The World’s Most Popular Political Quiz

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

How the World’s Smallest Political Quiz redefined politics, took over the Internet, impressed the experts, and made politics fun for more than 4 million people

After taking the World’s Smallest Political Quiz, the famous online test that instantly pinpoints your political ideology, no two people have exactly the same reaction.

Consider Courtney, a self-described “young Republican.” She took the Quiz and was surprised by the result. “I [scored] libertarian centrist,” she said. “I really think I lean to the right, but apparently some aspect of my social liberalism has centered me. Interesting.”

For blogger Jessy, the Quiz confirmed what she already knew. The avowed liberal landed smack-dab in the liberal quadrant and said, “I could not agree more.”

Then there’s Krzysztof — nicknamed “Critto” — from Poland. For him, the Quiz was exciting. “I am a libertarian, after taking the Quiz!” he said enthusiastically. “I love the World’s Smallest Political Quiz, for it is cute, small, and very useful.”

Cute? Well, OK; let’s not argue with a guy named Critto. Small? You bet. It takes less than two minutes to zip through. Useful? Absolutely, if the surge of people taking the Quiz is any proof.

Every day, more than 4,500 people flock to the Web site of the Advocates for Self-Government (http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html) to take the Quiz. That’s 187 people an hour, 24 hours a day. In fact, since 1996, when the Advocates started tracking results, more than 4 million people have clicked, moused, and surfed their way to the Quiz.

Why the enormous popularity — especially when so many other political quizzes clutter up the Internet?

Sharon Harris, president of the Advocates, has a theory. “The Quiz offers a more diverse way of looking at politics,” she said. “It gives people a fast, accurate way of determining who agrees with them most.”

That “more diverse” insight is the key. Before the Quiz came along, politics was a two-way street. You were either liberal or conservative, and that was that.

Enter David Nolan, an MIT political-science graduate. In 1969, Nolan realized that traditional political definitions didn’t make sense. He observed that liberals usually supported personal liberty (they defended free speech), but opposed economic liberty (they liked high taxes and strict regulation of business). Conservatives were the opposite. They supported economic liberty (low taxes and minimal regulations), but opposed personal liberty (they applauded laws against pornography).

So far, so good. But what about people who supported both personal and economic liberty? They didn’t fit. Nether did people who opposed both personal and economic liberty.

Nolan finally resolved the paradox. “I began to doodle around with the idea of trying to reduce the political universe to a graphical depiction,” he told The Liberator magazine in 1996. “I thought, ‘Maybe we can delineate this on some kind of map, using a two-axis graph.’ ”

That was the breakthrough. Instead of looking at politics as a two-way line, Nolan designed a political chart that went in four directions — high or low on economic issues, and high or low on personal issues.

Conservatives and liberals fit in this new political spectrum. So did libertarians and statists, who Nolan added to the mix. Libertarians scored high/high on liberty issues; statists scored low/low. Later, centrists were added in the middle — and the Nolan Chart, a new way of looking at politics, was born.

In 1985, Marshall Fritz, founder of the Advocates for Self-Government, added 10 questions to the chart. He squeezed it all onto a business card-size handout, dubbed it the World’s Smallest Political Quiz, and took it to a local print shop.

The rest is history. Over the years, the nonpartisan Advocates distributed 7 million printed copies of the Quiz to help spread the word about libertarianism. In 1995, the Quiz made the jump to cyberspace where it immediately became the Internet’s most popular political quiz, with 13,400 Web sites linked to it today.

But is it accurate? After all, the Advocates is a libertarian organization. Did they rig the Quiz so everyone would score libertarian?

No, says an expert. Cynthia Carter, professor of History and Political Science at Florida Community College at Jacksonville, said, “Although this quiz is provided by a Libertarian organization, it does not lead you to answer in any particular way.”

That may be why instructors around the USA use the Quiz in their classrooms. If you peeked into classrooms at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government, Carnegie Mellon University, or Texas A&M University (to name just a few) over the past few years, you’d find find students answering the Quiz’s questions.

Even cynical reporters — always eager to expose a phony — have been impressed by the Quiz’s insight and honesty. For example, the Washington Post reported, “The Quiz has gained respect as a valid measure of a person’s political leanings.”

But don’t let the scholarly recommendations fool you. The Quiz isn’t a boring political science project — it’s fun. In fact, that is the one reaction that just about everybody who takes the Quiz does have in common.

Professional astrologer Adze Mixxe said it best. No matter what your political identity is, he told people, “You will get 100 percent enjoyment from the World’s Smallest Political Quiz.”

And isn’t that a political score everyone can agree on?

Take the Quiz Yourself at http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

About The Author

Political Rouge

Take the Quiz Yourself Provided By the National Libertarian Party, a Political Party for Freedom of the people and a better quality of life through better national leadership.

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

Every time an immigrant or terrorist illegally crosses into the United States, George Bush and the entire U.S. Congress is in violation of their oath of office and the “supreme” law of the land. Allowing a long term invasion of this country exceeding an average of one thousand invaders per day, they are traitors by definition. They are habitual criminals and under the popular three strikes laws such as in California, Congress would be sentenced to fifteen years in prison. The penalty for treason is death.

No charges are filed - no trials are held, because these crimes have been national policy for more than 150 years and no one is paying much attention - yet. The de facto punishment for these crimes and all the others we do not want to discuss publicly, is re election. When border state governors refuse to secure their state borders, knowing the national government is in violation of the law, they are criminal collaborators and equally guilty. Re elect them too. The breakdown of law and order is a top down process. Three cheers for government anarchy!

Every time an immigrant dies in the U.S. desert while illegally crossing, these same government criminals are guilty of manslaughter or negligent homicide. To be generous, we can call it government assisted suicide - although honesty forces us to admit suicide was not the intention of the victim or the government criminals - just an unfortunate circumstance of criminal policy. These corporate criminals are most certainly above the law and only that law which controls their slaves is enforced - with a vengeance.

Every time a shipment of drugs comes across this same border, the U.S. Government is guilty of trafficking in illegal drugs. They take their profits in taxes, credit and property seizures to fight the phony war on drugs they have been deliberately losing for thirty years or more. The Taliban put a heavy crimp in the opium and heroin trade. The U.S. Government restored it. Apparently it is more profitable to poison Columbian farmers.

Criminal apologists tell us millions of immigrants come here to do work Americans won’t do. This is true only in the sense they will do these jobs for far less than fair market wages. So the jobs they do are not available to citizens at a living wage. The wages for citizens in related work are also depressed because the citizen can be replaced by a “guest worker” in the marketplace. We now have an estimated eleven million “guest workers” and the intention is to have many millions more to compete for jobs and drive down legal wages. And you don’t believe the U.S. is just one big corporate plantation.

The government that refuses to obey the law and secure U.S. borders also refuses to secure the borders of Afghanistan and Iraq. They do not care about port or homeland security any more than borders. Thereby, government criminals are responsible for all who die in those countries as a result of unsecured borders. Why would anyone expect criminals to do in foreign nations any differently than they do at home? Why do you think Americans are so universally and justifiably despised? Irresponsible, incompetent, criminal leaders are out to “improve” the world because ignorant , irresponsible, co criminal voters and workers have elected them and pay them with unlimited credit to do as they please.

If in the U.S., you act as a lookout or get - away driver for an armed bank robbery, you are legally as liable as the armed robbers. If any life is lost as a result, you are equally guilty of manslaughter. If you played any role in electing government, slaughtering criminals, you are equally responsible for their crimes. A legal argument can be made that if you did nothing to prevent their election or crimes you share liability with those who put them in office. If you voted for their criminal political opponents who lost the election, you also share responsibility. The losing criminals would be just as criminal if elected because the Democratic and Republican political parties are no more than two criminal gangs vying for criminal supremacy. And you thought street gangs were the problem. Which gang have you joined?

There is no more war on terrorism than there is a war on drugs or a war on crime or a war on poverty. All are excuses to spend the national credit and make debt slaves of all of us on the great American plantation. Neither we nor our children will pay off the plantation debt, so we have already enslaved our grand children by our criminal cooperation. Too bad for them eh? Congresspersons make speeches about the moral bankruptcy of this policy then vote to raise the debt ceiling. No matter - we will make the children criminal collaborators like their ancestors and they will deserve to be homeless, imprisoned or executed by invaders, military adventurism, or environmental toxemia.

To better understand criminal government we have a simple rule. If they announce a war on anything, it is a government growing fraud designed to raid the treasury and spend the plantation into prosperity. War is their favorite economic engine - it’s great for business and campaign finance. The wars they do not announce are the real ones. The war on family, the war on workers, the war on the poor, the war on the sick, the war on education, the war on environment and nature, the war on American citizens and the war on global prosperity have all been secretly waged and won. The criminals win all the wars that matter to them and none of those that matter to us.

Al Qaeda intends to bankrupt the United States which will bring an end to Western Civilization. George Bush, Tony Blair and all the other government criminals share this intention. This is the unity we have so longed for. We are all working for and approve of our own destruction. The great thing about this unity is; not one of us needs to lift a finger to guarantee the desired result. This work is a done deal. We only wait to observe the result. We are all Al Qaeda - brothers and sisters in the righteousness struggle. Brothers and sisters in common cause. Martyrs. We are all criminals and terrorists worthy of execution, damnation and divine curse. Unity will never be any easier than this. Three cheers for the end of Western Civilization and the resulting planetary recovery! Three cheers for democratic global survival lifestyles like those in Mexico and the Middle East! Three cheers for the unity of equality! Three cheers for criminal government and all who support it! It’s time to stock up on our favorite drugs and drop out. Buy Canadian!

Ed Howes sought and found, knocked and entered. Now he sees things differently. To see more of what he sees, please visit http://www.justanotherview.com or do an author search here at Ezine Articles.

THE GREEN CURTAIN

From the Pillars of Hercules in the Atlantic to the Indonesia Archipelago in the Pacific, a vile and putrid Green Curtain threatens its descent to enshroud and enslave a vast swath of earth’s inhabitants. An Islamic Empire, the resurrection of the Moslem Caliphate, envelopes “with greater economic and military and political power . . . able to advance their stated agenda: to develop weapons of mass destruction . . . destroy Israel . . . intimidate Europe . . . assault the American people . . . and blackmail our government into isolation.” (Remarks by President Bush before the National Endowment for Democracy on the War on Terror, October, 2005).

“We will confront this mortal danger to all humanity . . . We will not tire, or rest . . . we will see freedom’s victory . . . we must stop them . . . we will never back down, never give in, and never accept anything less than complete victory . . . there is no peace without victory . . . we will keep our nerve and we will win that victory!

“The militants believe that controlling one country will rally the Muslim masses, enabling them to overthrow all moderate governments in the region, and establish a radical Islamic empire that spans from Spain to Indonesia . . . they are fanatical and extreme . . . utterly committed . . . As Zarqawi has vowed, ‘We will either achieve victory over the human race or we will pass to the eternal life’ . . . we must stop them before their crimes can multiply!” (Excerpts from Bush’s speech.)

(http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/10/20051006-3.html)

THE WAR AGAINST HUMANITY

The battle lines are clearly drawn; the identity of the implacable foe utterly delineated; the sinister intentions and methodologies of this cowardly lot have been, by our President, exposed before the whole world for what they really are: THE HERETICS OF ISLAM!

Furthermore, “these extremists want to end American and Western influence in the broader Middle East, because we stand for democracy and peace, and stand in the way of their ambitions (as quoted by Osama bin Laden, Al Qaeda’s leader): ‘(We) dedicate our resources, sons and money to driving the infidels out of (our) lands . . . The whole world is watching this war and the two adversaries (viz. Western Civilization vs. Islamic Civilization) . . . It’s either victory and glory, or misery and humiliation!” (OBL).

The President likened “Radical Islam’s . . . war against humanity” (i.e., the “civilized world”) to the struggle against fanatical despots like Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Potbranding them all as “EVIL MEN, obsessed with ambition and unburdened by conscience.”

Theirs is a “murderous ideology . . . the great challenge of our new century!” They are the killers of “Daniel Pearl, Nicholas Berg, Margaret Hassan and of Theo Van Gogh.” They justify their random killings ” . . . because I believe you are an infidel.”

They hide behind the “veneer of religious rhetoric . . . (they wish to) rule the soul itself . . . While promising a future of justice and holiness.” Indeed, the President’s religious definitions/expressions swirl throughout his entire speech: “The excuses for violence (range from) the Israeli presence on the West Bank . . . the U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia . . . the defeat of the Taliban . . . or the CRUSADES of a thousand years ago.”

COMMUNISM’S IDEOLOGY WAS DEFEATEDSO WILL THEIRSWITH AN “IRON FIST”

President Bush asserts that we have been at war for the past quarter of a century against this ubiquitous foe. He likens the present struggle against “Islamo-fascism, Islamic radicalism, militant Jihadism” to the “ideology of communism . . . gulags . . . the Cultural Revolution . . . and the killing fields.” The victory the West won against the by-gone “totalitarian aims” of communism, will repeat its triumph over “the rise of a deadly enemy and the unfolding of a global ideological struggle.”

Not only do those who aspire to the resuscitation of the Caliphate wish to expunge the West’s influences from the “broader Middle East,” they, according to Bush, “regard Iraq as the central front in their war against humanity.” Iraq has becomefor better or worsethe “central front” in America’s War on Terror. If the “militants” persist in Iraq, they will “rally the Muslim masses . . . overthrow all moderate governments in the region . . . and establish a radical Islamic empire” (i.e., the Caliphate).

But, again, as the communists suffered defeat, even so, they who claim that Americans are “the most cowardly of God’s creatures” (i.e., Mr. Zarqawi) shall likewise “condemn themselves to isolation, decline, and collapse . . . because free peoples will own the future.” No, the US will not leave a “vacuum” in Iraq for their dastardly aims to multiply . . . they will be crushed by Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation Enduring Freedom, OPERATION IRON FURY, OPERATION IRON FIST . . . ad nausea, ad infinitum.

OPERATION IRON FIST IS BIGGER THAN IRAQ

Alas! The US military has no end in announcing yet another operation to smash the burgeoning insurgency now, according to CNN (October 15, 2005), flush with some 200,000 militants . . . wherein some 10,000 have been slain, 30,000 imprisoned and some 300 to 400 infractions occur each week! Iron-Bullet, Fist, Force, Fury, Grip, Hammer, Justice, Promise, Resolve, Saber . . . and the list continues to grow! (List of Military Operations and Non-Military Operations) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_missions,_operations,_and_projects#Second_Invasion_of_Iraq)

In addition to this “must win” aforementioned iron resolvea sort of “Triumph of the Will”-style determinationepitomized by President Bush himself, those “helpers and enablers” of the would-be Caliphate, SYRIA and IRAN, shall NOT go unpunished . . .

” . . . authoritarian regimes, allies of convenience like Syria and Iran, that share the goal of hurting American and moderate Muslim governments, and use terrorist propaganda to blame their own failures on the West and America, on the Jews . . . we’re determined (against Syrian and Iran) to deny radical groups the support and sanctuary of outlaw regimes . . . STATE-SPONSORS like Syria and Iran have a long history of collaboration with terrorists, and they DESERVE NO PATIENCE FROM THE VICTIMS OF TERROR. The United States makes no distinction between those who commit acts of terror and those who support and harbor them, BECAUSE THEY’RE EQUALLY AS GUILTY OF MURDER (Applause from audience). Any government that chooses to be an ally of terror has also chosen to be an enemy of civilization . . . and the civilized world must hold those regimes to account.”

Be it abundantly clear to the entire world: SYRIA and IRAN, the enemies of civilization, shall be “held to account” . . . they are the “enemies of civilization . . . “THEY’RE EQUALLY GUILTY OF MURDER!”

Not only is Bush determined to extinguish the spiritual aspirations of Caliphate from the OBL’s of the world, and not only will he prohibit their acquisitions of any state, but he most certainly will in accordance with his military plan and “offensive operations . . . clear out enemy forces” from those states which “collaborate with terrorists!”

Listenfirst SYRIA is mentioned, then IRAN . . . is that coincidental? I think notfor it is in that precise order that “freedom” and “democracy” shall extend her grip on the region!

The “enemy” shall be denied “control of any nation!” For this very reason was the Taliban ousted from Afghanistan; and, it is for this very reason why the US co-labors with Musharraf “to oppose and isolate the militants in Pakistan.”

To achieve all the above stated goals, the noble extensions of DEMOCRACY and HOPE shall be spread across the broader Middle East.

DENYING JIHADISTS RECRUITS THROUGH DEMOCRACY

Yes, we shall “deny the militants future recruits by replacing hatred and resentment with democracy and hope across the broader Middle East . . . there’s no alternative . . . OUR FUTURE AND THE FUTURE OF THAT REGION ARE LINKED . . . America is making this stand!”

Indeed, as Condi Rice clearly enunciated American foreign policy in February of 2005 at the American University in Cairo:

“For 60 years, the United States pursued stability at the expense of democracy in the Middle East and we achieved neither.

“Now, we are taking a different course. We are supporting the democratic aspirations of all people” (American University Cairo, Feb. 9, 2005).

No longer will Middle East despots receive a polite nod from their Western patrons; instead, they shall be vanquished from their dictatorial ways, from their absolutist and tribal monarchiesonce and for all!

Yes, a “different course” - altogether different! What you are witnessing here is an all out diplomatic-military effort to radically alter the course of Middle Eastern history/culture through the aggressive propagation of “democracy”for “Wars are not won without sacrifice — and this war will require more sacrifice, more time, and more resolve.”

This war, according to Bush, is fought on two levels, two primary fronts: The terrestrial (earthly/military) and the psychological (ideological battle for the minds and hearts of the people). Notwithstanding the overt attempt to persuade the world that such be the case, there is anotherthough it be deeply embedded within the rhetoric of his doctrine discharged before the National Endowment for Democracy: The CELESTIAL!

THE SPIRITUAL CONFRONTATION OF THE AGES

“Evil men, obsessed with ambition and unburdened by conscience, must be taken very serious(ly)and we must stop them before their crimes can multiply.” There is, most definitely, religious symbolism and tone throughout the President’s impassioned pleas for “freedom and democracy.” To conclude otherwise misses the entire significance of the speechits raison d’tre. To bestir, persuade, and enflame the conscience to sacrifice in defeating this global contagionhe must couch the parameters of the conflict in terms of spirituality! For . . .

“These extremists distort the idea of jihad into a call for terrorist murder against Christians and Jews and Hindus . . . Muslim scholars have already publicly condemned terrorism . . . ‘Whoever does such a thing is not a Muslim, nor a religious person’ (Chapter 5, Verse 32 of the Koran).”

Here is one who decisively marshals the resistance of his implacable foe at the very root of their strength: The Spirit! It is mandatory that he split Islamacclaim the foundations of Mohammed are predicated upon PEACE!

Naturally, and historically, the foundations of Islam, and the emergence of the Caliphate wrought the separation of the Sunni and the Shiite sects of Islam:

“The rulership of Islam; caliph, the spiritual head and temporal ruler of the Islamic state. In principle, Islam is theocratic: when Muhammad the Prophet died, a caliph [Arab.,=successor] was chosen to rule in his place. The caliph had temporal and spiritual authority but was not permitted prophetic power; this was reserved for Muhammad. The caliph could not, therefore, exercise authority in matters of religious doctrine. The first caliph was Abu Bakr . He was succeeded by Umar , Uthman , and Ali . Sunni Muslims recognize these first four, or Rashidun (the rightly guided), caliphs. Shiites , however, recognize Ali as the first caliph. After Ali’s death, Muawiya became caliph and founded the Umayyad dynasty (661-750), chiefly by force of arms. Its capital was Damascus. In 750 the Abbasid family, descended from the Prophet’s uncle, led a coalition that defeated (749-50) the Umayyad family.” (http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/c1/caliphat.asp).

But, one thing is altogether certainIslam’s religious tolerance, though incessantly touted as widespread and obviouswas and is hardly the case! All the rhetoric to the contrary, Islam’s toleration of Christian, Jew, Hindu, or of Buddhism/Confucius, is NOT borne out in the record. That is precisely why Bush’s appeal to “religious freedom” (and he knows exactly how this “sounds” in the Westsecular and/or religious) does NOT play out in Islam:

“We’re standing with dissidents and exiles against oppressive regimes, because we know that the dissidents of today will be the democratic leaders of tomorrow. We’re making our case through public diplomacy, stating clearly and confidently our belief in self-determination, and the rule of law, and religious freedom, and equal rights for women, beliefs that are right and true in every land, and in every culture. (Applause.)

Does he know what he is saying? He most assuredly does! Imagine the sound of “religious freedom” and “equal rights for women” in the ear of Islam? Is he aware how this reverberates within the hearts and souls of all who aspire for the Caliphate? He certainly does.

Does such rhetoric enflame the masses of those who oppose his policies in the Middle Eastthough they are altruistic and even noble in their essence? Could he have left this out of his speech without compromising his persuasions for “democracy and freedom” for all Islamic peoplesespecially in the Middle East? Perhaps? But I doubtbesides, he MUST galvanize the West’s opposition to the tyrannical evil who opposes themand there is no greater appeal (certainly not the ideology of democracy) that will heighten the confrontation against another “evil empire” than the call to RELIGIOUS FREEDOM.

The very first phrase and article of our beloved Constitution enshrines it: FREEDOM OF RELIGION! Barbara Walters interview with Saudi’s King Abdullah skirted the issue of religious freedomlest the “progressive king” (keeper of the shrines of Islam) should be unfavorably embarrassed!

Indeed ABC headlines the article regarding the civil rights of Saudi’s women, but tip-toes around the more inflammatory issue of religious freedom; instead, we read this artful insinuation into the text of the story:

“In the two months since becoming Saudi Arabia’s new monarch, King Abdullah has continued to walk a diplomatic tightrope, assuring the West - particularly the United States - of his country’s commitment to reform and assuring domestic religious leaders of his commitment to Islamic law and tradition.” (http://abcnews.go.com/2020/International/story?id=1207382&page=1&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312)

King Abdullah knows full well that it is mandatory to placate “domestic religious leaders of his commitment to Islamic law and tradition!” And, what might that “Islamic law and tradition” dictate:

“Saudi Arabia is an Islamic monarchy without legal protection for freedom of religion, and such protection does not exist in practice. Islam is the official religion, and the law requires that all citizens be Muslims. The Government prohibits the public practice of non-Muslim religions. The Government recognizes the right of non-Muslims to worship in private; however, it does not always respect this right in practice.” (Note: This little “tidbit” of information is propagated by the US State Department:
(http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2002/14012.htm)

Can the Saudis have it both waysbe an alleged ally of the US in the War on Terror (as President Bush claims they are) while prohibiting “freedom of religion?” “We’re encouraging our friends in the Middle East, including Egypt and Saudi Arabia, to take the path of reform, to strengthen their own societies in the fight against terror by respecting the rights and choices of their own people.” In that very paragraph of his speech Bush touts the concept of religious freedom!

SOCIALISM & ISLAM HAVE A COMMON FOE

The worldthat is, the Western Worldreeled under the religious and social reverberations of the Reformation in the 1400-1500s. Few realize the profound socio-political upheavals wrought by the first manifestations wrought by religious freedom as a result of the breakup of Catholicism’s monopoly. One forgets the brutal suppression of the Peasants’ Revolt. Thomas Munzer, who experimented with a “new spiritual kingdom,” was perhaps the first in the relatively modern era to embrace communist theory and practice!

“He denounced established governments, and advocated common ownership of the means of life. After a tour in south Germany be returned to Mulhausen, overthrew the governing body of the city, and established a communistic theocracy. The Peasants’ War had already broken out in various parts of Germany; and as the peasantry around Mulhausen was imbued with Munzer’s teaching, he collected a large body of men to plunder the surrounding country. He established his camp at Frankenhausen; but on the 15th of May 1525 the peasants were dispersed by Philip, landgrave of Hesse, who captured Munzer and executed him on the 27th at Mulhausen.”
http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/M/MU/MUNZER_THOMAS.htm

From here the West waited until the French Revolution to experiment with capitalism’s alleged opposite (now taking root in America)and a “Tale of Two Cities” could not have been told so well! Socialism’s rebirth caved to dictatorship (Napoleon) and to ultimate monarchy again.

Never totally lost in the consciousness of thinkerscommunism lurched forward and Marxist Socialism/Communism became the dominant Socialist philosophy (overcoming all Christian attempts at the sameJoshua Muravchick’s article: Socialism vs. Religion, details the struggle and the final victory over theism http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleid.17291/article_detail.asp).

Finally, Socialism’s paradox (National Socialism and Communist Socialism) culminated in World War II and the Cold War. Finally, the “Evil Empire” imploded. Thus, with the violent conclusion of National Socialism, and the ignoble demise of Communist-Stalinism, as well as the birth of Chinese Neo-Communism (Party-Controlled Capitalism), the world appeared restful. Alas! One last bastion of true socialism persists (aside from North Korea/Cuba): The oligarchs of the Middle East!

“Baath(ist) Socialism in Iraq, Syria, and Libya incorporate a toxic amalgam of Islam and Socialism similar to the German Nazi combination of new age neo-paganism and socialism. Islamic nations have no defined concept of separation of powers, an independent judiciary, private property, free enterprise, free speech or free press.

“Non-Islamic minorities, called ‘Dhimmis,’ are allowed to live at the whim of the state as long as they submit to second-class status and pay a yearly extortion. This way they are allowed, in most cases, to live yet another year without converting to Islam. Islamic defenders refer to this system as an example of Islamic tolerance.”
(Free Republic– http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/565936/posts)

It is no small secret that Baathist Socialism and the Left, in general, share a common consternation towards the American New World Order Systema system wherein the rich get richer and the poor, poorerwhere the “disparity of wealth” continues unabated; NOTWITHSTANDING ALL THE RHETORIC TO THE CONTRARY!

In his classic text, “Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left,” David Horowitz provides a damning critique of America’s Leftextrapolating their connivance with radical Islam and likening it to the Hitler-Stalin Pact of the 20th Century. In other words: They will stop at no lengths to attack Babylon the Great!

I have meandered all over the socio-political mapwithout going into elaborate detail/referenceshighlighting the American Left (world Left) and Islam (seemingly poles apart), who have purposefully and/or unwittingly ascribed to the old Arab dictum: The enemy of my enemy is my friend!

What Horowitz fails to calculate is the simple fact America’s Left is not monolithic, nor is its Right (though I’m sure he gives mental ascent to this troubling thought). However, both Left and Right in Americana are loathe to outrage over the wishy-washy centera center whose pompous protestations are adjudged by both as unworthy in galvanizing any base.

THIS CRUSADE…THIS WAR ON TERRORISM

I have presented before you a decisively religious understanding on the part of our President in his efforts to “stay the course” and rally American public opinion to his cause. Without projecting the tone and substance of this debate within the nomenclature of evangelical rhetoriclet alone ideological terminologythe American public will NOT persist in the efforts of the one who (along with America’s representatives) first announced immediately after 9/11:

“They have attacked America because we are freedom’s home and defender; this crusade, this war on terrorism, is going to take a while, but we will rid the world of the evil-doers.” - President George W. Bush (September 16, 2001)

“We are coming after you. God may have mercy on you, but we won’t,” Sen. John McCain (R-AZ).

“Bomb the hell out of them. If there’s collateral damage, so be it. They certainly found our civilians to be expendable,” Sen. Zell Miller (D-GA).

“Deputy Secretary of Defense (Now President of the World Bank) Paul Wolfowitz says that we are going to ‘end states’ that sponsor terrorism, and our entire government puts the world on notice that everyone must ‘choose sides,’ that we no longer differentiate between terrorists and the countries they may live in, and that they are either ‘with us or against us’” (Ramzi Kysia, The Last Crusade
http://www.bodydharma.org/choices/violence/kysia.html).

. . . View full article at http://www.the-tribulation-network.com

Doug is a member of the “Last Days Network” . . . a group of evangelical pundits providing news and analysis on Religion in Politics. “Applied Biblical prophecy,” apostasy and deception, the impact of the New American World Order System, and the influence of the Religious Right and Left upon American culture–are topics discussed by the group. He is an educator in the public schools (California) and an administrator.

Amnesty International comments on the proposal that has been laid out by President Obasnjo the Chairman of the African Union in regards to the Sudanese Darfurian issue.

The Nigerian President proposed to have an “African Panel for Criminal Justice and Reconciliation” to deal with the crimes committed by the dictatorial regime in Sudan.

Paying respect to some of the African leaders, I think the proposal will undermine the International Criminal Court and protect the impunity of those responsible of the crimes.

Everyone knows that, there’re more than one dictator in the continent right now. Those dictators are ruling their people by iron and fire. It’s more worse there than what it had been during the Fascism period in Europe.

Now with this proposed African Panel, the New Fascisti will have a new lease of life! Ah. That’s very clear, because they will compete to defend each other. Natural. And this will be a miss.

I am calling since more than three years and even before the Darfurian issue, to submit those dictators to the International Criminal Court.

They have committed a well known political crimes not against the Darfurian and the Southern people only, but against the Northern people as well.

If the memories are too bad to remember, go a head and search for the political crimes committed by the first dictatorial regime in the Sudanese modern history during 1959-1964. Then of those committed during the second dictatorial regime during 1969-1985.

Then come to the worse and worse of those who are ruling now since 1989. Then you probably will know who makes the devil itself a devil!

If the memories are too weak, the history is not.

The rebels are not innocent too. Just go to the jungle there and investigate; and do more investigation in Eritrea too.

The dawn will come with great stories for the new Sudanese generation to read and take leasons.

To read the Report with other comments and receive updates about politics, business and love subscribe to our Ezine Act RSS at Ezine Act.

Khalid Osman is a political refugee. He was a teacher and
a journalist with 30 years experience. He wrought in Sudan,
Iraq, Kuwait and Eritrea. He was a freelancer contributed
in many newspapers and magazines published in London,
Paris, Cyprus, Amman and Beirut. He was an activist
organizer in regards to the: Environment, Press, Education,
Unions, Human rights, Children, Women and Foreign
Relations. He broadcasted from a local Denmark radio station too.

My vision of the US has evolved from my early days of blind belief. Experience, history and my scrutiny of nontraditional sources have taught me that when it comes to my government the issues it stands for are not clear moral choices but a series of interests that need to be met. Whose interests are being met is really at the heart of any issue the US has ever stood up for.1776 was the year of the declaration of independence; it was the colonists’ needs that were being addressed and the British that were undermining them.

During the Civil war, I was taught that the war was fought for two reasons. The first
was to preserve the union of north and south; the second was to free the slaves.
This view is rather simplistic but it made sense to me in 8th grade or whenever it
was that I was educated about the civil war. Yet in reality it really wasn’t that simple.
At east the second reason cited isn’t really the reason, it was a by-product as to why
the war was fought. Doesn’t it make more sense that the war was fought because an
increasingly industrialized north needed a larger market to sell its mass produced
goods to?
Today we joke about earning slave wages; the reality is slaves were invaluable to an
agriculture-based economy like the south by providing the cheapest source of labor
possible. This was utterly useless to an industrial based north that relied on wage
earners to purchase their goods. The needs of two economic systems clashed and
then we have the civil war.

It certainly is more pc to allude to the first two reasons; is it honest though? I
believe that this is the problem that we all face politically in this country today. We
pay attention to the party line fed to us but we as a people don’t dig deeper and
really look at the real root of the problem. The problem of dealing with a problem
superficially is that it’ll always come back to bite you in the ass. Or in the case of
just buying into the party line is that you run the risk of not addressing your actual
needs. “Fiscal Conservative values”, “mission accomplished”, “Made in the U.S.A”,
“No Child Left Behind”, “Jobs Growth Opportunity”, “Access, Affordability”; these are
all tag lines or writing on the backdrops used by President Bush during his
speeches. Are these truly honest? Does a fiscal conservative spend billions on nation
building (something Bush promised not to do)? We are still in Iraq with more
soldiers dying and being maimed everyday. I’m not asking anyone to switch party
alliances because they both play the same game. What I am suggesting is that we
hold them more accountable by questioning the real reason as to why something is
being or not being done.

The most obvious example I can give is Iraq. The President has flip flopped more
than California beach goers have the named item as to why the Iraq war is being
fought. The final reason given is that we are there spreading democracy. If this is
really our reason we aren’t we in North Korea where we know they have weapons of
mass destruction and people are oppressed. How about going into Iran that has
admitted to having designs on creating a nuclear program. How about the Sudan
where there is an active program of genocide being implemented.
I don’t believe we are an evil people; gullible is what I see. Just like in our every day
lives we tend to question everything. Why not when it comes to our political leaders.

As far removed from Washington as we may be it is still our responsibility to old
them accountable to our needs not theirs. No is the time to start doing this at every
level of government.

There is a myth that presumes that civil servants (government
employees)are not motivated.

I beg to differ that opinion. For many, there remains a
visualization of the government employee from the 50s and 60s,
strudging along with their plastic IDs and pocket retainers.

This description and perception of government employees could
not be any further from the truth. Civil servants are an
emerging, vibrant and intelligent group of workers who have a
heart for service.

Even more refreshing, they have developed a heart for
entrepreneurship as well. The pure drive to serve makes them
model candidates for homebased business ownership.

Not too long ago, I was approached by a civil servant interested
in starting a part-time business. Knowing that I held a Masters
degree in business and several years of experience at a Fortune
500 Bank, this employee exemplified a burning desire to not only
make a difference, but make money as well. Simply put, this
civil servant possessed the same drive and aspirations for
entrepreneurship like any other true American.

Surprisingly, a recent survey cited that 40% of Americans have
the entrepreneurial spirit, but don’t know where to start.

The shear inquiry into small business ownership by this civil
servant made me realize that government employees are
entrepreneurs too!

And, like many of us, they need a roadmap for making their
creative dreams a reality during their spare time.

Let it be known that there is a new breed of business owner in
the marketplace. I call them F.E.D.preneurs!

As I read over the account of Leslie Burke, the British citizen who argued for the right to stay alive if circumstances arose where doctors thought he should be put to death by starvation, a case which he lost on appeal, I prayed that I would never find myself infirm and helpless and unable to keep doctors or relatives from killing me. It’s a shame that I should have to pray this prayer, but we are living in times where the dehumanizing of human beings is prevalent. We are living in societies which are increasingly hostile to the notion of the importance of the human race, a hostility that is so pervasive that one can talk about it and not even include the abortion and stem cell debate.

In Burke’s case, the U. K. Court of Appeal was loath to restrict the freedom of certain doctors to kill anyone they deemed unworthy of further treatment, but it did not find the same anathema for restricting the freedom of someone who wants to stay alive. There used to be a time when leaders thought it was murder to kill an innocent person, regardless of whether or not that person were in any degenerative condition, now being in that state is the impetus for his death.

Unfortunately, this kind of callous disregard is not rare and not always passive. And it’s not restricted to the disabled and the aged. Consider the tragic more active event of British police officers shooting dead an unarmed man. Jean Charles de Menezes had already been subdued when he was killed. Common sense would suggest that it would have been more logical to keep him alive to secure more information from him. How useful was he dead, when the hunt for the whereabouts of potential co-conspirators was still in progress? Yet evident of its unapologetic stance, the British government says it will persist in the enforcement of its “shoot-to-kill” policy.

This disregard for human life can also be seen, in a subtle way, in the actions of American federal agents who deported 119 illegal immigrants leaving 30 children behind in Arkansas. The federal agents didn’t seem to think it worth their time to investigate the lifestyles of the immigrants involved to ascertain if children were living in the home, relying instead on a simple yes or no answer to the question: Do you have children? It would seem that children who have been born, in some circles, have so sunk to the level of unborn ones, that not only their existence is dismissed but also their safety and well-being?

This slow digression of humane treatment has reached the point that some American state officials see nothing wrong with putting life-time GPS bracelets on former sex offenders who have legitimately served their time. It seems odd to me that offenders that are so violent that they need life-time monitoring should be walking the streets in the first place. If they are dangerously violent, why weren’t they given longer prison sentences? Surely the legal system has had enough experience prosecuting sex offenders to incarcerate anyone for the rest of his life who has killed a child.

So it makes me queasy that an official in a system still giving lip-service to the notion that one is innocent until proven guilty, would instead pass a law to restrict a person, just short of incarceration, for a crime he has not yet committed based solely upon the recidivism of the particular criminal group of which he happens to be a part.

But the former sex offender is now a part of the lengthening list of categories of people who are subliminally being deemed “it.” A designation that says they are not worthy of the consideration of a field mouse. Former sex offenders, disabled, aged, fetuses, the poor, and any other unfortunate group of the wretched soon to be included.

I believe we have reached the point where people can be murdered, incarcerated, restricted, left unattended and any number of other actions sanctioned by law and by policy, who have committed no crime. The fact is any one of us could face death if we’re deemed untreatable having committed no crime. Menezes was summarily executed, shot eight times, having committed no crime. Children have been left alone and uncared-for, having committed no crime. And after serving his time, a former sex offender faces a lifetime of punishment having committed no crime.

The penalty of death is increasingly being meted out to the innocent and, just as quickly, rights are being taken from the free. This country’s and Great Britain’s leaders once swore that they would never allow anything to change the basic freedoms of the societies that we enjoy, but whether the causality is terrorism or something else, that is exactly what is happening.
Every new insult to the dignity of the human being, such as the British court’s decision mentioned above or the technology that strips a person naked without his having to even remove his clothing, not only strips a man naked of his ability to enjoy and protect his life but reduces him to the humiliation of having to beg for it.

http://www.thepoliticalview.com

I’m starting to wonder why no one in the Democratic Party is
challenging the GOP on their hypocrisy when it comes to their
stance on the Constitution, when it comes to the warrantless
wiretapping by the NSA that was authorized by President Bush.. 
They claim they want strict literal interpretation of the
Constitution, unless the president wants to interpret Article 2,
Sect. 1 to give himself the power to wiretap US citizens without
a warrant.  Please allow me to explain how ridiculous the Bush
administration’s argument is on this subject.  The GOP’s
exhaustive mantra the last week or two, is that Bush took an
oath to protect the American people, and therefore, is justified
to take whatever means he deems necessary to do so.  This
argument is purposely false.   The following is a direct quote
from the Constitution, Article 2, Sect 1, as it explains the
oath the President takes:

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take
the following Oath or Affirmation:–”I do solemnly swear (or
affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President
of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability,
preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United
States.”

The president takes an oath to uphold the constitution, as does
everyone who serves in the military.  But to uphold the
constitution, the president must uphold the 4th Amendment:

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons,
houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and
seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue,
but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and
particularly describing the place to be searched, and the
persons or things to be seized.

Are you grasping this?  The president is not upholding his oath
of office, as his administration is claiming, he is actually
doing the exact opposite.  He is breaking his oath of office by
not upholding, or defending if you please, the constitution due
to the fact that his authorization of warrantless wiretapping is
in direct violation of the 4th amendment.  The FISA courts were
established for the very purpose of allowing the president to
wiretap without a warrant if there is an immedaite threat.  He
then has 72 hours afterwards to show the secret court probable
cause so they can issue a rectroactive warrant.  The only reason
I can find for the president to go around the FISA court is
because he couldn’t show probable cause, and the
Democratic leadership desperately need to take him to task for
it.   

Forty-five million children are set to die by 2015 if countries
like the United States and Britain don’t meet their aid quotas,
reports the international agency of Oxfam.

Even though countries like those in the G7 are wealthier than
they have ever been before, they are giving far less in
developmental assistance than what they did in 1960. The paltry
assistance gives only $50 million dollars in foreign aid, while
even less, about 40% is given to underdeveloped countries.

The Oxam agency is looking to G7 countries to cancel all poor
nations’ debts and double their developmental aid. If the G7
does not agree to these terms, the MDG (Millennium Development
Goals) for reducing poverty will be put out of reach.

The MDG also called for universal primary education, halving the
hunger, reduce by two thirds the mortality rate of children
under five and by three quarters the maternal mortality rate;
and halt the spread of HIV/AIDS and the occurrence of other
deadly diseases, like malaria and tuberculosis.

The G7 agreed in 2000 to reach these goals, however none have
increased spending.

The United States is actually ranked dead last with only 0.14
percent of GDP going to foreign aid, which is only 1/10th of
what it spent on the Iraqi war in 2003. Foreign aid given by the
United States is only 1/14th the spending of its annual defense
budget.

The report also shows that Italy and the United States are the
worst in giving aid to poor nations. The Italians spend
approximately 90% of its aid on Italian goods and services while
the United States spends around 70% on its own companies.

The report also shows that not only is the aid important, but
also their influence on the World Bank and International
Monetary Fund. If countries like the United States wished to do
so, they could cancel their debt that is causing so many
problems in places like Africa.

The debt in fact, makes these countries pay three dollars for
every two dollars they received in aid. This causes many
indebted countries to spend more on the debt services than it
does on its own health services for its people, which is
especially hard on countries in Africa which have been stricken
with wide spread HIV/AIDS.

The latest report by Oxam showed that spending $30 billion would
cancel the debt of 32 of the poorest countries; this would only
cost $2.10 per person each year in the wealthiest countries.

Oxfam states that if the current trends continue nearly 247
million more people in sub-Saharan Africa will live in poverty;
34 million more will suffer from hunger; and 45 million children
will die.

“Unless world leaders act now to deliver a historic breakthrough
on poverty,” said Jeremy Hobbs, Oxfam’s executive director,
“next year will end in shameful failure.”

The American Dream is the promise to have it all and enjoy it all. It’s been glorified and sentimentalized as a utopian goal not just by the media and Hollywood stars, but also by businesses and politicians, including the President of the United States. But in reality, the American Dream is becoming more and more like the ‘Impossible Dream.’ Today, many Americans believe that their odds of winning the lottery are better than attaining the American Dream.

Originally the American Dream concept was born out of lack and a genuine need for security shortly after the Great Depression and WW2. Because jobs were scarce, the greatest aspiration for most Americans was securing steady employment and owning their own home. As a result, work ethic and integrity were very strong. The focus was on a wholesome values system, family and community, all of which created pride, real prosperity and real joy. However, over time the same prosperity which resulted from being a nation of producers, also created a nation of consumers, driven not by need but rather by the desire to ‘keep up with the Jones’s.’

Today, the American Dream is more of a marketing concept, whereby Madison Avenue and government alike, have convinced people that they have to have a certain standard of living (such as a second home, a vacation in Europe, expensive jewelry and other ‘toys’) in order to be happy and fulfilled. Even the Christmas holiday has lost its original meaning and has become highly commercialized.

In other words, we’ve been brainwashed to believe that, ‘He with the most toys lives,’ rather than ‘He with the most joys lives.’ By taking on even higher amounts of personal debt, Americans are more stressed out and less optimistic and fulfilled then ever before despite their high standard of living. That’s because ‘toys’ (material goods), without purpose and a wholesome values system, only produce an artificial joy that is as fleeting as it is cruel.

The American Dream as we know it, is no longer something that is born out of need and lack but rather out of greed and desire. Therefore, it does not represent the true spirit of America, which was based on perspiration, innovation, risk and reward with the focus on a wholesome values system, integrity, family, community and a strong work ethic.

From an Enron economy and huge government deficits, to our failing educational system and the break down of the family system (where kids are left home alone to grow up with their peers, gangs and TV), practically every facet of our lives is negatively effected by the pursuit of materialism, which is a by-product of the American Dream. In a materialistic-driven society where there is an obsession with fame and fortune and winning at all costs, the prevailing wisdom is to do what’s politically correct, rather than doing what’s in the best interest of the community. And when the intoxicating love of power overcomes the power of love, it’s easy to see why absolute power corrupts absolutely.

The concept of The American Dream (as we know it now) is not only a marketing concept but it is also used by politicians for getting votes and keeping constituents happy. In the cut-throat world of politics where the stakes are high, politicians are driven by their own self-serving agendas. As such, the different political parties have their own agendas when it comes to helping certain members of society achieve the American Dream. The Democratic party on the one hand supports labor unions and union contracts that provide for big wage increases for the common worker so that they can achieve a piece of The American Dream. In so doing, they guarantee work and wages for people who are not necessarily that productive, at the expense of everyone else. On the other hand, the Republican party believes philosophically in the free enterprise system. Their vision is to have an economic system that rewards primarily people who are successful, which means mostly wealthy people, at the expense of everyone else.

In other words, both political parties and the special interest groups who contribute to their election campaigns are trying to achieve the political version of the American Dream for their constituencies at the expense of everyone else. Ironically, both political parties realize that because the pie is limited, making the American Dream a reality for all Americans is virtually impossible. As a matter of fact, most people are kept in perpetual debt their whole lives in order to maintain a standard of living consistent with the new ideal of the American Dream. It’s this unattainable dream that drives both parents into the work place, working longer and harder than ever before, which contributes to the ills of society.

So in order to make the American Dream possible for as many Americans to achieve, consumerism had to be created. The point of consumerism is to get people to spend more by going into debt. The logic is that higher spending produces wealth for some people. The problem is that there is a limitation on how far people can go into debt. Eventually the economy becomes a ‘house of cards’ because it is unable to create ‘jobs of value,’(based on producing, creating and manufacturing). Instead more and more jobs are in the services industry, catering to our insatiable need to consume. Eventually this type of faulty economy will result in financial chaos where institutions, banks and even governments fail, as we’ve seen by what’s happening in California.

In the pursuit of pleasure and avoidance of pain, we’ve been looking for solutions and fulfillment in all the wrong places. The solution to restoring our economy, our failing systems and our institutions, as well as our sanity, is through the spirit. That’s because whether we realize it or not, we are spiritual beings experiencing the human experience and not the other way around. As such we were meant and designed to live a life of meaning and purpose by recognizing the unity of life and living in harmony with universal laws that are characterized by integrity and the honoring of all living things. Total prosperity and peace are dependent on the strength of our spirit.

Only when the ‘business as usual’ type of politics is replaced by business with integrity (whereby the power of love overcomes the love of power) can we hope to see a meaningful and lasting transformation that’s also cost effective. Perhaps if we live by the mantra that, ‘He with the most joys lives,’ rather than ‘He with the most toys lives,’ knowing that paradise is not so much a place but rather a state of mind, can we once again appreciate the simple pleasures in life while recognizing that indeed the best things in life are free. Now that’s the real thing, unlike what Coca Cola claims to have.

And while most of us may not be Lords of the Rings, we are always the Lords of our own earthly destiny. Simply put, we all have the power to create our own destiny through personal responsibility no matter what we’ve been brainwashed to believe. Perhaps when we reconnect with our spiritual roots, and understand the unity of life, we can finally recognize that we are all connected in the web of life, that whatever effects one directly, effects us all indirectly (the global economy perfectly illustrates this fact). Perhaps then confrontation will give way to cooperation and destruction will be replaced with construction. Only then we will discover that peace is not so much unity in similarity but rather unity in diversity - a diversity that needs to be celebrated. Perhaps as we realize that we are all children of God, we will also learn to honor life and finally experience true and lasting peace and harmony, which inevitably leads to total prosperity for all in a win-win spirit. Now that’s something to sing about.

About The Author

Copyright © 2004, Geela

Author of ‘The American Dream’

http://www.Geela.com

Geela is an award winning singer/songwriter/composer, columnist, and author of the best-selling book ‘THE AMERICAN DREAM,’ her true- life story of how she came to America as a young immigrant with nothing and overcame incredible obstacles to achieve mega-success. She founded ONE SPIRIT, ONE WORLD to help children and promote a culture of peace and harmony. Get a free sample of her music and her book at http://www.Geela.com.