8 Rs Net

A newcomer to the world of investments in the notion of “Virtual Real Estate Investing“. There are many variations on what this term means, encompassing everything from using the internet to aid in real estate investing efforts to participating in online games such as SecondLife.

To find out the real story, I had a conversation with Bryan Ellis of BryanEllis.com, widely considered to be one of the originators of the concept of Virtual Real Estate Investing.

Ellis says he adopted the term “virtual real estate investing” sometime before Y2K after he realized that making money online is conceptually very similar to making money with physical real estate.

Bryan Ellis cites the similar strategies one can employe to make money from “virtual property” and “physical property” as a primary parallel of the two markets. “There’s a huge difference between a website and a piece of real estate, but the ways you can profit from them are similar: ‘flipping’, rental/leasing, advertising sales, etc…all of these apply to both markets” he states.

The similarities really are obvious. After all, if you own a valuable piece of real estate, it’s “valuable” because other people are interested in that specific piece of property. Similarly, ownership of a desirable domain name is valuable for the same reasons. So it doesn’t matter if you own physical real estate or virtual real estate – you’ll likely use similar strategies to turn them into money in your pocket.

In our next installment of this series on virtual real estate investing, Bryan Ellis will share the internet analogies to the physical concept of real estate development.

Many people who don’t vote and remain aloof to all political participation are unaware of the long history of the American Civil Liberties Union. That is one of the ACLU’s greatest strengths. Although much newer the ACLJ has quite a different history and it would cause little embarrassment if it were discovered by more Americans.

The ACLU has championed many causes since it was founded in 1920 by Mr. Roger Baldwin. Some of the most notable causes or rulings the ACLU supported have to do with abortion rights, homosexual and lesbian rights and removal of prayer from the public schools. Some of its most notable positions were of lesser significance but created much more press because they bordered on the frivolous and were more a nuisance than a legitimate cause. They adopted positions against bible studies and prayer groups in public schools and the removal of manger scenes in public during the Christmas season. Can’t you hear the voices of many grateful Americans in a resounding…gee thanks?

Not to be mistaken for something that actually qualifies as the protection of our civil liberties is the new battlefield conjured up by the ACLU in Las Cruces, New Mexico. The three crosses adorning the city logo is a point of pride and history for the residents there but for the ACLU, they have given cause for it to rear its head and wield the battle axe. It has resulted in making “what ever happened to common sense” being the most oft used phrase in internet blogging history. But wait, it doesn’t stop there.

The latest fit the ACLU has begun; concerns prayer offered by the U.S. military’s chaplains. In short the ACLU thinks it should be stopped. Whew! That’s good thinking. I don’t know about you but the last thing I would want to have happen to me just before I went to battle for my country is to have my country tell me I couldn’t go to God in prayer. In particular they are trying to stop chaplains from praying in the name of Jesus Christ. In a volunteer force made up of mostly Christian men and women isn’t that an infringement of their religious freedom? In fact it is more than that.

The constitution says “Congress shall make no laws touching religion, or to infringe the rights of conscience.” What genius does it take to see that the ACLU is actually crying “unconstitutional” while they are proposing laws that are clearly unconstitutional? Don’t want to be crass but perhaps the ACLU lawyers and aides should all take a day off to watch Forrest Gump together. If I remember correctly the most often repeated line in that movie is, “stupid is, as stupid does”

Diametrically opposite the ACLU is the newly formed but no less formidable, ACLJ. The American Center for Law and Justice founded in 1990 is headed by Jay Sekulow who is the ACLJ’s Chief Counsel. He is a well respected advocate for constitutional freedoms and has argued many cases before the U.S, Supreme Court.

The Center for Law and Justice has successfully argued cases and supported positions in other cases which resulted in an impressive list of good common sense decisions and rulings. A short list of the accomplishments of the ACLJ is as follows.

* A guarantee for minors who want to be involved in the political process by protecting their free speech rights in political affairs.

* Rulings to protect the constitutional rights of religious groups to obtain equal access to public facilities.

* Protection for the free speech rights of pro-life demonstrators

* The right for public school students to form and participate in religious organizations such as Bible clubs.

The ACLJ is currently on the radio waves daily soliciting signatures for a petition to stop the ban on prayer by the military chaplains. The response is said to be very powerful at the least. Upwards of ten thousand people a day are asking to have their names added to the petitions.

It is shameful that Americans must pound away to ward off organizations like the ACLU whose agenda looks like it originated in la-la land. The constitution is under attack by those who feign that they are working to protect it. After all this is America and they have a constitutional right to mess with the constitution. Let’s not mess with their right to do that, but lets hope and pray (if they don’t stop us) that they don’t prevail.

The Bible tells the believer to respect the rulings and laws provided by the secular rulers because the powers that be, are all ordained of God. Romans 13:1. Almost all bible believing Christians take this mandate seriously and endeavor to be law abiding citizens. You would think that this respect for secular law would hold things in balance between those who believe in the Bible and revere the constitution and groups like the ACLU, but it does not. The ACLU seems bent on removing all reference and allusion to God on any level. What would the result be if they were successful in this plight? I choose to let the Bible answer that question.

And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Romans 1:28

Brian McAfee brimac6@hotmail.com

Dr. Michelle Bachelet likely Victor In Chile’s Dec. 11 Presidential Election.

Chile’s Socialist party’s presidential candidate, Dr Michelle Bachelet, stands poised to be the next president of Chile. She has a significant lead in the polls, and if there is a run-off election she is expected to still be the victor. Her closest opponent, Joaquin Lavin, a conservative, trails well behind her.

Dr Bachelet endured numerous personal tragedies in the years of Pinochet’s coup. Her father, Alberto Bachelet, an airforce general loyal to president Salvador Allende, was tortured to death in 1974 by DINA, Pinochet’s secret police. In 1975 both then 23 year old medical student, Michelle Bachelet, and her mother, Angela Jeria, were kidnapped from their home by a gang of DINA men. Both were tortured and deprived of food and water. Because of intervention by some top military officials, the two women escaped execution and were instead exiled to Australia Under the junta. Many women and girls were raped, tortured, and executed. Most of the perpetrators remain unpunished.

Bachelet and her mother spent almost 5 years in Australia, then she returned to Chile to do clandestine human rights work. She also became a medical doctor. Democracy was restored in Chile in 1988. As a politically active outspoken critic of the U.S. supported facist dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet, Bachelet became president Ricardo Lagos’s choice to head the national ministry of health. She served in this capacity from March of 2000 then in a stunning move, President Lagos appointed her defense minister in 2002. As a former victim of military crimes, this move signaled a complete overhaul of Chile’s military establishment. While she endorsed efforts to prosecute officers for their crimes against the civilian population, she obtained and continues to have the respect of the majority of the military and their families. There were over 3,000 murdered by the junta during the Pinochet years, a national wound that has not yet healed. “There was a group of Pinochet supporters who thought when the wives of the disappeared died off, the problem will die with it,” Bachelet said, “But their children and grandchildren have taken up the flag.”

Despite the harsh realities of the past, the current president Ricardo Lagos as well as his likely successor, Dr. Bachelet, have their vision set firmly on the future, dealing with the current complexities of the economy, social issues, and the environment.

Today, in many countries’ political realities, tribalist and nationalist or globalist forces clash fiercely, undermining chances of peace and democracy. This is particularly topical in the Middle East, where efforts by established leaderships to discourage armed conflict have reached a new phase, in which both Hezbollah and Hamas, organizations labeled ‘terrorist’ by the US, are nudged to start thinking about participation in mainstream politics.

The number of countries in the world at the moment that are in some form of transition is higher than some ten years ago, and in some ways more efforts are made to resolve situations that threaten stability. And the moves of all involved parties are not without major-league risks.

By finally addressing security issues by making a clean sweepthrough, the Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas is slowly shifting into gear, starting the clampdown on Palestinian insurgency that has long been called for. he has even told Hamas fighters publicly to give up their arms, This was a first for the president who until now has been anything but clear on security issues. The Hamas leaders according to a report in the London Asharq Al Awsat paper are reportedly planning to return to Gaza after the Israelis have withdrawn.

The newspaper report detailed that the leaders are likely to move their group’s political bureau to Gaza as soon as Israel transfers control over the border crossings to the Palestinian Authority. “When a militia turns into a political party, I believe the issue of a need for arms becomes irrelevant,” Abbas was quoted as saying. “There will be only one authority, one law and one legal [armed force],” according to the recently elected Palestinian leader, who played down the risks involved in the operation, saying that this has happened many times before in history.

Hamas leaders however deemed it necessary to reiterate that they have no intention of disarming at all. “Our fingers will remain on the rifle triggers until the removal of the occupation,” Hamas spokesman Mushir al-Masri said, according to the Israeli Al Haaretz paper. Even though Hamas has participated in the elections recently, Masri doubted that this means the members are actually going to function as such.
It is remarks like these that worry the international community very much. US President George W. Bush has been said to be waiting with inviting the Palestianian leader Abbas until he has got something of substance to report. Perhaps an invitation will finally be extended soon now. The Palestinian leader has installed a hardliner as new intelligence chief. Tareq Abu Rajab, who used to be deputy intelligence chief, is known to have played an important role in a crackdown on the militant group Hamas.
Hamas, which has participated in municipal elections already, might see next July’s municipal elections turn out in its favor. “Extrapolating from the present point in time, Hamas I believe would gain between 30 and 50 percent in the elections to the Palestinian Legislative Council in July. Fateh is in total disarray and is searching for its lost identity”, said Matti Steinberg, an Israeli former security advisor to two heads of the Israel General Security Service. “Hamas could register considerable gains in elections and possibly demand to play a role in the next Palestinian Authority government”, according to Yossi Alpher, a former senior advisor to Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak. The gains that the ‘party to be’ is likely to win are largely due to unhappiness of the Palestine population with the Fateh party, which has lost its identity more or less due to dysfunctioning of the PA.
This is echoed by Ghassan Khattib, the Palestinian Authority minister of planning. “It is possible that Hamas, which so far maintains a fundamentalist ideological and extreme political position, will become a pragmatic movement if it has the chance to be part of official politics, locally, regionally and internationally. The rhetoric of Hamas now reminds many of Fateh’s rhetoric when it was treated by the “legitimate powers” as an “illegal terrorist group”. Fateh successfully worked out a trade-off. It was recognized and included in the system in return for playing politics within the parameters of international legality”, he says.
Some view the moves of the radicalists to mainstream politics as a positive transformation and it is surely to be hoped that the organizations involved in the decades-long strife in the region that are now close to becoming involved in mainstream politics, will ultimately disarm. Yet their popularity might be evidencing real hardship on the ground. Aside from what’s driving the islamist vote, Israel’s reaction to a possible Hamas inclusion into the PA might not be favorable and it might be unwilling to negotiate with Hamas leaders. But then, this might not turn out to be the case. Prime Minister Sharon who is said by some to favor a peace process that is open ended might think he has a better negotiating partner in a Hamas partipated PA.
It is also going to be interesting what is going to be happening with Hizbollah in Lebanon. Hezbollah leaders have expressed opposition to disarmament that’s as strong as the the Palestinian Hamas leaders. So far, this issue, the groups’ status as terrorist and their unwillingness to recognize Israel as a state has always deterred countries like the US to deal with them as mature political entities. This is changing. Word in the diplomatic corridors has it that the State Department might acquiesce in Hizballah’s entry into Lebanese politics if it abandons terrorism and severs its political and operational ties with Syria. This US recognition of Hizballah could serve as a precedent for US acceptance of a political role for Hamas.

So far it looks like every major move that the islamist groups make by definition will continue to go accompanied with pledges to hold onto arms. But one ought to bear in mind that often the public rhetoric is different than any private action. The leader of Hezbollah, Sheikh Hassan Nasrullah, recently reiterated that his group will not give up their weapons. In an interview with Reuters he said that his party will keep its weapons and will not give it up, noting that this decision is because of the continued Israeli occupation and the risks of occupation against his country. He even snubbed the UN, saying that its Security Council resolution demanding Hizbullah to hand over its weapons is ‘meaningless’ and ‘of no value’.

Meanwhile, in Iraq Al Qaeda’s Jordanian-born leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi also recently publicly rejected a call from the new Iraqi president for militants to lay down their arms. Calling the new Iraqi leader President Jalal Talabani an agent of the US and Jews, the rebels said they would continue their strife until Sharia law was established in the country and never forgive the leader for his “infidelity” and “spilling of the blood of Muslims”. It is not clear whether the statement, posted on a website used by Islamist militants is authentic. It is a smack in the face however of Mr Talabani, who has been quite lenient to those Iraqi’s who have taken to violence over the past few years, saying a peaceful solution should be found with Iraqis who were ‘led astray’ by terrorism. He even invited them in to participate in the democratic process and offered some convicted terrorists an amnesty.

About the Author

Angelique van Engelen is a freelance writer who’s lived in the Middle East for over three years. She runs www.contentClix.com, a writing agency based in the Netherlands. She also contributes to a writing ring http://clixyPlays.blogspot.com

An American soldier is taken behind enemy lines and brainwashed as an unwitting assassin by communists in league with American political figures. This soldier then returns to the States to kill a presidential candidate as part of a political scheme to escalate and exploit Cold War tensions.

Sound familiar? It does if you’ve seen the classic movie “The Manchurian Candidate.”

Now consider this modified scenario: An American soldier is first brainwashed as an assassin and to behave as a communist by agents of his own government, then sent behind enemy lines as a defector, only to return to the States and assassinate an American president.

But this is no movie plot. Years of research have convinced me this is exactly what happened in the assassination of John F. Kennedy in 1963.

Before you dismiss this as yet another JFK conspiracy theory, look at how much it explains in light of what we’ve learned about the CIA’s skillful use of mind control and fake defectors over years of anti-communist operations.

* In a program known as MKULTRA, the CIA spent billions of dollars secretly perfecting mind control technology. Brutal methods of eliciting confessions from captured enemy agents (electric shock, sensory deprivation, hypnosis and truth drugs such as LSD) were developed on hundreds of unwitting victims. Used operationally for many years, this counterintelligence technology is now coming to light in the Abu Ghraib prison-torture scandal.

* In addition to “defensive” techniques, CIA researchers sought to develop countermeasures against human weaknesses identified by the MKULTRA tests to create “torture-proof” American agents who could be sent into enemy territory on intelligence missions or be used to infiltrate enemy organizations as convincing double-agents and provocateurs.

* But the CIA didn’t stop here. They also developed methods to brainwash so-called “involuntary assassins” who would not question orders to kill on command in Cold War operations. According to declassified government documents published by the New York Times, such agents would carry out actions “even against such fundamental laws of nature as self-preservation.”

Indeed, a CIA memo (NYT, 1978) describing an experiment using “involuntary assassins written before the JFK assassination predicted the details surrounding the crime with eerie precision. According to the declassified memo from the 1950s, as a “trigger mechanism” for a “bigger project” a defector would be manipulated to kill an American official under the influence of CIA mind control and then be “disposed of” after being taken into custody for the crime. Flash forward a few years to 1963. A defector (Oswald) kills an American official (Kennedy) and is then “disposed of” in police custody (by Jack Ruby). The “trigger mechanism” (death of a president) clears the way to a “bigger project”: escalation of the Cold War on an unprecedented scale.

The parallels are striking. But is there supporting evidence for the scenario of Oswald being unwittingly manipulated as an intelligence pawn in a similar operation?

Declassified memos and investigative reporting by various sources have taught us a great deal over the past 40 years of how involuntary operatives could be cleverly “programmed” by the CIA as apparent communist sympathizers to infiltrate and disrupt communist organizations. (We now know that during the 1960s scores of phony leftists were used by the CIA and FBI to infiltrate and discredit organizations through violent behavior in infamous programs such as COINTELPRO.) We have also learned how supposed “lone-nut” Lee Harvey Oswald’s seemingly irrational behavior actually complemented such espionage programs:

* His defection to the Soviet Union was secretly handled by the CIA as a counterintelligence mission and mirrored an elaborately staged defection involving another low-level American soldier (with a similar background) that began the very same year Oswald’s did.

* Following his return to the U.S., Oswald leveraged his defector credentials to play the role of pro-Castro activist while constantly surrounded by anti-communists with links to the intelligence world.

– His best friend in Dallas was a wealthy White Russian with ties to the CIA and the address of future CIA Director George Bush in his wallet.

– After moving to New Orleans, Oswald formed an unauthorized chapter of a Castro-friendly group targeted by the CIA and handed out pro-Castro leaflets printed with the office address of an FBI anti-communist expert.

– Future “lone-nut assassin” and pro-Castro activist Oswald even met with one of the CIA’s anti-Castro assassins in New Orleans, while under both CIA and FBI surveillance (NYT, 1993).

* Oswald’s supposed pro-communist behavior fit the profile of a hypnotized anti-Communist infiltrator as detailed in declassified documents from his era. Military hypnotist George Estabrooks even bragged of carrying out an operation employing a brainwashed Marine who was hypno-programmed with a pro-communist personality so he could be prematurely discharged from the service as a fake defector and then used in an anti-communist intelligence operation. Further, he claimed his hypnosis technique had been used to create assassins.

The more I study Oswald’s infamous career, the more I am struck by how his otherwise puzzling bipolar antics make perfect sense within a now well-established CIA pattern of using counterfeit pro-communists in its anti-Communist operations.
But I am also struck by the parallels between the “Manchurian Candidate” hypothesis and Oswald’s use within these espionage operations.

As I reveal in The Perfect Assassin, mind control had many fascinating benefits for creating convincing double agents with unquestioning obedience who could be used in dangerous espionage cases where plausible deniability was critical. Estabrooks described the advantages mind control would provide in creating credible double agents to infiltrate communist organizations. “Convinced of their own innocence they would play the ‘fifth column’ role with utmost sincerity.” And even if such an agent was captured, “He could not tell the truth about his life as a spy, because he would not know of it.”

Declassified documents from the early ’60s detail real-life CIA experiments with this mind control technology that had amazing parallels to incidents in Oswald’s life and the events leading up to the Kennedy assassination. And documents show that the CIA was seriously investigating the use mind control for the anti-Castro assassination operations in which Oswald was involved.

But the theory of Oswald’s being used as a pawn in ongoing anti-communist operations not only explains his activities leading up to the assassination. It explains the reasons behind the assassination itself and therefore helps solve the riddle of who was ultimately behind the crime.

Put yourself in the mindset of the early ’60s, when those entrusted with the nation’s security saw communist infiltration in every dissident group, danger lurking in every shadow. To them, we needed to escalate the Cold War, not step back from it. In their eyes, JFK failed them in the failed Bay of Pigs invasion of Castro’s Cuba. And then he actively resisted aggressive plans and ongoing preparations for a second invasion. Kennedy was even considered a pro-communist traitor by extremists within the intelligence community.

If this scenario sounds outlandish in the post-Cold War world, consider the latest declassified documents that have surfaced from the Kennedy-era. These documents detail a major Cold War operation called Operation Northwoods secretly initiated by the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Memos from this operation, which was rejected by Kennedy, reveal a bold plan to justify a second invasion of Cuba. In one aspect of this plan, the CIA’s anti-Castro agents, disguised as pro-Castro militants, would engage in a series of violent actions, including staged assassinations on American soil. Such covert actions by apparent pro-communists were designed to provoke “a helpful wave of indignation” in the American public that could be channeled to support a more overt and militaristic Cold War crusade.

Now consider the convenience of Oswald’s actions to the covert warriors who not only had plans in place to kill heads of state (like Castro) but also had even discussed using mind control in these ongoing Cold War-era assassination attempts:

By killing JFK in the guise of a pro-Castro agent, Oswald eliminated a roadblock to the CIA’s more militant anti-communist policies (Kennedy had fired the CIA director who oversaw these policies and then served on the Warren Commission), and indeed provided a justification for them!

As the prophetic CIA memo on mind control foreshadowed, JFK’s murder served as the “trigger mechanism” for the “bigger project.” With Kennedy out of the way, thanks to the actions of a “Manchurian Candidate,” the Cold Warriors were free to escalate their mission with unspeakable brutality in Vietnam and elsewhere.

Far-fetched? Not when you sit down and really think about it.

Jerry Leonard is a physicist who has been actively involved in microelectronics research and production for over 15 years. He has numerous patents and publications related to his scientific career. In his personal research he has analyzed the extensive though hidden role American corporations played not only in creating Nazi Germany but in recruiting Nazi war criminals following the war. Jerry documents how this resulted in the continuation of the unethical human experimentation conducted in Nazi concentration camps–including mind control research, which he proposes ultimately led to the assassination of JFK.
http://www.winstonsmith.net

Why President Bush should have his second term? The arguments can be drawn from Gas price, Job creation and War in Iraq scientifically. If it is scientific, it must observe the same result, test in the same experiment and constitute a mathematical truth. For example, we all know that goose is white because we see the same color in anywhere. We know that water is H2O because the experiment result is the same. Needless to say, 2+2 = 4. We now apply these criteria to my arguments.

War in Iraq. Is America safer? The answer is YES because since 9/11 2001 till today (more than 1095 days) at this minute the homeland is secured and nothing has ever happened. We don’t talk about world or globe safer because it is out of our hands. 9/11 commission says’American is not safe!’ It means future and beyond this minute because we still face the threat of terrorists. If you want to extend this safer minute by minute until full four years to come, you should vote him for the second term. It is not fair to ignore this observable and mathematical fact.

Should we have war in Iraq? I did not hear anyone who complained when President Bush announced that the major combat was over. John Kerry even thought that Iraq was no match to us. Now, he wants to get European allies to help. This is just wishful thinking. There is not a thread truth to prove that he can do it. What he said is just a possibility, not a probability. Possibility means 50 to 50 choices. It could be right or wrong. Probability means percentages. President Bush got both from British and Russian intelligence that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. His decision on war with Iraq is 20% percent of probability. If you have a ten-room house and two rooms are threats of being invasions. It required an immediate reaction and not a minute too soon.

What went wrong is not unilateral action by American force alone. Rather, occupied too long. If we pulled out the troops right after we liberated Iraq. Bush would be the best President we ever had. Now, it is not easy to pull the force out because we did not act alone, we have to take care of those collation forces leaded by us. John’s great idea to involve more and bigger powers and to share decision making with them could have them to support us and to reduce the causality. This is very naive thinking. If you want them (e.g., French, German or Russian) to scarify lives, their demands may be too big for you to accept. Do not believe that NATO does not want to send troops to Iraq because President Bush intimidated them. If you give them enough benefits, I guarantee they will come. The question is ‘Can we afford to?’

The truth of the matter is France and Russia that opposed the invasion of Iraq because French has a contract to develop oil production in Iraq and Iraqi government owes a lot of debt to France. When the war was between Iraq and Iran, Russian is on Iraqi sides and we are on Iranian sides. This really has nothing to do with President’s alienation or not. John should have heard ‘Business is business.’ President of United States must have the best of interest of his people in mind. President Bush did just that.

America is the only super power in the world. We can conquer any one of six evil countries that President Bush had mentioned in a month or so. The unilateral invasion of Iraq is a living proof. However, the troops those are good enough to attack enemies and protect our homeland do not necessarily mean they are also good enough to occupy the big land especially when the politics is involved, we have to win enemies heart and mind. All the trouble came out. Increasing the size of troops or getting help from allies is not the answer. The question we should ask ourselves ‘Do we want the land from them?’ If we don’t, we should pack up and leave. The internal conflicts of Iraq have nothing to do with us. If we don’t like what we see, we demand them to make a change. If they don’t, we can always go back. The world is supposed to be safer because we usually face six enemy countries, now we only have four to go. Figure never lies.

Michael Moores who tried to make a buck twists the fact to make a film “Fahrenheit 9/11″. It has been embraced by the antiwar movement. However, Richard Clark who blamed the President in handling the war with al Qaida is the one who proves there is no relationship between Bush senior and Saudi family. He is also the one who authorized the plane to let bin Laden’s relatives to leave for Saudi Arabia. The most damaging scene is that President seems to think that gulf was more important than 911. This is why people who wore ‘Defeat Bush Sign’ because they felt that President Bush did not love them and took the job not seriously. In fact, if you saw his tear in the eyes and told Americans that he had to wait for . . . What he waited for was military hardware to move to Middle East Region. He wanted to retaliate immediately but his soldiers and weapons were not there yet. News woman Pat Harvey of Chanel 9 has said, ‘President is very sentimental.’ This scene should repeat on TV as many times as possible.

A mother protests against the President because her son died in the war. I forgive her what she is doing because she is a mother but I will not forgive her what she is doing because she is a citizen. She made a trip to Washington, D.C. to find out what’s wrong. Her conclusion was that the man in the White House must be changed. This really is a very simple conclusion. For one thing, not all mothers protested against war. For another, she does not represent all the mothers either. People think that war with Iraq is not worth to fight because spent too much money and died so many soldiers and not a progress in sight. However, from the theory of prevention, war with Iraq prevented further damage in the homeland because it turned enemy’s focus on different area. Otherwise, we may have 9/11 in Los Angels, Boston, Las Vegas, so on. Civilian causality may have proceeded what we have now in Iraq. Believe it or not, this is 100% percent truth. Michael Moore and other stars just like to pursuit fashion. Anti-Bush second term is a fashionable thing to do. What do they know about the war? John said he would increase the troops if he is asked for. He cannot pull troops back either. Change the President is not the solution.

The report of 911 commission is inconclusive as far as the source is concerned. It did not exhaust all the possible cases. They did not read Samuel R. “Sandy” Berger’s removal of classified documents from the National Archives and they just found that Iran involved giving paths of 9/11 Therefore, the conclusion that there was no relationship between al Qaeda and Saddam has not been proved definitely. What if the weapons of mass destruction are found after the election? Thus, we need to be very careful about it and should not make any judgement now. All we can rely on is the record that President Bush had done. If we go to war because we have to, then we will have many 9/11s, because we cannot have a war to prevent from bigger damages even if we want to.

We have not found weapons of mass destruction because our military cannot move around freely. However, we do see nuclear weapons in Libya. Col. Moammar Gaddafi decided to turn them in. This is a great achievement of President Bush on war with Iraq because we did not lose a single troop’s life and spent no money. This is one stone for two birds. If you think that Col. Gaddafi is easy, you are deadly wrong. This result alone is worth to go to war with Iraq.

Do not think if we did not go to war with Iraq, those enemies will leave us alone. Iraq, Sudan, Syria, Libya, and Iran may form allies to fight against US in order to save bin Laden. President Bush’s quick invasion of Iraq broke the formation, made Iran and Sudan not harbor bin Laden, and made Col. Gaddafi turned in nuclear weapons. What a great job he has done!

President Bush will bring the troops back in the very near future because middle level of al Qaeda operatives have been established and prepared to attack US homeland. The function of turning enemies’ focus on the different area is lost. The troops will go after bin Laden and make al Qaeda cells to save bin Laden. Thus, homeland will be safe. This time President will lead us to a fast, precise, unconditional and complete victory, and give the relatives who died in two towers a good answer.

Job creation. The nation’s economy is growing smartly, wages have begun to rise, and employers have added more than 1.4 million jobs to their payrolls in the past nine months. Yet voters continue to give President Bush poor ratings on his handling of the economy. Why? I will explain this phenomenon in terms of birds’ eye view versus worms’ eye view

Worms eye view is a private focus on a particular thing or event. So, they could not see the creation of jobs because those jobs do not relate his/her personal experience. This is just like to visit a doctor for headache and doctor fixed your foot instead. However, if we want to know the complete picture of the job problems, we have to use birds’ eye view. That is, a composite view to generalize the results. Therefore, we must start with birds eye view. Otherwise, we cannot find the symptom of the problem. But to deal with the problem we have to start with worms eye view. Although Bush did not solve the problem of dairy farms directly, but he did create the new jobs instead. If you drop the personal feeling, you will see those new jobs that are good for you.

On the other hand, jobs list in John’s American Jobs Plan are fixing high way, school yards and the governmental jobs. These jobs are for semi-skillful labors and they don’t need to be retrained. All they have to do is to go to a new place to work without any extra efforts. However, these jobs are either temporary because the jobs can be completed sooner or later or those jobs made a big government. Bush provides you with permanent jobs, It may be needed to be retrained for new jobs but it is better than before. It is not that the old dog cannot learn the new tricks. Rather, they are not willing to make any change. If you discover the job availability in the present job market in terms of birds eye view, you will never insist on your private focus in terms of worms’ eye view.

President Bush not only can produce permanent jobs but also create a new town. For example, if we fix the highways of entire country, it will cause the shortage of cement, private investors will see the profit to build a factory that produces cement. New factory needs hire more workers, workers need buy groceries, private investors build new stores. One thing lead another, the new town is built up. the work of the dept. of commerce is to see there is a need to help to facilitate the process. For example, if private investors may hastate to build cement factories, the government will make one to get it starts. If one tried to fix school yards and provided government jobs at the same time, then no impact of shortage will be produced. They are just some temporary jobs. Fixing highways is just a lead. The result is a new town. By the way, people only remembered President Reagan’s tax cut . I would say his massive military build-up in peace time lead to the recovery of American economics.

Furthermore, because the war in Iraq has caused so many shortages, he will build up new factories, hire more workers and these new workers get higher pay because the factories make money, Most of all, these kinds of jobs are liked by the semi-skillful workers. For example, build lumber factories, Ask the dept. of commerce to find out where the shortages are? And lure the private investor to put money in or build a company to sell stocks in the market. The important part is stopping the imports and creates factories and hire more workers instead. We are not only increasing the revenue but also reduce the high price of goods. Everybody enjoys and is able to afford the luxury he wants.

It comes around and goes around. John Kerry criticizes that person has to have two or three jobs in order to make a living under Bush administration. This exactly sounded like Jack Camp, Bob Doe’s running mate, blamed the Clinton administration on economical situations. John Kerry promised you to create 26 million high pay jobs. Saying is easier than done. I could tell you a bird in hand is better than many birds in the sky. Edwards told you ‘Hope is on the way.’ Kerry told ‘Help is on the way.’ How long does it take for ‘help’ to get here? Or just hope for it.

Job loss prevention is as important as job creation. John did not make clear how he stops American companies moving to overseas? He only said something about tax. President Bush produced many ways to solve this problem. One particular method is collecting the extra money in currency exchange rates. For example, Levi moved to China to make jeans because they paid 9 dollars per hour in US, but only paid 25 cents per hour in China. Then they will sell goods back to US to make a huge profit. This is not fair to the local factories because they take advantage not only the low wages but also currency exchange rates. One US dollar equals to eleven Chinese Renminbi. If one pair of jean cost 9 dollars to make in US, but only cost 2 Chinese Renminbi to make. As far as the jean is concerned, 9 = 2. However, 9 US dollars equals 99 Chinese Renminbi. 99 Chinese Renminbi can make 49 and half pairs of jeans. The 48 and half pairs belong to currency exchange. So, this exchange rate advantage must be back to government. This means no matter where you make jeans, but the profit is similar. Therefore, no American company will move to overseas unless they cannot find in US. President Bush wants people of Ohio to know they will keep their jobs and even get the better pay.

Gas price. This topic seems the least important. However, It comes out in a poll every time. As a matter of fact, war in Iraq and job loss are caused by a single entity raising the price of crude oil. Because of the higher energy price, American products made with higher energy cost cannot compete in a free market, thus, their employees lost their jobs. Because of higher price of crude oil, the rich Arab warlords are able to finance terrorists. This is how we got in war with Iraq in the first place.

Evident that gas price leaded inflation can be proved in terms of two oil crises and the double digits’ inflation of Cater administration.. For example, The oil price per barrel in 1970 was $2.55, 71′ was $3.45, 73′ was $11.65, 76′ was $12.37, 79′ was $14.56, but Saudi was $24.00, 80′ was $28.00 but Saudi was $32.00, ended up to $38.00 per barrel at the Oct. of 1981. The first oil crisis was 1973 oil embargo, and the second oil crisis was 1979 Iranian revolution. And the double digits’ inflation of Cater administration was in 1980-81. The price of crud oil was wandering around between 1973 prices and 1980 prices since then. It may have a short term high like $41.00. But American can no longer go back it’s good old days. Therefore, the standard of living went down badly. (Reference: World oil market and oil price Chronologies: 1970-2003. “http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/chron.html” )

John Kerry proposes to raise minimum wages to meet the standard of living. However, high labor cost is the reason why companies moved to overseas and people lost their jobs. So, raising the minimum pay rate is not a proper solution, rather a problem. What we need to do is lower the oil price. When oil price is down, everything that produced with low energy cost will also go down. Thus, America goods can compete in the free market again. Reducing the energy cost can survive the old industries, reborn the disappearing companies and increase the employments. Therefore, the fatal issue and the primary goal is how to increase the oil production. President Bush proposed to produce oil in Alaska. John Kerry opposed it due to environmental protection. If President’s proposal was past three years ago, you will not suffer the high price at the pump today.

People trained deductive logic in US collages and seldom touched inductive logic. Therefore, the argument between the drink of clean water and the use of oil cannot get a correct answer ‘Who is right?’ It is very easy in inductive logic. That is, if you have two good things, you choose the better one. If you have two bad things, you choose the less bad one. When people cannot go to work because lack of gasoline, who hell in the right mind thinks of clean water? Which, oil or water, is more important for the time being? We not only pay the price whatever OPEC want. We also quietly wait for their decision when we should have. Is this an enough reason to get oil from Alaska? Needless to say, most of the deficits were from oil trade.

In American history whenever the gas price goes up, everything else will be leaded to go up too. Stabilized gas price is a must. Lower the gas price is essential. Think of it. The price of gasoline was 57 cents per gallon in 70′. If Americans get paid 9 dollar per hour but their spending is still in the 70’s level. How much money will they save? The average price per gallon now is about $1.80. And this is three times higher than 70′. Then American probably only need 1/3 of the income to cover everything and 2/3 of the income can be spent on whatever he or she please. 1/3 is three dollars, we only pay 1/6 of three dollars for gas and the rest is for something else. And we also have six dollars to spent as we please. If you count 40 hours a week and 52 weeks a year in contrast with the standard of living in 70′, everybody is a rich man. President Bush wants you to control your own money anyway you please. And this is for minimum wage receiver only. You make more than minimum wages.

People under Bush administration do not need ‘Help is on the way.’ Except those people who has either emotional or physical defects cannot work such as widows, widowers, orphans, single parents and disable persons. The majority of people have plenty of money to spend. People don’t need tax cut, health care, education aid, or economical help of any kind. If you want to buy a spot car? Go ahead. If you want to go to college? Go ahead. If you want to get a cruise in Europe? Go ahead. Whatever you want? Go ahead. When alternate fuel is found and produced, the gas price will be down dramatically. No one who has money finances the terrorists anymore. The world is in real peace. However, the develop of alternate fuel takes a lot of times. We need the gas right now. Drill in Alaska and other places are a must, can proceed to independent of foreign oil and lower the gas price. Who is more qualifying to explore the oil field than Bush-Cheney ticket? You know they are from oil family. And everybody can expect the obvious change in the second year of second term. Everything else, like Abortion, constitutes no urgent discussion at all.

Bush is THE man. In conclusion, Who is the man to lead us a complete victory? Bush is the man. Who is the man to protect the jobs of all Americans? Bush is the man. Who is the man to make Americans so rich? Bush is the man.

Click on Translator: choose language, just type in URL & click. You only type in once, it will translate the entire page. And page after page until all done. This page URL as follow.
(http://drmasiw.tripod.com/reelect.htm)

From time to time, I take time away from my book writing duties and my regular column writing to address the concerns and comments from readers.

I get it all. I get some thoughtful, linearly constructed arguments and then I get the circularly argued ones that make my head spin just trying to figure out where they are coming from and what exactly they are trying to say.

But I like them all (readers are who keep me syndicated in more than 21 publications), I try to learn from most, and take some time, on occasion, to try to answer them. Trying to answer them usually ends with my doing what good writers docheck, recheck, and then double check the sources the readers claim prove their points. I do investigative reporting!

So here goes, ready or not, hold on, and let’s see what we have to discuss today.

Reader Comment One: “… and more terrifying are the thousands of cases of TB and hepatitis they (migrant Mexican workers) spread into Los Angeles.”

I contacted the Center for Disease Control and spoke with Jessica Frickey, Health Communications Specialist. Ms. Frickey said this:

“I am attaching CDC’s most recent fact sheet on 2004 TB surveillance data. You will see that while TB was at an all time low in 2004, progress to eliminate the disease may be slowing.

As far as your specific question about illegal immigrants causing a rise in TB, CDC’s data shows that foreign-born individuals – whether illegal immigrants or legal immigrants – accounted for more than half of TB cases reported in 2004. Overall, racial and ethnic minorities also face higher rates of disease than white Americans, with both Hispanics and Blacks at a rate that is 8 times higher than whites and Asians 20 times higher than whites.

Despite these numbers, CDC does not have data to show that foreign-born individuals have caused an increase in TB in recent years.”

What I find so interesting is that this reader’s comment,

“…the thousands of cases of TB and hepatitis they (migrant Mexican workers) spread into Los Angeles.”,

was spouted with absolutely NO stats to support the supposition. His figure, “thousands of cases”, when the REALITY is that in the year 2004 was at an all time low. I wonder just where this reader got his facts. And do not miss the fact of what Ms. Frickey pointed out:

“As far as your specific question about illegal immigrants causing a rise in TB, CDC’s data shows that foreign-born individuals – whether illegal immigrants or legal immigrants – accounted for more than half of TB cases reported in 2004.”

The rate of TB among Asians was the highest group. Does this mean that this reader and his Minuteman-like comrades will be going after the Asians next and then all foreign-born people whether illegal or legal?

Does it not beg the question?

Why, do you think, and I have most certainly wondered, do people who so vehemently oppose a racial or cultural group resort to making such sweeping generalizations without much substance to back their positions?

I’ve decided to do a series of columns on this very issue with specific application to the Mexican Migrant worker problem. And yes, believe it or not, I think it is a problem that has to be solved. However, having said that, I do not think it is the problem the Minuteman-like minions would have you believe it to be. I think they have different motives, which I hope to prove in my series in the coming weeks.

Until then, let me suggest something at this juncture for your kind consideration. The reason Americans, no matter the issue, and especially with regard to people of different race and culture (and politics for that matter) will resort to such emotive blustering and grandiose exaggerations such as,

“Just look what all those thousands of disease-ridden illegal Mexicans are spreading all over our country.”

is that Americans, at least in my view (remember this is an Opinion-Editorial pieceso don’t get all twisted into a knot), is that Americans have very poorly defined “Phony-Boloney” detectors–More on that to come!

Meanwhile, get your printer cartridges filled, get a notebook and pen, you will want to print and take notes and cherish what I am going to say for decades to come (I just made up that last part so I could say something witty to end this serious piece and make my editorial word count.).

About the Author

Doug Bower is a freelance writer, Syndicated Columnist, and book author. His newest book Mexican Living: Blogging it from a Third World Country can now be seen at http://www.lulu.com/content/126241

The Caribbean Single Market and Economy (CSME) involves the free flow of labour, goods and capital among participating Caribbean Community (CARICOM) members states. The emergence, of this single market means that legal and administrative restrictions affecting trade, labour and technology within the CARICOM region will generally be a thing of the past.

But one of the greatest advantages is that it will encourage intra-regional trade and allow CARICOM states to negotiate as a single entity. This will afford them a better opportunity to influence policies concerning global trade. Perhaps the region may soon be a force to reckon with in the next round of World Trade negotiations.

The major issue for each state is whether its existing businesses and workforce can survive the increased competition when businesses that are more successful enter the local market. Many states are uncertain as to whether their local economy can survive the transition. From all indications, it appears that the CSME is about survival. Businesses that do not have the resources or capacity to compete will surely whither away. States that fail to develop their capacity must prepare to deal with economic calamity.

But the most debated issue is the implications for employment. The free movement of labour is limited to qualified and skilled persons. Therefore, the idea that with the emergence of the CSME will result in mass movement of unskilled persons to more prosperous member states seems far-fetched.

Of major concern to the Governments and people of the region is the potential for an increase in local unemployment as a result of more persons competing for the few available jobs. Another concern is the increased pressure that may be placed upon social and economic institutions, in the event of mass migration, and their ability to cope. Governments of the region are exploring various measures to assist the public and private sectors to adapt. However, many are of the view that, the question of whether these states have the resources to deal with negative externalities including increases in crime, poverty and unemployment levels is yet to be strategically addressed.

Whatever the issue, the CSME is a reality that all member states must confront. At the end of the day, sink or float, it’s all about survival of the fittest.

DRIVING THE U.S.-ISRAEL “STRATEGIC DIALOGUE”

“Strategic Dialogue” talks between the U.S. and Israel–were commenced in earnest at the end of November, 2005 (U.S. State Dept. Bulletin). These “talks” are propelled to their inevitable conclusion (i.e., the U.S.-ISRAEL DEFENSE PACT/TREATY) by Iran’s preposterous charges this past week: No Jewish Holocaust under Hitler; Israel is a “Zionist-European Tumor,” which, ipso facto, should be excised from the Middle East and transplanted into Germany-Austria; and, “no, we’re not making a Weapon of Mass Destruction, even though ‘Israel must be wiped off the map!” (My conjectures.)

Historic revisionism is alive and well–therefore, do not conclude that this series on the “Strategic and Eschatological Imperatives” embedded in the U.S.-Israel Defense Pact (upcoming) is as nave as you may have surmised (i.e., pure speculation and benignly obscure Christian fundamentalism gone amok). Israel’s audacious materiality–in spite of the Adolf Hitler-Grand Mufti, Haj Mohammed Amin Al-Husseini original Axis of Evil–mocks the secular outrage toward Zionism and declares heretical the blather, and hyper symbolism of Biblical liberalism! (Palestinefacts.org)

There are forces like those written hereunder which make the heralding of Daniel the Prophet’s final week of Gentile World Power all the more irreversible and prophetically intrusive, in spite of the mockers–both secular and religious–who claim these prognostications are fantasy, or just plain fear-mongering among theological misfits who still claim the Bible has something to say about where this world’s heading!

“They’ve been wrong before–let them prattle about their future Antichrist all they want . . . it’s relatively harmless . . . besides, who’s listening; who cares . . .in any event, the Millerites, Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses and wacko-Christian fundamentalists like Hal Lindsey et al, have always dabbled in the ethereal world of prophetical make believe and we’re still here, aren’t we?”

Friend . . . you’d better get a grip . . . things are changing, faster than you had any idea . . . and their “prophetical alignment” does not bode well for a world utterly unprepared for what’s driving the personality behind: “HE SHALL CONFIRM A COVENANT (i.e., “Treaty”) WITH THE MANY…” (Daniel 9:27).

As Winston Churchill once said:

“We reject with scorn all these learned and laboured myths that Moses was but a legendary figure. We believe that the most scientific view, the most up to date and rationalistic conception, will find its fullest satisfaction in taking the Bible literally. We may be sure that all these things happened as they are set out in Holy Writ. In the words of a forgotten work of Mr. Gladstone, we rest with assurance upon ‘the impregnable rock of Holy Scripture…’ Let the men of science and of learning expand their knowledge and probe with their researches every detail of the records which have been preserved to us from these dim ages. All they do is to fortify the grand simplicity and essential accuracy of the recorded truths which have lighted so far the pilgrimage of man.”

THE PRINCE OF PERSIA

When I published my article “Behold, the Prince of Persia” (buzzle.com, June 2005), there were fears that a “Nuclear Iran” would galvanize Radical Islam and stiffen the insurgency in Iraq, compel a “democratic takeover” of secular Middle East nations like Egypt and Turkey, and drive Israel (and for that matter the U.S.) to the brink of a unilateral-preemptive strike at Iranian nuclear facilities. Likewise, because of the Iranian-Syrian Defense Pact (early 2005), Syria and the Palestinian Authority, would find themselves pouring into the “cup of trembling to all the nations ’round about” Israel.

Well, we stand on our “prophetic laurels” and declare the rise of the “Prince of Persia” is all the more enraged through the election and regime of one, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (President of Iran since August 3, 2005) . . . consider this, as the world continues to spin upon this precarious axis of inscrutible uncertainty . . .

Gholamreza Aghazadeh, head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, Dec. 10, 2005, told the newly-awarded Nobel Prize winner, Mohamed El-Baradei, that his comments to persuade Iran to stop its uranium enrichment program (because its heading toward a nuclear explosion in either Jerusalem or Tel Aviv) the following not-so-ambiguous-mafia-sounding remarks: “He (El-Baradei) knows Iran has not diverted in its nuclear program . . . it would be better for him not to have many interviews.” (Comcast Netnews)

The Iranians, with diplomatic hubris, simultaneously suggested, through Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi that the U.S. participates in Iran’s nuclear program to wit: “America can take part in international bidding for the construction of Iran’s nuclear power plant if they observe the basic standards and quality.”

All this during the same week (December 3-10, 2005) in which these not so subtle remarks were made by the ever-more-resembling the coordinator of the American Iranian Hostage Crisis, Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad:

“Some European Countries insist on saying that Hitler killed millions of innocent Jews in furnaces and they insist on it to the extent that if anyone proves something contrary to that they condemn that person and throw them in jail . . . although we (i.e., the Iranians) don’t accept this claim (i.e., the Holocaust–six million Jews perishing in Hitler’s death camps), if we suppose it (the Holocaust) is true, our question for the Europeans is: Is the killing of innocent Jewish people by Hitler the reason for their support to the occupiers of Jerusalem?” (Paul Hughes, Reuters, Dec. 8, 2005)

Of course, all this was compounded by President-American-Hostage-Leader Ahmadinejad suggesting that Israeli Jews be transplanted to provinces in both Germany and Austria to salve the conscience of their Nazi past. How fitting that all these remarks were made at the summit of the Organization of Islamic Conference held in the Muslim holy city of Mecca in Saudi Arabia!

Naturally, the U.S.-Israeli reaction was vehement, especially after the October, 2005 “Israel must be wiped off the map” remarks of Mr. Ahmadinejad (The Tribulation Network):

“I hope that these outrageous remarks will be a wake-up call to people who have any illusions about the nature of the regime in Iran” (Israeli foreign ministry spokesman Mark Regev).

” . . . an outrageous gaffe, which I want to repudiate in the sharpest manner” (President George Bush).

Finally, the bottom line remarks of White House spokesman Scott McClellan:

“It just further underscores our concerns about the regime in Iran. And it’s all the more reason why it’s so important that the regime not have the ability to develop nuclear weapons.”

Just how outrageous were Mr. Ahmadinejad’s remarks?

“So, Germany and Austria, come and give one, two or any number of your privinces to the Zionist regime so they can create a country there . . . and the problem will be solved at its root . . . you oppressed them, so give a part of Europe to the Zionist regime . . . why do they insist on imposing themselves (the Europeans) on other powers and creating a tumour (Israel) so there is always tension and conflict?”

Now, Scott McClellan’s “all the more reason why it’s so important that the regime not have the ability to develop nuclear weapons” and the innocuous subtrafuge of the U.S. State Department’s remarks regarding the U.S.-Israel Strategic Dialogue to wit, “The United States and Israel look forward to continuing this dialogue in the Spring of 2006 in Israel”–demands further “strategic dialogue.”

Trust me–unless you’re in the market for a hot bridge deal–these U.S.-Israeli Strategic Dialogue discussions have not only commenced, they have only intensified as a result of the bombastic absurdities of Iran, along with the rhetoric and actions of Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and the acceleration of the insurgency in Iraq against Bush’s War on Terror.

The worst fighting in five years between Hezbollah and the IDF took place at the end of November, 2005. This was preceded by a coordinated meeting between Iran’s foreign minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, and leaders of Hamas (Khaled Meshaal), a deputy leader of Islamic Jihad, and Ahmed Jibril, the leader of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. Jibril’s “organic remarks” tie Iran into the recent assaults in Northern Israel and the suicide bombing of a shopping mall in Israel’s Netanya where five Israeli citizens were killed . . .

“We will confirmed that what is going on in occupied Palestine is organically connected to what is going on in Iraq, Syria, Iran and Lebanon” (Jibril) (ICH 12/12/05)

All this in light of Hamas’ most recent victories at the polls . . .

“NABLUS, West Bank – Hamas supporters on Friday celebrated a landslide election victory in major West Bank towns, the strongest sign yet of the Islamic militant group’s growing political appeal ahead of Jan. 25 parliamentary elections. Israel responded with concern, saying a Palestinian government dominated by Hamas–which calls for Israel’s destruction and has killed hundreds of Israelis in attacks– would not be a partner for peace. Thousands of Hamas supporters joined victory marches after Friday prayers. In Jenin, where Hamas won a majority of local council seats, marchers chanted, ‘To Jerusalem we march, martyrs by the millions!’ and held up copies of the Quran.” (AP, Ali Daraghmeh, Associated Press Writer, Dec. 17, 2005).

UNIT 262, THE F-15I STRATEGIC 69 SQUADRON vs. TOR-M1

As Lebanon, Syrian, Iran and the Palestinian Authority ratchet up the “War on Israel” – Israel has plans of their own . . .

Uzi Mahnaimi of Tel Aviv and Sarah Baxter of the Times Newspapers Ltd. (London) quote a senior White House source saying that the nuclear threat from Iran was moving to the “top of the international agenda and the issue now was ‘What next?’”

PM Ariel Sharon quipped: “Israel–and not only Israel–cannot accept a nuclear Iran.” Sure sounds like the U.S.-Israel Strategic Alliance on parade here!

The IDF has placed its military readiness on “G” alert–the highest stage. Israel is now on the highest military alert to prepare for an attack against Iran!

Israel firmly asserts that by the end of March, 2006, things in Iran, and Mi>ipso facto Israel, will have reached the “POINT OF NO RETURN!” UNIAEA head, Mohamed El-Baradei, will present his next report on Iran’s nuclear intentions in early March, 2006.

A massive Israeli intelligence probe of Iran’s nuclear capabilities, launched from a site in northern Iraq (no doubt in cooperation with the USA) has already identified uranium enrichment sites previously unknown to the IAEA–there could be up to 50 sites in Iran coordinating the uranium enrichment program to produce a nuclear bomb capable of hitting Tel Aviv/Jerusalem.

Israel’s top Special Forces Brigade, Unit 262, and their F-15I strategic 69 Squadron, will ready themselves for a non-stop roundtrip to deliver both air and ground devastation to Iran’s threats to wipe Israel off the map.

This will be all the more difficult if Iran secures delivery of a $1B anti-ballistic missile system (the Tor-M1) from the Russians. The system is designed to destroy guided missiles and laser-guided bombs from aircraft–likewise, the system can be easily and quickly installed! (ICH 12/12/2005) Note also: Original Source: The Times of London, Dec. 11, 2005)

“HE WILL CONFIRM THE TREATY”

Let us turn aside, for a moment, shall we, to observe the unvarnished historicity of U.S. Presidential aspirations towards Israel . . . for in this incredible glimpse into the ever-maturing “strategic relationship” between the U.S. and Israel, it has always been her Presidents who have led the way–it is the privilege of the American Executive to orchestrate U.S. foreign policy, and more so, since two World Wars and the Cold War have given birth to the Imperial Presidency; make no mistake to the contrary!

It is this profound political significance between American Presidents and Israel that astounds the world’s diplomats and negotiators–especially, European and Moslem observers. Understanding the evolution of the American Imperium and its unusual, yet clearly observable relationship, between its Chief Executive and Israel’s security, is most remarkable–to obfuscate this unparalleled association (as some religious and secular observers are loathe to do)–damages the academic and so-called spiritual credentials of those who deny this obvious arrangement!

President Harry S. Truman -

President Truman, whose Baptist roots predisposed him to Israel’s rebirth as a nation state for the Jews, commenced a long and ever-deepening relationship between the State of Israel and the USA.

Truman’s predecessor, President Franklin D. Roosevelt, appeared to be sympathetic to the Jewish cause (i.e., the State of Israel in Palestine); however, his assurances to the Arabs that the United States would not intervene without consulting both parties caused public uncertainty about his position.

President Harry S. Truman, on the other hand after taking office, made it clear that his sympathies were with the Jews; hence, he accepted the Balfour Declaration (made by the British as a quid pro quo for Jewish support for the Allied cause in World War I), explaining that it was in keeping with former President Woodrow Wilson’s principle of “self determination.”

In point of fact, Daniel Pipes, in his review of Michael T. Benson’s book Harry S. Truman and the Founding of Israel states:

Please view full article/graphics/links @ http://www.the-tribulation-network.com

Copyright 2006 Vincent Wilmot

Misgoverning the poor.

The poor in developed countries like the USA and UK, honest and dishonest alike, are handled only by the non-street-wise middle class who run government departments and other bodies – ensuring that the poor are generally badly mistreated and misgoverned.

Of course the poor in developed countries are a minority so that democratic political parties may easily see their votes as unneccessary, yet the poor are a socially significant minority whose misgovernment can seriously undermine society.

Mishousing the poor.

Often the poor are housed badly as when new social housing is produced in areas of severe affordable housing shortage like London, it is often produced in the form of very big estates with hundreds or even thousands of rented homes – generally with a view to hopefully making some scale cost savings, although that does not always result. Such big social housing renting estates easily incline to being tenanted badly and managed badly. Like private slums (and they do tend to become social housing slums over time), they often concentrate problem households including criminals in excluded sub-societies. The large numbers of children and youths brought together will tend to forming gangs that may be a mere nuisance or become more seriously criminal. Of course these problems are not confined only to big estates, wherever there are concentrations of poor families then children with little indoors will take to the streets and form street-gang sub-cultures.

Developed countries’ social exclusion policies, by government and by social housing landlords and other bodies, will hence often need to especially address areas housing large numbers of low-income families. However, those expected to produce such social inclusion policies will generally be educated professionals with little or no experience of living in social exclusion housing, and they may commonly have correct general theories but often be missing the correct practical detail needed. Consultation with less educated low-incomed renters themselves is likely to help only to a limited extent, and those dealing with social exclusion housing need to find the tiny handful of street-wise affordable housing professionals who somehow do happen to have substantial experience of themselves living in and raising a family in such low-income housing.

The UK is now making some limited attempts to copy the equally limited US Hope VI scheme to convert big bad estate areas to a mix of the unemployed, low-income earners and the better-off. But this sort of housing inclusion move needs other non-housing inclusion policies to be also addressed at the same time or they are doomed to failure. The poor will have some good ideas on practical solutions, but poor housing areas are also likely to have an occasional housing professional resident. It is undoubtedly preferable if all big new housing developments are tenanted more reasonably, as by including a mix of some affordable rent units, some sale units and some market rent or near market rent units. Existing big social housing renting estates will often need to be made mixed tenure and often also need to have the proportion of unemployed households reduced.

The management and policing of poor housing areas is often inappropriate, basically taking them as no-go areas, and it also often attracts inappropriate solutions. Some support heavy police presence and/or continuous CCTV camera use, while others oppose both police presence and CCTV cameras as ‘police-state’ intrusion. But most tenants in such areas favour a practical position of both being always available but with just sufficient police presence when needed and with CCTV cameras to be used only some of the time as needed. On both police and CCTV cameras, the extremes of 100% and 0% are generally not acceptable – the right balanced uses of both is what is wanted and needed.

Tenants can easily feel stuck in a big bad poor housing estate, especially bad for children, if there is a local shortage of affordable housing as in London. A transfer request may get the reply “in about 30 years time”, and they may be unemployed and/or unskilled. Realistic transfer alternatives really need to be found in these circumstances. And a family with young children having to , or deciding to, stay on a big poor housing estate should be advised to try to avoid their children making friends with other local children, as by not using the local schools.

Miseducating the poor.

Governments tend to treating older children like adults for school attendance, bad behaviour and crime – but treating them completely as babies for state money. Older children will act adult whatever governments want, and poor children often take over the streets and most schools – and they increasingly teach successfully a pro-crime anti-learning anti-government lifestyle that will threaten democracy if not properly addressed soon. Older children need a much more consistent set of policies from governments, treating secondary school children more like adults for everything and one MUST is some pay for school attendance – if necessary taking it from other family welfare payouts. This will most directly affect poor children especially, but will be better for all.

The many unneccessary problems of the honest poor may also include eg having only black-and-white TV with few channels – for which the UK has a mandatory license fee and not buying that brings criminal prosecution (for being poor and not dishonest ?) – and even those having such license are still harassed ‘as possible-evaders of the dearer colour TV license’. And eg if the honest poor’s children have no passports because they are expensive then they cannot accept an offer of a free foreign holiday.

Policing of the poor is often unhelpful to them rearing their children to become honest citizens, with a real need for police to greatly increase catch-rates for the main crimes of their young children – street vandalism and shoplifting. Even a big improvement in one of those would be a great help. Of course street vandalism needs many more police on the streets. And shoplifting needs an extensive police-run shop CCTV system for smaller stores. It is catching child crimes early that needs big improvement, not necessarily jailing children or parents.

Attempts at inclusion of the poor.

Many non-street-wise middle-class professional ‘experts’ may claim that poverty is fine for children as long as they have love – but poverty and social exclusion always do some damage and good government should try to help minimise it if possible. But affluent country governments have been increasing legal constraints and sticks to beat poor children and poor parents – as towards making parents smacking their children illegal. It is largely poor parents who smack their children for misbehaving mostly over having no money to buy treats to reward good child behaviour ?! Increasing sticks for poor parents on parenting, looks like a plan to take away all their children and put them in government ‘care’ – a disaster tried and failed before in many countries ! But middle-class run governments just cannot understand how to best deal with the poor.

In developed countries like the USA and UK, the poor and other minorities may effectively be excluded from obtaining reasonable work, education, or holidays etcetera or generally equal opportunity and fair treatment – and at the extreme a society may treat some minorities as social Lepers and/or social or political Scapegoats. This sort of social exclusion harms those concerned, and making them anti-social also harms all of society greatly. But can middle-class run governments ever learn how to best deal with the poor ? Increasing their oppression only fires increasing backlashes, but democratic political parties in affluent countries mostly continue to ignore these major issues.

If developed middle-class government cannot find a way to better govern the poor and other minorities, then maybe modern government needs less middle-class officials. Maybe a third of politicians should not be elected, but instead be randomly selected from elector lists – but can any middle-class politician such a constitutional change that might cost them their very profitable job ?