“Very few Israelis still worry about the unfinished business of getting the Arabs to accept the permanence of the Jewish state.”
— Daniel Pipes

Once you get past some facts (smokescreen) that all who love Israel could agree on, the bottom-line of CFR Daniel Pipes is the pipe dream that the “Palestinians” accept the state of Jews (it’s not a Jewish state) and live in peace beside it in “Palestine.”

Daniel Pipe continues to be a wolf in sheep’s clothing. To continue to mislead folks to hope and trust in Nazi-Muslims to renounce their vows of genocide against the Jews, their phased destruction of the Jewish homeland by any means possible, terrorist or political, is utterly insane and treacherous.

Did the United States wait to win over the Nazis? Or did we beat them into submission (since they demanded it) and then dictate the terms of peace, and enforce such peace through strength, having WON the war?

Yes, Israel avoids victory by refusing to face the harsh reality there’s a war going on and if they don’t win it, they’ll lose it. May Israel wake up from those who would keep them sleepwalking into a CFR trap, drugged on delusions of peace that will never materialize, and decide to win:

Israel must confess Kahane was right (Malachi 4:4).
Kahane was right about such sworn Arab enemies: THEY MUST GO.

Israel must finish the EXCHANGE OF POPULATIONS the Ishmaelites started.

THE ARABS IN ERETZ ISRAEL cannot be trusted. Israel must remove the STRANGER IN THY MIDST.

For Zion’s sake,

David Ben-Ariel is a Christian-Zionist writer and author of Beyond Babylon: Europe’s Rise and Fall. With a focus on the Middle East and Jerusalem, his analytical articles help others improve their understanding of that troubled region. Check out the Beyond Babylon blog.

With the collapse of the USSR and the end of the Cold War, the political and economic power relations that had been in place since the end of World War II were rendered obsolete. What we are observing today is a shift in the global power dynamics, which will eventually allign to a new axis of world order.

Although the mainstream media channels all over the world have successfully managed to disinform the general public into believing that what has been taking place since the September 11 attacks is a “War On Terror”, a growing number of people are starting to suspect that there are other political and economic dimensions to the causes of the 9-11 Attacks, the bombing of Afghanistan, and the current invasion of Iraq.

Ever since the Bretton Woods Agreement of 1944, which established the rules of commerce and financial relations among the major industrial states and the independent nation-states, the US has been enjoying an artificial privilage in the global economy through its ability to adopt the US dollar as the currency of global exchange. When President Nixon liberated the US from the gold standard in 1971, the dollar became the denominator of the world reserve currency, and the global economy became fully dominated by the US dollar at the expense of the rest. Although this fact has been known by those in financial and political circles, it is hardly ever mentioned in the media.

International institutions, such as the IMF and the World Bank, has been giving loans exclusively in dollars up to this day, and thus, the rest of the world has been forced to build their dollar reserves for repayment of debt and international trade for over sixty years. Today, over two thirds of the world trade is conducted in dollars conferring on the US an economic advantage.

However, as well as being an advantage, the same system has also created a very fragile US economy that is fully dependent on the faith the rest of the world has in the stability of the dollar. Analysts know perfectly well that, as strong as the US economy may appear, it could collapse very abruptly if the trust in the stability of the dollar is broken, or if there is an alternative means of pricing instead of the dollar.

When the US buys goods and services produced by other countries, the pricing and the payments are made in dollars. As the US does not have a corresponding need to accumulate foreign reserve, it enjoys the privilage of spending more than it earns, and can afford to run a trade deficit year after year, while the rest of the world earns more than it spends as a result of this artificial monetary system.

Currently, the huge trade deficit in the US indicates that the US economy has a “need” to “borrow” two billion dollars per day from the rest of the world to keep its economy from collapsing. Naturally, if the dollar remains the dominant global currency, there would not be any risks, and the US could continue to enjoy its privilage without any complications. On the other hand, any tendency to move away from the dollar towards another currency would spell disaster and would demolish the global hegemony that the US has been enjoying for nearly sixty years.

By launching the new euro in 1999, the EU challenged the US in an indirect manner by offering the world an alternative currency to do business in. Although a rapid transition from dollars to euro would be a disaster for virtually every economy in the world, and not even the Europeans would desire such a sudden change, a gradual transition was possible, and perfectly feasible, in the long run.

Taking into consideration the possible consequences of the EU’s euro challenge for the future of the US, it would be too naive to assume that the economic rivalary between the dollar and the euro would take place without any friction or conflict of interests. The influencial players that have a tremendous effect on the outcome of this economic game of chess are the oil and natural gas exporting countries. As early as November 2000, Iraq became the first oil producing country to switch from dollars to euro, and hence, also became the first to experience the wrath of the US military might. Analysts all over the world recognized that such a disobediance to American hegemony would be severly punished. It would be illogical to assume that the US would simply tolerate Saddam’s decision and would risk the possibility of an economic disaster. Allowing Iraq to switch from dolars to euros would send a clear message to the other oil producing economies and that would create a domino effect.

It is certainly not a coincidence that the Russian leader Vladimir Putin has annouced the “possibility” of selling Russian oil for euros, while Iran has been actively working on the establishment of a new trading market in France for the OPEC and Middle Eastern producers, which could potentially end the dominance that London’s International Petroleum Exchange and New York’s NYMEX currently enjoy.

As the dollar is no longer a stable currency with its more reliable alternative in euro, one can easily see why the “War On Terror” is nothing but a catchy phrase designed to fool the public. The world is on the verge of adopting a new, and perhaps healthier financial structure, and needs to decide how the transition from the old order to the new one will take place. Regardless of what we are being fed by the mainstream media, there is a rather different reality under the appearances, and what is happening in the world today has nothing to do with Islamic terrorism or jihad.

Don’t believe the hype!

About the Author

Istanbul, TURKEY

While I’m conservative on many issues, when it comes to healthcare I’m a little more moderate. I have a social conscience and believe better healthcare coverage is needed for the thirty to forty million Americans who are without healthcare in this country. I take a middle of the road approach to healthcare. I disagree with both the Democrats and Republicans when it comes to healthcare.

On one side of the issue are the Republicans who are against the type of comprehensive healthcare found in Canada. The Republicans argue that having a comprehensive healthcare system like Canada would cost too much and raise taxes through the roof. They also argue that a comprehensive healthcare system is hard to administer and would be inefficient.

On the other side of the issue are the Democrats who argue that it should be a right to have healthcare and that a caring society takes care of its citizens. They argue that it’s horrible to have so many Americans who don’t have insurance coverage. They also argue that children are the innocent victims in the current healthcare climate.

The Republicans are correct when they say that a comprehensive healthcare system is expensive and would greatly increase taxes. That’s why I disagree with a comprehensive system but I’ll discuss this later. The Republicans fail to realize that no child or adult is refused healthcare in Canada. Canadians are also allowed to get preventative care. The preventative care for health issues like early liver disease are treated immediately and people don’t have to wait until they’re near death to recieve emergency care. A condition that is left untreated could turn into a serious problem later.

I agree with the Democrats that a caring society should take care of its citizens. Children and adults without healthcare should be taken care of. I know too well the feeling of being laid off and being without healthcare. Yes we have COBRA available to us but it can cost anywhere from 500 to 1000 dollars per month. Who can afford that. In Minnesota where I live, if a person goes a certain period without healthcare insurance they become uninsurable. This is nonsense. Something must be done.

I advocate for an expanded healthcare system. The Government should provide basic insurance for those people who don’t have medical insurance. The majority of Americans have healthcare and I believe that corporate America would continue to provide healthcare insurance for their employees if the Government were to provide basic healthcare to people who don’t have medical insurance. The reason is that companies would want to attract talented employees. They would use their benefits to lure employees to their companies.

The federal government needs needs to provide coverage for those Americans who are laid off and are without insurance. It’s an unfair system when a person who is laid off (at no fault of their own) is left without healthcare coverage for themselves or their children. This is a heartless system. Why should the innocent children suffer? Expanding healthcare to these people is fair and just. The cost of expanding the system wouldn’t be nearly as expensive as a comprehensive system and America can afford this coverage.

Another solution to making the healthcare system better is to create legislation to prevent frivolous lawsuits. Something needs to be done to limit the amount of lawsuits and the crazy monetary awards that are being paid out to settle these claims. While doctors and healthcare providers should be held accountable for their mistakes, the monetary awards are burdening the system. The monetary awards are excessive and needless. If there was legislation to curtail the current trend of suing healthcare providers and receiving excessive monetary awards, healthcare would be more affordable and our rates wouldn’t continue to increase as much. I worked in the healthcare field and the amount of frivolous lawsuits and excessive monetary settlements are mind boggling. I also believe that people who bring about frivolous lawsuits should have to pay for all the legal costs of the people they’re suing and be made to pay punitive damages.

If the federal government were to create an expanded helthcare system and reduce the frivolous lawsuits and excessive settlements, the healthcare system would be better, more fair and would take care of those people who don’t have healthcare.

UPDATE ( June 9th, 2005 ruling by Supreme Court of Canada): “The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a Quebec law banning private medical insurance in a decision that represents an acute blow to the publicly financed national health care system” (NYT.com, June 10th). In its ruling, The Supreme Court of Canada remarked that waiting lists for health services have become so long that they violated Quebec’s Charter of human Rights (NYT.com).

The court also mentioned that there is evidence that patients die or have died as a result of waiting for services (NYT.com)
Many Canadians argue that patients may wait for long periods of time to receive services but that life threatening health problems are taken care of. The court’s comments seem to contradict that type of argument.
It is expected that their will be lawsuits against other provinces which ban private billing of health services.

According to the New York Times article, Canada is the only industrialized nation that “outlaws privately financed purchases of core medical services” (NYT.com).

Anthony B. is the founder and owner of ItsTheRightWay.com a news, political and sports commentary website.

Anthony has over 7 years of experience as a business professional

As you read this our government is ramping up a campaign of
oppression against the heartland of America. Operation Cyber
Storm, aimed directly at the right of free speech is ready to be
deployed against all of us.

Bloggers are thus acknowledged as Americans last hope for
freedom.

Bloggers have for years now shown their collective muscle of
the mind and heart, changing the direction of government action
in many instances, and exposing the corruption that is now
endemic to every institution for which Americans pay so dearly.

Now the government has decided they must be silenced. It is time
to fight back. We can return America to the governance of the
people. In that battle bloggers are our first line of
resistance.

The existence of those cantankerous bloggers whose on line
discourse, diatribes, and insights annoy so many have become the
last, best line of defense for the much tattered First
Amendment. The rapidity with which bloggers change opinion has
made them a force with which to be reckoned. Therefore this
government under the speciously constructed argument of
‘terrorist threat’ is going after the Blogsphere.

It is time for those who truly care about America and our
liberties as Americans to abandon the futile activities that
replayed endlessly the activist organizing of the 60s. They no
longer work.

Alito was confirmed. The Congress is stacked; the Supreme Court
is frozen for the forces of big government and tyranny. At this
point we cannot count on electing replacements because the
ballot process has been hijacked. It is time to climb out of the
box and take the offensive.

Bloggers are under attack. They need to be protected. Therefore,
the ACLU needs to organizing task forces and action network so
that any blogger who is attacked for free speech issues will get
all the support needed to spring him or her while using each
case to awaken the public to what is happening.

Think of it as the medical support we owe our military when, to
protect us, they put themselves in harms way.

We have been divided, right and left, Green and Libertarian.
These chasms are in large part fiction, constructed to prevent
effective communication and a unified front for protecting the
rights of individuals against the predations of the unholy
alliance between megacorporations and government.

Decent people may have disagreements about how to get there but
they all understand where we want to go. The rights of
individuals as enunciated by Jefferson remain today the Mission
Statement of America, more profound and compelling of our
loyalty than any government or political party. How ever we
live, as long as we do no harm to others, is ours to decide.

Political parties are tools we created to help us achieve the
goals left uncompleted at the time of America’s founding.
Political parties were immediately used to oppose the full
participation of each individual in that vision. Blacks remained
in slavery; women dispossessed of their rights to their own
property and to their bodies. Slavery, as Americans are
beginning to see, comes in many kinds.

Where political parties fail because they have proven to be
incapable of advancing the work of human emancipation they must
be discarded. One of their most profound failings is in the
divides they made possible. The redefinition of meanings,
linking loyalty to words like ‘conservative’ instead of to the
profound principles underlying America’s Mission Statement
worked to convert our rights, inherent and preceding government,
to privileges, granted by government.

The change in definition that has helped create these divides is
beautifully enunciated by R. J. Eskow in his article that
appeared today on Huffington.com.

The solution is a working coalition and the way to make that
work is to start working together to protect our first line of
defense, a common problem, the coming persecution of Bloggers.

Our uniting agenda must include protecting Bloggers as the last
bastion of free speech and the Internet as the village commons
where opinions are aired, judged, and adopted through the
process of persuasion and consent.

Left, Right, Libertarian, and Green; we have common cause and a
common need. That need is urgent and compelling. We cannot yet
guarantee an honest vote but we can support the warriors of the
word who are out there in the trenches.

Blog Power: Celebrate the heroes among us.

Blogging has become the true voice of the people, the only one
that the NeoCons have not yet managed to stifle. American
Patriots will continue to speak out. In silence freedom would
truly die.

The second amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees every American the right to bear arms. Has any law ever been so ambiguous? What are arms? What does it mean to bear them? At least with the first amendment we know exactly where we stand: Freedom of speech. It couldn’t be any clearer. But, the right to bear arms leaves the second amendment open to different interpretations. We need gun permits to carry a concealed weapon. Do we need knife permits? No. Yet both can, and often do, cause death. We can own a gun, or a rifle, or a sub-machine gun, or a machete, and dozens of other tools to kill, even our own bare hands. So, gun control is a debate in our country that makes no sense unless you broaden the ban or acceptance to include all instruments of death.

According to Population Stats, www.xist.com, America has the highest crime rate in the world. Everyday 30 people in the United States are murdered by a gunshot. That means 11,000 people. However, there are more than 25,000 murders each year in the United States. In other industrialized countries, Germany has 381 each year, France 255, Great Britain 68, Australia 65, and Japan 39. Based on population to make it a fair assessment, it turns out to be guns in America murder 1 out of 25,916 people every year. Compared to Canada where the amount is 1 out of 190,387, and 1 out of 864,546 in Great Britain, and only 1 out of 3,254,508 in Japan, America is the killing field of the world.

Gun expert Robert J. Spitzer, political science professor at SUNY Cortland and author of the book The Politics of Gun Control points to America’s ‘mixed ethnicity.’ “Our diverse cultural background, composed of many different ethnic, religious, social, and other groups leads to inter-group rivalries, suspicion, hatred, fear, and sometimes violence,’ Professor Spitzer said. “Most other Western nations, by comparison, are more homogeneous than the U.S.”

Which brings us back to the thesis that America does not need a gun control law; it needs a crime control law.

The number one concern in America today is safety: Safety from terrorists, safety from drugs and violent drug dealers, safety from gangs, and safety from those whose evil ways affect our lives and our children’s lives everyday. However, we have no safety of which to speak. Our police departments are as overwhelmed by the size of the enemy as are our troops in Iraq. Without safety, we are prisoners of our own society. Safety and security are more important than any other issue, for, without it, we cease to live. We merely exist. We must first feel safe, and be safe, before we can think about curing our other ills. With 14,000 of the homicides each year being committed without guns (11,000 with), we must look at the bigger picture.

We must build more maximum-security prisons. Enough so that everyone convicted of first-degree homicide, or of a felony three times, is sent there for the rest of their life, without any chance of parole. (There is no reason to spend millions of dollars on each death row prisoner’s appeals that last ten years or longer when it has been proven not to be a deterrent and when housing them is substantially much less expensive.)

Within a federal partnership with select American manufacturing companies, these companies for the work they would be required to do would pay these prisoners minimum wage. The product they create would then be infused into mainstream American commerce. In return for these jobs, the prisoners would pay the government for their room and board, and any security, medical, and utility fees. If the prisoner has any dependents, their paycheck would reflect that deduction. Cut off from society, these prisons would be a society of their own. Away from us forever.

Crime control, rather than a gun control, is a stricter and more effective deterrent than the failed alternatives. It would not just deter murder with guns, it would deter murder with any type of weapon, as well as rape, aggravated assault - ALL felonies. It would reduce crime and get these criminals off America’s streets once and for all, saving the American taxpayer substantially in law enforcement: Money that will instead be used to build and staff these new prisons. Our safety is what we have to take care of - what we must take care of - before we do anything else. We owe it to our children.

We teach our children to have pride in America. We teach our children safety first. We teach our children about good and evil, right versus wrong. What must our children be thinking when they see murder after murder on the news, and walking the streets with the fear of a drive by shooting, or of being abducted? We are raising a society born of fear and mistrust. This is why we need a stricter crime bill. This is why we must - we have no other choice - take back our country from these criminals.

Yes, Americans should be able to have handguns in their home for protection, as long as it is responsibly locked up and away from children. Yes, Americans should be able to have rifles to hunt for food. However, these are still weapons of destruction and they must be registered with personal background checks. There is absolutely no need or reason for any person, other than law enforcement and the military to have assault weapons that are aimed to violently kill masses of people. We must compromise through common sense. We must understand and follow the true intent of our forefathers when they penned the second amendment to the Constitution.

All it takes is the determination, the moral strength of our elected representatives, to enact tougher laws, so we can finally take back our country and make it a safe haven once again for every American man, woman, and child.

Bruce Schwartz is a lifelong political activist. THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY, his novel on politics today, discusses this subject as well as others that affect every American. It is on sale oon the Web at http://www.thetwentyfirstcentury.com and at http://www.amazon.com. All of the author’s royalties is being donated to the Alzheimer’s Association.

Thousand of illegal aliens and those that abet illegal aliens (family members, employers, etc) marched in southern California to protest. What they were protesting seems odd to most Americans. They were protesting the illegality of being in the United State illegally. The Congress is deliberating HR 4437 which would make being in the United States illegally a felony (which it should be) and add harsh punishments to employers that knowing hire illegal aliens.

They claim they are simply protesting to ensure “immigrant rights”. The problem is however that is not the case. The reality is they want “illegal immigrant rights”. They want people who break our laws to come here to be allowed to stay in this country. So the question is why have immigration laws at all?

And of course the weak minded lemmings also call the legislation “racist”. Odd, I don’t think however that the legislation says that we are now recognizing one race as superior to another – which is the definition of “racism”.

Webster’s Dictionary:

Racism

1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

2 : racial prejudice or discrimination

No, what the bill really only does is says that if you come here illegally you are going to be punished. That’s generally what happens when you break the law isn’t it?

Problems is these illegals and their abettors don’t want to have to deal with that reality so they do what good little liberal Marxists always do. They make crap up. They claim the debate is about immigration when it’s not and they cry racism when most of them probably don’t even know what it means.

If they stuck to the facts they’d have to admit to themselves just how wrong they are.

And make no mistake. These people out there protesting are indeed Marxists. They believe that they have a right to something that isn’t theirs and they think that they should be able to compel you to let them have it. To them the land is communal and how dare the United States tell them they can’t come here to claim their piece of it.

J.J. Jackson is the owner and Lead Editor of American Conservative Politics - The Land of the Free (http://www.thelandofthefree.net) and American Conservative Daily (http://www.americanconservativedaily.com). He is also the owner of American Infidel T-shirts (http://www.cafepress.com/americaneagle04).

The U.S./Israel coalitions have been at odds with the Iranian government over Iran’s nuclear program. Diplomatic efforts have soured over the U.S. Israeli belief that Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons. Iran contends that the nuclear program is to make energy and resents any interference from countries deemed hostile to their cause. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad states that he is willing to talk about the program to anyone except Israel who has keeps “bombs over our head”.

Iran has won support among many Muslim Leaders for his uranium enrichment program. Members whom Mahmoud Ahmadinejad spoke with included prime ministers from Indonesia, Pakistan, Nigeria, Turkey, Malaysia, Egypt and Bangladesh.

Although the meeting held on the island of Bali was to discuss ways to boost economic and political cooperation, alleviate poverty, restructure debt the discussion quickly swayed to Iran’s stand off with Israel and the U.S. “Our people need to do more to help one another,” and that Islamic countries should work together to increase the development of renewable and alternative energy resources stated Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhovono

To add to the complicated conflict an anonymous UN inspector pushed his political agenda by indicating that traces of highly enriched uranium of bomb making quality were found at a research center that works with the military. The statement was quickly rebuffed by an agent from the International Atomic Energy Association who clearly indicated that no such “high grade” uranium was found. He also went on to state that the uranium that was found was well below bomb making quality.

The European Union posted on their websites that their ministers were prepared to support Iran’s nuclear energy program if international concerns could be resolved. Such a decision would further leave the U.S. and Israel at odds with the rest of the world.

Since the years of sanctions on Iraq, and the subsequent invasion that went against the grain of the international community, the U.S. and its close ally Israel have been further alienated from having a dominate opinion in international affairs. Due to the miss information handed to the public through traditional media sources such as CNN (hence the recent growth in alternative news sources) American’s have been in great support of Israel. In blind furry politicians make decisions to support their ally without consideration to the validity, political fall-out or long term ramifications of doing so. Honesty, integrity and forethought should be considered before making international policy.

Murad Ali is a two time published author on Muslim affairs, the editor of the Muslim Times and a consultant on Muslim affairs. For more articles like this one please visit www.muradenterprises.org