based upon a foundation of moral relativism.

Decisions made in the International Criminal Court will by a tribunal of selected judges. Both judges and prosecutors are members of the court so there is no real separation of powers. Justice does not fair all that well in such environments where the presentation of “evidence” is controlled by the same people who will judge it.

Even Henry Kissinger who openly supports the New World Order stated that the checks and balances of the ICC are so weak that the prosecutor “has virtually unlimited discretion in practice”.

Here is some back ground on the ICC as it relates to Israel and the USA:

Israel states that it has “deep sympathy” with the goals of the court. However, it has concerns that political pressure on the court would lead it to reinterpret international law or to “invent new crimes”. It cites the inclusion of “the transfer of parts of the civilian population of an occupying power into occupied territory” as a war crime as an example of this, whilst at the same time disagrees with the exclusion of terrorism and drug trafficking. Israel sees the powers given to the prosecutor as excessive and the geographical appointment of judges as disadvantaging Israel which is not part of any of the UN Regional Groups.

Israel voted against the adoption of the Rome Statute but later signed the Statute. In 2002 it submitted a letter to the United Nations declaring that it did not intend to ratify the treaty, using the same wording as the similar letter from the United States. – International Criminal Court, Wikipedia

….”The United Nations has not removed the name of the United States from the official list of signatories.” – The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Wikipedia

In 2001 John Bolton wrote an essay entitled THE RISKS AND WEAKNESSES OF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT FROM AMERICA’S PERSPECTIVE.

Part of the critic deals with the push by certain US elitists for the ICC and other parts address the ICC in relation to Israel and the former Yugoslavia:

[Bolton writes:]…Explicitly espousing a foreign policy of “assertive multilateralism,” President Clinton launched an ambitious experiment in a U.N.-led “nation building” in Somalia. The experiment collapsed with the deaths of eighteen Americans in Mogadishu in late 1993, and the vocabulary of “assertive multilateralism” largely disappeared.4

Nonetheless, although the rhetoric stopped, the underlying policy did not, revealing itself in a multitude of policy initiatives. The Clinton Administration engineered a series of international agreements, such as the Kyoto Protocol,5 the Landmines Convention,6 the Convention on Biological Diversity,7 and many others, some of which it signed and some of which it did not for fear of certain defeat in the U.S. Senate. This penchant for multilateral solutions also reflected an enduring if often badly mistaken legalism that has permeated American foreign policy during the twentieth century.

Nowhere was this convergence of multilateral and legalistic thought more evident than in the Clinton Administration’s pursuit of a permanent International Criminal Court (“ICC”).8 In the eyes of its supporters, the ICC is simply an overdue addition to the family of international organizations, an evolution- [*pg 169] ary step following the Nuremberg tribunal, and a logical institutional development over the ad hoc war crimes courts in Bosnia and Rwanda.

So described, one might assume that the ICC fits logically into history’s orderly march toward the peaceful settlement of international disputes, sought since time immemorial.9 But the real (if usually unstated, and far distant) objectives of the ICC’s supporters are to assert the supremacy of its authority over nation states, and to promote prosecution over alternative methods for dealing with the worst criminal offenses, whether occurring in war or through arbitrary domestic power. This is but one of many reasons why the Statute of Rome10 is harmful to the national interests of the United States, is unsound foreign policy, and is a threat to the independence and flexibility that America’s military forces need to defend U.S. national interests around the world.

In fact, the court and the prosecutor are illegitimate. The ICC’s principal failing is that its components do not fit into a coherent “constitutional” design that delineates clearly how laws are made, adjudicated, and enforced, subject to popular accountability and structured to protect liberty. Instead, the court and the prosecutor are simply “out there” in the international system. This approach is clearly inconsistent with American standards of constitutional order, and is, in fact, a stealth approach to erode our constitutionalism. That is why this issue is, first and foremost, a liberty question……

……Indeed, the supposed “independence” of the prosecutor and the court from “political” pressures (such as the Security Council) is more a source of concern [*pg 174] than an element of protection. “Independent” bodies in the United Nations system have often demonstrated themselves to be more highly politicized than some of the explicitly political organs.25 True political accountability, by contrast, is almost totally absent from the ICC, which lacks both any semblance of democratic accountability or effective governmental oversight and control. If anything, “public choice” analysis tells us that the ICC will be “captured” not by governments but by NGOs and others with narrow special interests, and the time and resources to pursue them.…..

…..We are nowhere near the end of the list of prospective “crimes” that can be added to the statute. Many were suggested at Rome and commanded wide support from participating nations. The most popular was the crime of “aggression,” which was included in the statute but not defined.17 Although frequently easy to identify, “aggression” can at times be something in the eye of the beholder. Thus, Israel justifiably feared in Rome that its preemptive strike in the Six-Day War almost certainly would have provoked a proceeding against top [*pg 171] Israeli officials. Moreover, there is no doubt that Israel will be the target of a complaint concerning conditions and practices by the Israeli military in the West Bank and Gaza. The United States, with continuous bipartisan support for many years, has attempted to minimize the disruptive role that the United Nations has all too often played in the Middle East peace process. We do not now need the ICC interjecting itself into extremely delicate matters at inappropriate times. Israel, therefore, was one of the few governments that voted with the United States against the statute.

According to Bolton, it was Clinton’s ambition to validate the ICC but he did not take the political risk before the elections. The Congress was controlled at the time by Republicans and he feared the issue may cost him the Senate, thus, Clinton signed on to the ICC but waited to validate it.

Since that time Bush nixed it, however, because of the wording of the US withdrawal was not explicit the UN still lists the US as a signatory to it. Do you suppose Hillary will finish the job if elected in 2008?

The danger of the ICC becoming a world power is a lot nearer than some people think. I have said before and will state again, If we are Israelis or freedom loving individuals, Islam is only one threat we face today. The threat of international collectivism is a real threat that is near realization.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »