Archive for September, 2007


September 27, 2007

« Britain will soon leave the European Union.

The Millstone to EU Unification Is About to Be Cut Loose

September 27, 2007 | From

How fundamental differences between Britain and the Continent have doomed the floundering European unification project. By Brad Macdonald


Soon, Britain will not be a member of the European Union.

Many may consider such a prognosis unfounded—even diabolical—but it is a reality steadily coming into sharper focus.

The Trumpet has monitored Britain’s relationship with the European Union for more than 15 years, and we have regularly explained why we believe Britain will eventually leave or be banished from the EU camp.

Today, even as secession becomes a distinct reality, many people still disregard the notion of a united Europe minus Britain. After all, since 1973 London has been a stalwart member of the European community, and one of its most influential and dominant states.

But that doesn’t negate reality. Though some consider a British withdrawal unlikely, this does not diminish its inevitability.

Many journalists and analysts are debating whether or not London will sever its ties with Brussels. Too few are considering the more critical question: What are the implications of a British secession?

Barring full-on invasion or perhaps a massive global economic crisis, no event could have more colossal implications for Europe than Britain’s withdrawal from the EU. It will be a revolutionary and defining moment in European history.

To grasp the implications, we must understand Britain’s role within the Union since its triumphant entrance on Jan. 1, 1973, a day that has proven crucial in EU history.

On that day, Britain became a millstone around the neck of European unification—a weight not quite heavy enough to sink the concept of integration, but burdensome enough to prevent it from ever becoming a rip-roaring success.

The reason for Britain’s millstone role is essentially an issue of conflicting perspectives and motivations toward Continental integration.

Conceived after World War ii, the modern concept of European integration began for a number of reasons. In public discussion it was considered a tool to promote mutual economic prosperity for European states. There was also much talk among France and the Benelux nations in particular of how a unified Continent would constrain Germany from starting another war, as it had done twice that century already.

What was not publicized widely was the ultimate aim of the union’s founding fathers to take this trading combine into a final phase that would unite Europe economically, monetarily, industrially, politically and, finally, militarily. In point of fact, their goal in uniting Europe was imperialistic from the beginning. That goal was to remain largely hidden for the following 30 years under the mask of common trade interests.

British perceptions of European unification were always quite different. For Britain, which was politically well-established, economically stable and militarily and strategically secure (thanks to its relationship with the United States), integration with Europe remained principally an issue of economics, a way it could strengthen its economy by forging deeper trade and commercial ties with the Continent.

While European nations seeking political security and a stronger global presence perceived integration as a necessity, Britain saw it as a luxury (albeit, for some, a necessary luxury). Brussels’s need for prosperous, advanced London was far more intense than London’s need for gaunt, weak Brussels.

This divergence in perceptions and motivations has plagued Britain’s relationship with the EU for the past 34 years.

Since 1973, the general perception by British leaders that integration with Europe was more option than necessity made them distinctly casual, even skeptical, about unification. The result: Every time British leaders sit at the negotiating table with European leaders to hash out plans for further integration, they inherently possess a stacked hand. Ironically, the fact that Britain doesn’t need European unification nearly as much as European states do gives it the freedom to demand more from the Union.

This divergence in perceptions has manifested itself regularly over the years, and is the fundamental reason for London’s precarious relationship with Brussels, a relationship that vacillates between cordiality and outright contention. Like a carefully weighted millstone, Britain has displayed enough enthusiasm and political adeptness to avoid tanking the unification project altogether, and enough pessimism and caution to consistently prevent full integration.

This equation manifests itself virtually every time Britain signs an agreement with the EU. Consider the Maastricht Treaty of 1992. Though British Prime Minister John Major finally put pen to paper, ratification came only after Britain had infuriated the rest of Europe with its sloth-like lack of enthusiasm, opinionated opposition and staunch demands. The British Parliament only signed the treaty after it had secured opt-outs from the Social Charter and guidelines for a single European currency. Even after these compromises, the decision to sign the treaty barely passed Parliament.

Earlier this summer, as European leaders gathered in Brussels to nail down the EU reform treaty, Britain weighed the process down by demanding exemption from certain laws and laying out a series of redline issues on which it refused to compromise. True to form, Britain again demanded the right to opt out of the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights.

Though the independence afforded Britain serves British leaders comparatively well, it has only frustrated their counterparts on the Continent, particularly the ambitious Eurocrats bent on furthering unification. France and Germany in particular have often aired their annoyance over London’s weak-willed and oftentimes contentious approach toward integration.

A British withdrawal will fundamentally rewrite this entire equation.

How so? We take up the question in a future article.


September 25, 2007

Click on the above graphic or your state name below:
[Alabama], [Alaska], [American Samoa], [Arizona], [Arkansas], [California], [Colorado], [Connecticut], [Delaware], [District of Columbia], [Florida], [Georgia], [Guam], [Hawaii], [Idaho], [Illinois], [Indiana], [Iowa], [Kansas], [Kentucky], [Louisiana], [Maine], [Maryland], [Massachusetts], [Michigan], [Minnesota], [Mississippi], [Missouri], [Montana], [Nebraska], [Nevada], [New Hampshire], [New Jersey], [New Mexico], [New York], [North Carolina], [North Dakota], [Ohio], [Oklahoma], [Oregon], [Pennsylvania], [Puerto Rico], [Rhode Island], [South Carolina], [South Dakota], [Tennessee], [Texas], [Utah], [Vermont], [Virginia], [Virgin Islands], [Washington], [West Virginia], [Wisconsin], [Wyoming]


September 24, 2007

Veterans Disarmament Act To Bar Vets From Owning Guns

Larry Pratt | September 23, 2007

Hundreds of thousands of veterans — from Vietnam through Operation Iraqi Freedom — are at risk of being banned from buying firearms if legislation that is pending in Congress gets enacted.

How? The Veterans Disarmament Act — which has already passed the House — would place any veteran who has ever been diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) on the federal gun ban list.

This is exactly what President Bill Clinton did over seven years ago when his administration illegitimately added some 83,000 veterans into the National Criminal Information System (NICS system) — prohibiting them from purchasing firearms, simply because of afflictions like PTSD.

The proposed ban is actually broader. Anyone who is diagnosed as being a tiny danger to himself or others would have his gun rights taken away … forever. It is section 102((1)©(iv) in HR 2640 that provides for dumping raw medical records into the system. Those names — like the 83,000 records mentioned above — will then, by law, serve as the basis for gun banning.

No wonder the Military Order of the Purple Heart is opposed to this legislation.

The House bill, HR 2640, is being sponsored by one of the most flaming anti-Second Amendment Representatives in Congress: Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY). Another liberal anti-gunner, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), is sponsoring the bill in the Senate.

Proponents of the bill say that helpful amendments have been made so that any veteran who gets his name on the NICS list can seek an expungement.

But whenever you talk about expunging names from the Brady NICS system, you’re talking about a procedure that has always been a long shot. Right now, there are NO EXPUNGEMENTS of law-abiding Americans’ names that are taking place under federal level. Why? Because the expungement process which already exists has been blocked for over a decade by a “funds cut-off” engineered by another anti-gunner, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY).

So how will this bill make things even worse? Well, two legal terms are radically redefined in the Veterans Disarmament Act to carry out this vicious attack on veterans’ gun rights.

One term relates to who is classified a “mental defective.” Forty years ago that term meant one was adjudicated “not guilty” in a court of law by reason of insanity. But under the Veterans Disarmament Act, “mental defective” has been stretched to include anyone whom a psychiatrist determines might be a tiny danger to self or others.

The second term is “adjudicate.” In the past, one could only lose one’s gun rights through an adjudication by a judge, magistrate or court — meaning conviction after a trial. Adjudication could only occur in a court with all the protections of due process, including the right to face one’s accuser. Now, adjudication in HR 2640 would include a finding by “a court, commission, committee or other authorized person” (namely, a psychiatrist).

Forget the fact that people with PTSD have the same violent crime rate as the rest of us. Vietnam vets with PTSD have had careers and obtained permits to carry firearms concealed. It will now be enough for a psychiatric diagnosis (a “determination” in the language of the bill) to get a veteran barred ­for life ­ from owning guns.

Think of what this bill would do to veterans. If a robber grabs your wallet and takes everything in it, but gives you back $5 to take the bus home, would you call that a financial enhancement? If not, then we should not let HR 2640 supporters call the permission to seek an expungement an enhancement, when prior to this bill, veterans could not legitimately be denied their gun rights after being diagnosed with PTSD.

Veterans with PTSD should not be put in a position to seek an expungement. They have not been convicted (after a trial with due process) of doing anything wrong. If a veteran is thought to be a threat to self or others, there should be a real trial, not an opinion (called a diagnosis) by a psychiatrist.

If members of Congress do not hear from soldiers (active duty and retired) in large numbers, along with the rest of the public, the Veterans Disarmament Act — misleadingly titled by Rep. McCarthy as the NICS Improvement Amendments Act — will send this message to veterans: “No good deed goes unpunished.”


September 21, 2007

Kissinger Admits Iran Attack Is About Oil
“So what?, we need the oil,” sneer deluded Neo-Cons as oil prices explode due to orchestrated artificial scarcity

Prison Planet | September 21, 2007
Paul Joseph Watson

In a new op-ed, Bilderberg luminary Henry Kissinger admits that U.S. hostility against Iran is not about the threat of nuclear proliferation, but as part of a larger agenda to seize Iranian oil supplies. But the true meaning behind this is lost on Neo-Cons, who are still deluded into thinking that Americans benefit from the imperial looting of natural resources in the middle east.

In an International Herald Tribune op-ed , Former US Secretary of State Kissinger comes clean on the true motives behind the planned military assault on Iran.

“An Iran that practices subversion and seeks regional hegemony – which appears to be the current trend – must be faced with lines it will not be permitted to cross. The industrial nations cannot accept radical forces dominating a region on which their economies depend,” writes Kissinger.

“Iran has legitimate aspirations that need to be respected,” he writes – but those legitimate aspirations do not include control over the oil that the United States and other industrial countries need,” he concludes.

According to the CIA’s world factbook, Iran has the world’s second largest reserves of conventional crude oil at 133 gigabarrels. Adding non-conventional oil, Iran holds 10% of the global oil supply.

Kissinger’s admission that U.S. control of Iranian oil supplies is the real agenda behind hostility towards Iran would raise eyebrows and bring condemnation from many, but there are a hard core of Neo-Con cheerleaders who would support such an agenda even if it is openly accepted that nuclear proliferation is just a smokescreen for looting more middle east oil.

That is because they are still deluded into thinking that foreign wars of aggression to monopolize natural resources make America, and as a consequence make them, richer and more prosperous – when nothing could be further from the truth.

The fact that the Iraq invasion was about oil is a familiar cliche that was even acknowledged by Alan Greenspan last week.

“So what? We need that oil,” the Neo-Cons sneer.

Americans don’t benefit from the Globalists’ control of Iraqi oil because the agenda is to artificially restrict global oil supplies in order to jack up prices and reduce the living standards of industrial countries.

The oil flowing out of Iraq has never recovered to pre-invasion levels and still stands at a measly 0.5 gigabarrels a year , a huge chunk of which is piped directly to Israel .

This artificial scarcity is the stated goal of Bilderberg luminaries like Kissinger and José Manuel Barroso , who have sworn to inflate prices up to $200 dollars a barrel and spark the onset of a “post-industrial revolution”, which translates as another economic depression and a wholesale “correction” of living standards that will all but obliterate the middle class.

Neo-Cons who trumpet the ethnic cleansing of the middle east using the twisted logic that it benefits Americans as their dollar sinks to peso level and gas prices explode while the cost of living becomes unaffordable are living in a complete fantasy world, but when the wake up call arrives the consequences of their ignorance are going to reap a hellish revenge.

September 20, 2007


(Originally published by JTF.ORG on August 16, 2006) An Israeli soldier after the murder of twelve comrades by a single Hezballah rocket strike

Ehud Olmert and Israel’s other treasonous leaders publicly promised that they would destroy Hezballah – Instead, they have handed Hezballah and Israel’s many other Muslim terrorist enemies a tremendous physical and psychological victory

From the start, JTF warned that Israel could not possibly win the war against Islamic terrorists because Israel’s treasonous leaders do not want to win.

All of the “right-wing” politicians, community leaders, and rabbis both in Israel and in the American Jewish community insisted that we must support the Israeli government during the war, and that the government was finally doing what was needed.

Israel’s failed campaign against the Hezballah and Hamas Muslim terrorists opens the door to still more death and destruction in the days to come – Hezballah launched thousands of deadly rockets and missiles into Israel, a brazen act of Islamic terrorism which the Israelis answered with ineffectual artillery barrages and air bombardments and ground attacks by soldiers whose hands were tied behind their backs by their treasonous leaders

Now all of these same “right-wing” politicians, community leaders, and rabbis are complaining that the government has accepted a disastrous UN “ceasefire” that constitutes a clear victory for Hezballah, Iran, and Syria.

Only JTF said from the start that this is precisely how the war would end.

When the war started, Israeli Bolshevik dictator Ehud Smolmert and his “Defense” Minister Amir Peretz Stalin publicly promised to destroy the Hezballah terrorist organization and to remove the Islamic terrorist threat from Lebanon.

All of the generals, journalists, commentators, and assorted “experts” in Israel and throughout the world said correctly that if the Hezballah terrorist organization in Lebanon was able to survive at all at the end of the war, it would be a huge victory for Islamic terrorism and a huge defeat for Israel.

Israel’s Arab Muslim terrorist “peace partners” – members of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, part of Mahmoud Abbas’ Fatah party – gather to celebrate the exploits of Hezballah

The conclusion to this war could not have been more catastrophic for tiny Israel:

* a third of Israel’s population was forced to live in bomb shelters for an entire month;

* a third of Israel’s population was unable to go to work for an entire month;

* Israel’s whole economy was paralyzed for an entire month;

* over 150 Israelis were murdered, and hundreds more were seriously injured;

* Israel’s tourist industry was devastated, and the effect on future tourism is likely to be very negative;

Twelve Israeli army reservists were murdered by a single Hezballah Muslim terrorist rocket

* the total military and economic costs of the war will likely run into tens of billions of dollars – an astonishing burden for a tiny nation of only 5 million Israeli Jews.

Israel’s enemies – she has many – are laughing at her failure to destroy a ragtag army of ruthless Muslim terrorists bent on her destruction

After all of this incredible devastation, what has Israel accomplished in the war? The Islamic terrorist threat is now greater than it was when the war began.

Before the war, there were 2,000 Jew-hating, Muslim-loving UN soldiers on the Israel-Lebanon border.

The UN Nazi soldiers did nothing to stop the Hezballah Muslim terrorists from taking over all of southern Lebanon. On the contrary, the UN Nazi soldiers actively assisted the Hezballah Muslim mass murderers.

A distraught Israeli woman reacts to a nearby Hezballah Muslim terrorist rocket strike; a member of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, controlled by the PLO’s Fatah party and its “moderate” Muslim terrorist leader Mahmoud Abbas, celebrates the murder of Jews by Hezballah

Hezballah used UN ambulances and trucks to carry out murders and kidnappings against innocent Israeli Jews. Hezballah also fired hundreds of lethal missiles into northern Israeli communities from Islamic terrorist bases in Lebanon that the UN allowed Hezballah to set up right next to UN military bases.

At Kiryat Shmon, a Hezballah Muslim terrorist rocket blasted a hole in a Jewish home – Note the shattered television set

The moment Israel even mildly sought to respond to Hezballah Islamic terrorism, the UN Nazi soldiers immediately shielded the Muslim terrorists from Israeli retaliatory strikes. Whenever the Hezballah terrorists attack Israeli communities from UN military bases, the UN soldiers condemn Israel for defending herself and blame Israel for the bloodshed.

A Jewish boy stands on a balcony at Kiryat Ata, where a Hezballah Muslim terrorist rocket sprayed a street with its payload of ball bearings and other deadly shrapnel

In fact, the UN soldiers themselves are as much responsible for the bloodshed as the Hezballah Muslim terrorists. As even President Bush said in his famous speech after September 11th, if you harbor the terrorists, you are a terrorist, and if you support the terrorists, you are a terrorist.

By that very truthful and logical standard, the UN soldiers are terrorists.

The new UN ceasefire resolution calls upon Israel to again retreat completely from “Lebanon” (which is really part of the G-d-given Land of Israel).

George Bush’s famous dictum – that those who support terrorists, or harbor terrorists, are themselves terrorists – can be applied with perfect exactitude to the UN’s “peacekeeping” force, which has worked for years with the Hezballah Muslim terrorists
Hassan Nasrallah key chains have joined Osama Bin Laden cologne as must-haves for the well-dressed Muslim

Under the new UN resolution, the number of Jew-hating, Muslim-loving UN soldiers in southern Lebanon will increase from 2,000 to 15,000. This is yet another huge victory for the Islamic terrorists, who always flourish wherever the UN Nazi “peacekeeping” forces are stationed.

Remember that the JTF web site was the only place where you could find out from the start what would happen in the war.

Isn’t it a disgrace that JTF does not have millions of dollars to reach all of the Jews in Israel with this vital message? Especially now when most Israeli Jews are very disappointed with how the war was conducted, and are very fearful about the future. The time is ripe for JTF’s message.

Now more than ever, we must reach as many Israeli Jews as possible with our vital message of truth.

If you support terrorists, you are a terrorist – United Nations head Kofi Annan has overseen the activities of UNIFIL in Lebanon, where UN troops helped Hezballah Muslim terrorists to rain death and destruction on Israel

The more money we raise, the more Jews we reach.

JTF supports the political activities of the Hilltop Youth, and therefore is not tax-deductible.

Obsessed with destroying tiny Israel, the UN Security Council meets to approve a “ceasefire” in Lebanon

The Voice of Jewish Activism (VJA) is strictly non-political. It supports the educational efforts and the humanitarian needs of the Hilltop
Youth and right-wing Jewish dissidents and therefore is tax-deductible.

Your generous checks and money orders made out to “VJA” can be sent to:

A Turkish Muslim woman with a Hezballah Muslim terrorist poster

POB 650327
Fresh Meadows, NY 11365

Visit the JTF Forum created and maintained by friends of our organization

We need loyal, idealistic, Torah-true Jews to lead the struggle against the traitor Sharon’s suicidal plan to create an independent PLO terrorist state in the heartland of Biblical Israel.


September 19, 2007

Iran Draws Up Plans to Bomb Israel


Email this Story

Sep 19, 9:21 AM (ET)


(AP) Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, center, smiles as he leaves the parliament after delivering…
Full Image



TEHRAN,Iran (AP) – The deputy commander of Iran’s air force said Wednesday that plans have been drawn up to bomb Israel if the Jewish state attacks Iran, according to the semi-official Fars news agency.

The announcement comes amid rising tensions in the region with the United States calling for a new round of U.N. sanctions against Iran over its disputed nuclear program and Israeli planes having recently overflown, and perhaps even attacked, Iranian ally Syria’s territory.

“We have drawn up a plan to strike back at Israel with our bombers if this regime (Israel) makes a silly mistake,” deputy air force chief, Gen. Mohammad Alavi was quoted as telling Fars in an interview.

The Fars news agency confirmed the quotes when contacted by the Associated Press, but would not provide a tape of the interview. The Iranian Air Force, for its part, had no immediate comment on the interview.

Defense Minister Mostafa Mohammed Najjar, however, did tell the official IRNA news agency Wednesday that “we keep various options open to respond to threats … we will make use of them if required.”

Iran has threatened in the past that Israel would be Iran’s first retaliatory target if attacked by the United States. But Alavi’s comments were the first word of specific contingency plans for striking back on Israel.

Many in the region fear Israel could launch airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities to prevent it from building a nuclear weapon.

Alavi also warned that Israel was within Iran’s medium-range missiles and its fighter bombers, while maintaining that Israel was not strong enough to launch an aerial attack against Iran.

“The whole territory of this regime is within the range of our missiles. Moreover, we can attack their territory with our fighter bombers as a response to any attack,” the general said.

An upgraded version of Iran’s Shahab-3 missile has a range of 1,200 miles capable of reaching Israel and carrying a nuclear warhead.

Alavi said Iran’s radar bases were monitoring activities at the country’s borders around the clock and boasted that it had the capability to confront U.S. cruise missiles.

“One of the issues enemies make publicity about is their cruise missiles. Now, we possess the necessary systems to confront them (cruise missiles),” Alavi was quoted as saying.


September 18, 2007






« People line up to remove their savings from a Northern Rock bank in Kingston-Upon-Thames, September 17. (Getty Images)


Spooked Brits Rush to Withdraw Savings


September 18, 2007 | From


One of Britain’s big banks wobbles at the brink of insolvency. Incompetence? Fraud? Greed? Maybe not at Northern Rock, but definitely in America where the current credit crisis originated. By Richard Palmer


Like a scene from an economist’s horror movie, hundreds of people lined up last Friday to collect their savings from branches of the British bank Northern Rock. You may be forgiven for thinking these were scenes from a developing nation, or maybe the Great Depression, but they were not. Instead, this took place in one of the world’s financial capitals: London.

Unable to raise all the funds it needed, Northern Rock, Britain’s fifth-largest home loan provider, had to embarrassingly turn to the Bank of England for an emergency loan, causing mass panic among its customers. Worried that they were about to lose all their savings, many lined up for hours to get their money back. According to the Financial Times, consumers withdrew about ₤2 billion (roughly us$4 billion).

What is possibly the most disturbing aspect of this story, however, is that before the current credit crisis, Northern Rock was considered a solid bank. The bank actually has almost no direct exposure to America’s imploding subprime loan market. Yet, it only took about a month of adverse economic conditions to bring the bank to its knees.

Investments that were directly or indirectly related to subprime loans totaled less than 0.25 percent of Northern Rocks’ assets, but its situation is an indirect consequence of the subprime loan crisis. Northern Rock found that it simply could not raise enough cash on the capital markets because of global credit conditions. Its business model differs from that of many other banks in that it relies on the wholesale money markets to finance its loans. Following the subprime loans crisis, the global credit market grew tighter and tighter, as banks became more and more reluctant to issue credit. Because of this, Northern Rock found itself unable to borrow the money it needed.

Its subsequent request for emergency assistance from the Bank of England marked the first bail-out of a British bank in 15 years.

The fact that a bank with very little exposure to subprime loans ended up in such dire straits is very worrying to economists. According to Jonathan Loynes, an economist at the consultancy firm Capital Economics, “The problems are potentially much wider now. This means we have to worry about a wider range of institutions that aren’t directly involved in this credit crisis, but are in a way innocent bystanders.”

Jean-Claude Juncker, who chaired a meeting of European finance ministers and central bankers Friday, expressed similar sentiments. “I don’t think the worst is behind us,” he said during a news conference.

Concerns about consumer spending are also causing several economists to significantly downgrade their predictions for the UK economy. In recent years, Britain’s economy has been fueled by rising house prices. The kind of money shortage that forced Northern Rock into its predicament is also making it harder for banks to finance mortgages. Already rates are creeping up for new customers, and existing customers could soon be hit.

Many people in the UK are living off debt, financing their lavish spending by re-mortgaging their homes. If the housing market is badly hit and houses in the UK fall sharply in value, the repercussions could be appalling.

This situation could also cause problems on a more fundamental level. The modern capitalist system is primarily based on trust. What events at Northern Rock did was erode that trust, if only slightly. If this trust does disappear, the entire system collapses.

Will America’s subprime loan crisis trigger larger global economic consequences? Possibly. Investors and banks around the world are dealing with the negative ramifications of America’s investment and banking system. America has exported the ill effects of a popping housing bubble around the world. Now, trust in the world’s very economic system is being questioned.

A global economic collapse is coming. The sure word of biblical prophecy reveals this eventuality. Is this the start of it? We’ll have to watch and see.

For more information about the coming economic crisis, see “The Coming Storm.” To learn how to protect yourself and your family, see “Storm-Proof Your Financial House.”


September 17, 2007

Looking for Scapegoat, World Again Turns to Jews
Antisemitism never dies.

By Victor Davis Hanson


Who recently said: “These Jews started 19 Crusades. The 19th was World War (1). Why? Only to build Israel.”

Some holdover Nazi?




Hardly. It was former Prime Minister Necmettin Erbakan of Turkey, a NATO ally. He went on to claim that the Jews — whom he refers to as “bacteria” — controlled China, India, and Japan, and ran the United States.

Who alleged: “The Arabs who were involved in 9/11 cooperated with the Zionists, actually. It was a cooperation. They gave them the perfect excuse to denounce all Arabs.”

A conspiracy nut?

Actually, it was former Democratic U.S. Sen. James Abourezk of South Dakota. He denounced Israel on a Hezbollah-owned television station, adding: “I marveled at the Hezbollah resistance to Israel. . . . It was a marvel of organization, of courage and bravery.”

And finally, who claimed at a United Nations-sponsored conference that democratic Israel was “much worse” than the former apartheid South Africa, and that it “undermines the international community’s reaction to global warming”?

A radical environmentalist wacko?

Again, no. It was Clare Short, a member of the British parliament. She was a secretary for international development under Prime Minister Tony Blair.

A new virulent strain of the old anti-Semitism is spreading worldwide. This hate — of a magnitude not seen in over 70 years — is not just espoused by Iran’s loony president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, or radical jihadists.

The latest anti-Semitism is also now mouthed by world leaders and sophisticated politicians and academics. Their loathing often masquerades as “anti-Zionism” or “legitimate” criticism of Israel. But the venom exclusively reserved for the Jewish state betrays their existential hatred.

Israel is always lambasted for entering homes in the West Bank to look for Hamas terrorists and using too much force. But last week the world snoozed when the Lebanese army bombarded and then crushed the Nahr al-Bared refugee camp, which harbored Islamic terrorists.

The world has long objected to Jewish settlers buying up land in the West Bank. Yet Hezbollah, flush with Iranian money, is now purchasing large tracts in southern Lebanon for military purposes and purging them of non-Shiites.

Here at home, “neoconservative” has become synonymous with a supposed Jewish cabal of Washington insiders who hijacked U.S. policy to take us to war for Israel’s interest. That our state department is at the mercy of a Jewish lobby is the theme of a recent high-profile book by professors at Harvard University and the University of Chicago.

Yet when the United States bombed European and Christian Serbia to help Balkan Muslims, few critics alleged that American Muslims had unduly swayed President Clinton. And such charges of improper ethnic influence are rarely leveled to explain the billions in American aid given to non-democratic Egypt, Jordan, or the Palestinians — or the Saudi oil money that pours into American universities.

The world likewise displays such a double standard. It seems to care little about the principle of so-called occupied land — whether in Cyprus or Tibet — unless Israel is the accused. Mass murdering in Cambodia, the Congo, Rwanda, and Darfur has earned far fewer United Nations’ resolutions of condemnation than supposed atrocities committed by Israel. A number of British academics are sponsoring a boycott of Israeli scholars but leave alone those from autocratic Iran, China, and Cuba.

There are various explanations for the new anti-Semitism. For many abroad, attacking Jews and Israel is an indirect way of damning its main ally, the United States — by implying that Americans are not entirely evil, just hoodwinked by those sneaky and far more evil Jews.

At home, there are obvious pragmatic considerations. Some Americans may find it makes more sense to damn a few million Israelis without oil than it does to offend Israel’s adversaries in the Middle East, who number in the hundreds of millions and control nearly half the world’s petroleum reserves.

Cowardice explains a lot. Libeling Israel won’t earn someone a fatwa or a death sentence in the manner comparable criticism of Islam might. There are no Jewish suicide bombers in London, Madrid, or Bali.

This new face of anti-Semitism is so insidious because it is so well disguised, advanced by self-proclaimed diplomats and academics — and now embraced by the supposedly sophisticated left on university campuses.

When national, collective or personal aspirations are not met, it is far easier to blame someone or something rather than to look within for the source of the failure and frustration. More recently, someone must be blamed for getting terrorists (with oil and its profits behind them) mad at us.

That someone is — no surprise — once again Jews.



September 14, 2007

Hoffa: Bush creating North American

Teamsters boss: Mexican trucks part of ‘master

plan’ for ‘super-government’

Posted: September 14, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2007

Teamsters Union President James E. Hoffa

Saying he is convinced “the Bush administration has a master plan to erase all borders and to have a super-government in North America,” James P. Hoffa, general president of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, celebrated the Senate’s 75-23 vote Tuesday night to block the Department of Transportation’s Mexican truck demonstration project.

In an exclusive interview with WND, Hoffa argued that the Bush administration push to allow Mexican trucks into the U.S. is symptomatic of a larger administration plan advanced by multi-national corporations to create a European Union-style regional ‘super-government’ in North America.

“Congress has now spoken out and said Mexican trucks cannot come into the United States until they meet our standards,” Hoffa told WND.

He noted the Senate seconded the House’s overwhelming 411-3 vote to pass the Safe Roads Act of 2007, a bill also targeted to block the Mexican truck project.

“We’re very excited about the Senate vote,” Hoffa told WND. “We worked very hard on it. We thought we already had this Mexican truck demonstration project stopped three times before this year, and every time the administration comes right back trying to press this idea of opening the borders to unsafe Mexican trucks.”

WND asked Hoffa if he thought Bush would carry out his threat to veto the Department of Transportation funding bill in order to kill the amendment de-funding the truck project.

“I just cannot imagine President Bush vetoing a whole major transportation bill,” Hoffa answered. “This is only one amendment to this tremendous bill which includes needed funds to repair highway infrastructure and prevent more bridges like the one in Minneapolis on Interstate 35W from collapsing.

“Everybody who’s looked at this knows that the Mexican trucks do not meet our standards,” Hoffa argued. “Mexico doesn’t have drug testing, they don’t have mandatory physicals, they don’t have the written test, they don’t have the proficiency in English, they don’t have a reliable national database. “For us to lower our standards for Mexico is ridiculous,” he continued. “The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration did not demonstrate to the American people or to Congress that we could ensure that allowing Mexican trucks into the U.S. would be safe. It was going to endanger people, it was going to endanger national security, and it was going to endanger good jobs.”

Why did Hoffa think the Bush administration was so insistent on pressing forward with the Mexican truck demonstration project?

“President Bush has been determined to jam through this Mexican truck demonstration project because of big business pressure and pressure from President Calderon in Mexico,” he answered directly. “Big business wants cheap trucking so they can make more money.

“Unfortunately, you get what you pay for,” Hoffa continued. “Just look at all the problems we have had with China – toothpaste with anti-freeze in it, bad dog food, lead paint on the toys for our children.

“You have to have standards here,’ Hoffa insisted. “We have standards in America. The American trucker has to be careful. He can’t get a ticket for drunk driving, even in his own private car. He has to be drug tested.

“Now they’re saying we should waive all these standards and not apply them to the Mexican trucker and the Mexican trucking company?’ Hoffa asked. “It doesn’t make sense.

“But if you want the real answer,” Hoffa explained, “it’s about money, and it’s about the pressure of these big companies wanting to get this Mexican truck deal done now, because they realize that Bush is a lame duck and they figure that if they don’t get this done now, they’re not going to get this done with a Democratic president in the White House.”

As WND reported, at the recent Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America third summit held in Montebello, Quebec, Bush and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper ridiculed the idea that SPP might result in the creation of a North American Union or NAFTA Superhighways.

Hoffa disagreed.

“I think the Bush administration has a master plan to erase all borders and to have a super-government in North America,” he argued. “There’s talk about mega-ports down in Mexico and superhighway toll roads built with foreign money right into the heart of America.

“I think those things are real and the Mexican truck demonstration project is just one piece in that larger puzzle,’ Hoffa continued. “The Bush administration figures that once the Mexican trucks get started, the rest will be easy.

‘I think that the whole plan of this Mexican truck demonstration project is part of a larger overall plan,’ Hoffa contended. “The goal to basically erase that border so Mexican trucks can run across that border, unload trucks with no security, no supervision, and have them run all the way through from some port on the Pacific Ocean down in Mexico to Kansas City, Detroit and then to Montreal.

“I am convinced that the plan to create a North American Union is what is going on,’ Hoffa asserted. “I am convinced big business wants that. Big business hates any types of standards. They don’t want to have a minimum wage, they don’t want to have safety protections, they don’t want to have product inspections, they don’t want environmental protection.

“Big business doesn’t want to have anything slowing down commerce coming across the borders,” he said. “And to do that, they have to erase all standards and they have to have one type of a North American government that would be over Canada, Mexico and the United States.

“I believe there is such a plan,” he insisted. “I believe the Mexican truck demonstration project is part of it. I have seen enough to know that this is going on right now.”

As WND has reported, Alan S. Blinder, a Princeton University economist who was former Federal Reserve Board vice chairman, told the Wall Street Journal in an interview reported March 28 the U.S. was at risk of 40 million jobs being shipped out of the country to outsourcing in the next decade or two.

The Journal reported 40 million jobs lost would be more than double the total of U.S. workers employed in manufacturing today.

Blinder was a top adviser to President Clinton whose “free trade” views led him to strongly recommend the passage of NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Hoffa was asked about Blinder’s prediction.

“Look at the way India is opening up,” he answered. “I recently made a trip to China. Unless we stop this with legislation and tariffs and duties on foreign goods, you are not going to have any jobs in this country except flipping hamburgers at McDonalds.

“We’ve got to stop this now,” he continued. “Nothing is inevitable. The problem is that there is an agenda of these globalists and these free traders to ship every good job out of America. Any good job that pays good money, they can find somebody else to do it in India or China or in Hong Kong or wherever. We’ve got to say enough is enough.

“What about our children?” he asked. “Where are our children going to work? What is the future of this country if there are no good jobs here?”

Hoffa then turned to national security concerns he has about outsourcing.

“We are now at the point where we are farming out technology, we’re farming out the manufacturing of airplanes,” Hoffa argued. “We’re outsourcing some of our biggest secrets, like the technology of the modern airplane, the 787 being built by Boeing. We’re giving that technology over to Japan where they are going to make the wing.

“This is a very big erosion of our national security,” he continued. “We’re making the best ideas here in America, we come up with the ideas for the technology, but the manufacturing happens in a plant in some other country, and we just allow them to take our ideas.”

Hoffa returned to the Senate amendment to block the truck project.

“Today is a victory to keep unsafe trucks from coming in from Mexico,” he asserted, “but there is a bigger agenda here. America could lose 40 million jobs and our children are not going to have any place to work. American technology and manufacturing and American know-how are being outsourced all over the world because foreigners will do it cheaper.

“Bush won’t speak openly about the Security and Prosperity Partnership because he doesn’t want anybody to know anything about it,” Hoffa emphasized. “If the American people knew openly about the plan to build superhighway toll roads with foreign money or the plan to create a North American common market and regional government, we would rally to stop it. The Bush administration hasn’t even openly consulted Congress about SPP.”

Hoffa ended the interview by stressing the Teamsters Union resolve to continue fighting against “free trade” agreements that are not “fair trade agreements.”

“We’ve fought NAFTA,” he reflected. “These trade bills are all the same. They end up with these massive trade deficits and why is that? Because it gives countries like Mexico and China access to our markets, but we don’t get access to their markets on the same terms. The trade bills should not be one-way deals that only advantage the multi-national corporations. Fair trade deals should also open up foreign markets so we can (sell) American products on an equal basis.’


September 13, 2007

U.S.-IRAQ: Fallon Derided Petraeus, Opposed the Surge
By Gareth Porter*

WASHINGTON, Sep 12 (IPS) – In sharp contrast to the lionisation of Gen. David Petraeus by members of the U.S. Congress during his testimony this week, Petraeus’s superior, Admiral William Fallon, chief of the Central Command (CENTCOM), derided Petraeus as a sycophant during their first meeting in Baghdad last March, according to Pentagon sources familiar with reports of the meeting.

Fallon told Petraeus that he considered him to be “an ass-kissing little chickenshit” and added, “I hate people like that”, the sources say. That remark reportedly came after Petraeus began the meeting by making remarks that Fallon interpreted as trying to ingratiate himself with a superior.

That extraordinarily contentious start of Fallon’s mission to Baghdad led to more meetings marked by acute tension between the two commanders. Fallon went on develop his own alternative to Petraeus’s recommendation for continued high levels of U.S. troops in Iraq during the summer.

The enmity between the two commanders became public knowledge when the Washington Post reported Sep. 9 on intense conflict within the administration over Iraq. The story quoted a senior official as saying that referring to “bad relations” between them is “the understatement of the century”.

Fallon’s derision toward Petraeus reflected both the CENTCOM commander’s personal distaste for Petraeus’s style of operating and their fundamental policy differences over Iraq, according to the sources.

The policy context of Fallon’s extraordinarily abrasive treatment of his subordinate was Petraeus’s agreement in February to serve as front man for the George W. Bush administration’s effort to sell its policy of increasing U.S. troop strength in Iraq to Congress.

In a highly unusual political role for an officer who had not yet taken command of a war, Petraeus was installed in the office of Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Republican from Kentucky, in early February just before the Senate debated Bush’s troop increase. According to a report in The Washington Post Feb. 7, senators were then approached on the floor and invited to go McConnell’s office to hear Petraeus make the case for the surge policy.

Fallon was strongly opposed to Petraeus’s role as pitch man for the surge policy in Iraq adopted by Bush in December as putting his own interests ahead of a sound military posture in the Middle East and Southwest Asia — the area for which Fallon’s CENTCOM is responsible.

The CENTCOM commander believed the United States should be withdrawing troops from Iraq urgently, largely because he saw greater dangers elsewhere in the region. “He is very focused on Pakistan,” said a source familiar with Fallon’s thinking, “and trying to maintain a difficult status quo with Iran.”

By the time Fallon took command of CENTCOM in March, Pakistan had become the main safe haven for Osama bin Laden’s al Qaeda to plan and carry out its worldwide operations, as well as being an extremely unstable state with both nuclear weapons and the world’s largest population of Islamic extremists.

Plans for continued high troop levels in Iraq would leave no troops available for other contingencies in the region.

Fallon was reported by the New York Times to have been determined to achieve results “as soon as possible”. The notion of a long war, in contrast, seemed to connote an extended conflict in which Iraq was but a chapter.

Fallon also expressed great scepticism about the basic assumption underlying the surge strategy, which was that it could pave the way for political reconciliation in Iraq. In the lead story Sep. 9, The Washington Post quoted a “senior administration official” as saying that Fallon had been “saying from Day One, ‘This isn’t working.’ ”

One of Fallon’s first moves upon taking command of CENTCOM was to order his subordinates to avoid the term “long war” — a phrase Bush and Secretary of Defence Robert M. Gates had used to describe the fight against terrorism.

Fallon was signaling his unhappiness with the policy of U.S. occupation of Iraq for an indeterminate period. Military sources explained that Fallon was concerned that the concept of a long war would alienate Middle East publics by suggesting that U.S. troops would remain in the region indefinitely.

During the summer, according to the Post Sep. 9 report, Fallon began to develop his own plans for redefine the U.S. mission in Iraq, including a plan for withdrawal of three-quarters of the U.S. troop strength by the end of 2009.

The conflict between Fallon and Petraeus over Iraq came to a head in early September. According to the Post story, Fallon expressed views on Iraq that were sharply at odds with those of Petraeus in a three-way conversation with Bush on Iraq the previous weekend. Petraeus argued for keeping as many troops in Iraq for as long as possible to cement any security progress, but Fallon argued that a strategic withdrawal from Iraq was necessary to have sufficient forces to deal with other potential threats in the region.

Fallon’s presentation to Bush of the case against Petraeus’s recommendation for keeping troop levels in Iraq at the highest possible level just before Petraeus was to go public with his recommendations was another sign that Petraeus’s role as chief spokesperson for the surge policy has created a deep rift between him and the nation’s highest military leaders. Bush presumably would not have chosen to invite an opponent of the surge policy to make such a presentation without lobbying by the top brass.

Fallon had a “visceral distaste” for what he regarded as Petraeus’s sycophantic behaviour in general, which had deeper institutional roots, according to a military source familiar with his thinking.

Fallon is a veteran of 35 years in the Navy, operating in an institutional culture in which an officer is expected to make enemies in the process of advancement. “If you are Navy captain and don’t have two or three enemies, you’re not doing your job,” says the source.

Fallon acquired a reputation for a willingness to stand up to powerful figures during his tenure as commander in chief of the Pacific Command from February 2005 to March 2007. He pushed hard for a conciliatory line toward and China, which put him in conflict with senior military and civilian officials with a vested interest in pointing to China as a future rival and threat.

He demonstrated his independence from the White House when he refused in February to go along with a proposal to send a third naval carrier task force to the Persian Gulf, as reported by IPS in May. Fallon questioned the military necessity for the move, which would have signaled to Iran a readiness to go to war. Fallon also privately vowed that there would be no war against Iran on his watch, implying that he would quit rather than accept such a policy.

A crucial element of Petraeus’s path of advancement in the Army, on the other hand, was through serving as an aide to senior generals. He was assistant executive officer to the Army Chief of Staff, Gen. Carl Vuono, and later executive assistant to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Gen. Henry Shelton. His experience taught him that cultivating senior officers is the key to success.

The contrasting styles of the two men converged with their conflict over Iraq to produce one of the most intense clashes between U.S. military leaders in recent history.

*Gareth Porter is an historian and national security policy analyst. His latest book, “Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam”, was published in June 2005.