ISRAEL AND THE COLLAPSE OF NATIONAL IDENTITY

by Avi Davis


Around the world this week Jewish communities are celebrating the 60th anniversary of what is surely one of the greatest achievements of modern history – the rebirth of a Jewish state. I add my voice. The existence of the modern State of Israel is a true phenomenon – a world leader in high technology, a democracy afloat in a sea of dictatorships and a country governed by the rule of law. After enduring seven wars by neighboring countries, Israel’s sophisticated military, its abiding respect for the sanctity of human life and its ingathering of the exiles– are all worthy of celebration.

and yet……..all is not well in the Jewish land. While millions of Jews and Israel supporters may be applauding the economic successes of the Jewish state, I am in despair, deeply worried about its future and wondering why things have gone so terribly wrong. The questions that filter through my thoughts are at times overwhelming:

# How could it be that during the recent slaughter of Yeshiva students in Jerusalem, secular Jews interviewed in Tel Aviv stated that they felt no sympathy for the young boys murdered because their religious lifestyle or ideology differed so markedly from their own?

# How could the government have destroyed the once vigorous and flourishing Jewish communities of Gaza, resulting in many cases of unemployment, family breakdown, drug addiction and loss of hope for the former residents- while receiving nothing in return save an escalation in the Palestinians’ war against Israel and the daily bombardment of Israeli villages and cities?

# How could the government ignore the tactical defensive weapons that are available in the United States (such as Northrop Grumman’s Skyguard laser system) for a relatively inexpensive price that could have effectively shield the south and the north from continuing rocket and even mortar attacks?

# How could the government turn so violently against West Bank settlers, characterizing them as the virtual equivalent of the same Palestinian terrorists and suicide bombers who indiscriminately take Jewish life? Whatever their political positions, are the settlers not also Jews and Israeli citizens?

# Why has the government so cravenly accepted the existence of a demographic threat from Palestinian population growth when independent studies have proven conclusively that the Jewish population growth rate actually doubles that of the Arab population?

# How could government leaders talk again about dividing Jerusalem and earnestly promote the creation of a Palestinian state, when all indicators point to that state becoming merely an additional launching pad for daily bombardments of Israeli population centers?

# How could it be that with a booming economy and a growth rate the envy of the Western world, 33% of Israel’s population still lives below the poverty line?

That Israel faces a crisis of leadership and vision should come as no news to anyone. And of course it is easy to lay the blame for this mess squarely at the feet of Ehud Olmert and his band of do-nothing acolytes. But their corruption, bureaucratic bungling, political incompetence and absence of vision reflects far deeper societal problems. The Jewish state is afflicted by a malignancy which has now swept all western democracies – an insistence on advancing individual liberties and personal freedoms at the expense of communal responsibility or social cohesion. The Israeli citizen, much like his counterpart in the United States and Europe, no longer places much emphasis on his duties, role or responsibilities as a citizen, but instead demands that the State protect and advance his individual rights and needs. The social compact that once bound the State together – the universal agreement on the need and desire for a Jewish homeland; the sense of mutual destiny and linkage to a 3,000- year- old tradition and the stubborn insistence on defending the land at any cost, has been dramatically eroded.

While it then might then be argued that the modern democratic State of Israel is in no imminent danger of physical collapse, the whole notion of a Jewish state certainly is. No amount of economic success or military sophistication can protect a citizenry uncommitted to the cause for which they are ostensibly fighting.

As Nobel Prize laureate Yisrael Aumann strikingly notes: "The problem is not with our neighbors, the problem is with us - with our impatience and the selfishness that developed within us. Our national agenda has been disrupted and the collective interest has been pushed to the margins in the face of personal interests.”

Students of Jewish history will recall that the ancient Kingdoms of Samaria and Judea collapsed internally before being swept away by outside forces.

Is it all about to happen again?


Avi Davis is the Senior Fellow and Executive Director of the American Freedom Alliance and the originator of the Collapse of Europe? and Identity Crisis conferences held in California and Italy.


Technorati Tags: Judaism,Israel,Ehud Olmert,60th Anniversary

Your Child Is Not State Property

By Thomas A. Bowden

Rocked by a nationwide storm of criticism, the Los Angeles County court that declared homeschooling illegal in California has agreed to rehear the case in June. At issue is Justice H. Walter Croskey's Feb. 28 decree, which ordered the parents of "Rachel L." to send her away to a public or private school, where she can get a "legal education."

Justice Croskey's edict interpreted state education laws that govern all children, whatever their home situation and "whatever the quality" of their home education. Except for the rare case when parents already hold state teaching credentials, parents who find public schools intolerable and cannot locate or afford a suitable private school were branded by the decree as outlaws if they choose to instruct their child at home.

California legislators were entitled to enact this blanket prohibition, according to the judge, because they feared the supposed social disorder that would result from "allowing every person to make his own standards on matters of conduct in which society as a whole has important interests."

"Allowing"? By what right does government presume to "allow" (or, in this case, forbid) you to make your own standards concerning your child's education?

Government has no such right. Neither the state nor "society as a whole" has any interests of its own in your child's education. A society is only a group of individuals, and the government's only legitimate function is to protect the individual rights of its citizens, including yours and your children's, against physical force and fraud. The state is your agent, not a separate entity with interests that can override your rights.

If Justice Croskey's description of California law is correct, then the state's educational policy is at odds with America's founding principles. Parents are sovereign individuals whose right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness includes the right to control their child's upbringing. Other citizens, however numerous or politically powerful, have no moral right to substitute their views on child-raising for those of the father and mother who created that child.

Instead, a proper legal system recognizes and protects parents' moral right to pursue the personal rewards and joys of child-raising. At every stage, you have a right to set your own standards and act on them without government permission. This parental right to control your child's upbringing includes the right to manage his education, by choosing an appropriate school or personally educating him at home.

Of course, there are certain situations in which government must step in to protect the rights of a child, as in cases of physical abuse or neglect. But no such concern for individual rights can account for California's arrogant assertion of state control over the minds of all school-age children residing within its borders.

Education, like nutrition, should be recognized as the exclusive domain of a child's parents, within legal limits objectively defining child abuse and neglect. Parents who starve their children may properly be ordered to fulfill their parental obligations, on pain of losing legal custody. But the fact that some parents may serve better food than others does not permit government to seize control of nutrition, outlaw home-cooked meals, and order all children to report for daily force-feeding at government-licensed cafeterias.

The shockwaves from Justice Croskey's decision will likely impact not just homeschoolers but also the apologists for government education--teachers' unions, educational bureaucrats, and politicians. Their political and financial survival depends on a policy that treats children as, in effect, state property--but only rarely is the undiluted collectivism of that policy trumpeted so publicly.

What if, in the harsh glare of the "Rachel L." case, parents start asking whether the state has any right at all to be running schools and dictating educational standards for children, in order to advance society's "interests"? This calls into question the moral foundation of public education as such. In this light, one wonders if the court's decision to rehear the case could be a first step toward muting, and muddying, the controversy.

For their part, the defenders of public schooling can be expected to stay busy papering over their system's own failures--the very failures that helped fuel the homeschooling movement, by driving desperate parents to seek refuge at home from the irrationality, violence, and mediocrity that have come to characterize government education, in California and elsewhere.

For now, at least, the battle lines are clearly drawn. Are parents mere drudges whose social duty is to feed and house their spawn between mandatory indoctrination sessions at government-approved schools? Or are they sovereign individuals whose right to guide their children's development the state may not infringe?

The answer could determine not only the future of homeschooling but the future of education in America.



Thomas A. Bowden is an analyst at the Ayn Rand Institute, focusing on legal issues. Mr. Bowden is a former attorney and law school instructor who practiced for twenty years in Baltimore, Maryland. The Ayn Rand Institute (http://www.aynrand.org/) promotes Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand--author of "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountainhead." Contact the writer at media@aynrand.org.



Technorati Tags: Home Schooling,Education,Judicial Activism,Parental Rights

The Price of Bush's Commitment to Palestinian Statehood

The Price of Bush's Commitment to Palestinian Statehood

By Elan Journo

On his recent visit to the Middle East, Vice President Cheney voiced the Bush administration's belief that a Palestinian state is "long overdue" and vowed to help make that goal a reality. Many conservatives and liberals agree with the administration that America should help fulfill the long-deferred Palestinian aspirations to statehood. The idea is that in doing so we would go a long way toward dousing the flames of Islamist terrorism.

But does U.S. backing for Palestinian statehood advance our security?

Only if you think we're better off fostering a new terrorist state.

That may seem excessively harsh given President Bush's mantra that Palestinians just want "the opportunity to use [their talents and] gifts to better their own lives and build a future for their children." The Bush line we keep hearing is that the terrorists and their supporters are but a fringe element that will be marginalized under the new state, which will coexist "side by side in peace" with Israel and the Western world.

But listen to Palestinian clerics at Friday sermons, calling for violent attacks on Israel. Look at the lurid posters in the homes and shops of ordinary Palestinians, passionately glorifying "martyrs" and terrorist kingpins. Look at their coordinated digging of tunnels to smuggle in weapons and explosives. Look at the popular collusion with Islamist militants and their stream of recruits. Recall the years of ferocious attacks against Israeli towns.

If the mass of Palestinians just want peace and a better life, they would not despise and war against the only state in the region, Israel, that protects individual rights and that offers a standard of living far superior to (even the richest) Arab regimes. They would be far better off, freer and safer, if they put away their rocks, bullets and dynamite belts and sought to live and work in Israel (as some once did).

Instead, they flood the streets to protest negotiations about peaceful co-existence with Israel. Ideologically, their dominant factions are the Islamic totalitarians of Hamas and the nationalist terrorists of Fatah. These differ only in their form of dictatorship--religious or ethnic. Both promise their followers, one way or another, to wipe out Israel.

That hostility to Israel, the only free nation in the Middle East, should make any U.S. president stand firmly against the Palestinian cause. Particularly in a post-9/11 world, Washington should recognize that U.S. security is strengthened by preventing Islamist terrorists from securing another stronghold and training ground.

Given the overwhelming evidence that it would undermine U.S. security, what explains the Bush administration's come-hell-or-high-water promise to do "everything we can" to back a Palestinian state? It is the administration's belief that America has a duty to ease the suffering of the world's wretched, regardless of the cost in lives to us.

That's why, after Palestinians brought Hamas to power in a landslide, Washington responded with "compassion" for their "humanitarian" needs. Of course the United States and its European allies felt compelled to "isolate" the Hamas regime by cutting off direct aid to the Palestinian Authority. But they refused to believe the Palestinians themselves should be held responsible for how they voted, because they're already dirt poor. This meant suspending our judgment and absolving Palestinians of culpability for choosing murderers to lead them. So, despite the embargo on aid to the Hamas-led government, in 2006 U.S. aid to Palestinians increased by 17 percent to $468 million, propping up their terrorist proto-state.

This policy's result is to endorse, facilitate, and vitalize Palestinian aggression. We've seen the unleashing of a popularly supported Hamas-Hezbollah war against Israel in 2006 and ongoing attacks springing from Gaza. Al Qaeda has reportedly already set up shop alongside other jihadists in the Palestinian territories. Just imagine the mushrooming of terrorist training camps and explosives factories under a sovereign Palestinian state. Imagine how emboldened jihadists will feel operating under a regime that Washington has created and blessed.

This is the price of a policy based not on furthering U.S. security, but on undeserved pity. This is the price of willfully ignoring the vile nature of Palestinian goals, treating these hostile people as above reproach and rewarding their irrationality.

Isn't it time we demand a policy that puts our security first?




Elan Journo is a resident fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute (http://www.aynrand.org/) in Irvine, Calif. The Institute promotes Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand--author of "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountainhead." Contact the writer at media@aynrand.org.

Technorati Tags: Palestinian State,Israel,Hamas,Middle-East Peace

Kosovo Independence a Problem for other Countries

Tony Dolz wrote an article on Kosovo's declared independence, titled "Separatist Movements Eyes are on Kosovo – Independence May Fuel Wars Worldwide", in which he makes the assertion that allowing Kosovo to declare itself independent may have worldwide repercussions.

Excerpt:

Kosovo insurgents declared independence from Serbia, Sunday, February 18, 2008. In Europe alone there are 23 separatist movements in the balance of renewed flare ups. Many anxious Europeans can hear in their heads war plans being made in a plethora of ethnic minority languages and accents as real as if they were present in the room.

Who hasn’t been on vacation in Spain and not worried ever so slightly about becoming an accidental victim of Basque separatist terror?

This past weekend the Turkish government clashed with Kurdish Separatist (Kurdish Worker's Party) leaving 41 Kurds and 2 Turkish soldiers dead. While also the same weekend Muslim Pattani United Liberation Separatists claim responsibility for bombs that left several people dead in Thailand.

He continues:

Will this recognition of separatist independence ignite a firestorm in Turkish Northern Cyprus? Are we going to see Georgia go up in flame torn by separatist violence? Will the Serbians living in Kosovo’s northern part now declare their independence and will America, which has disrespected Serbia’s territorial integrity, be forced to protect militarily the territorial integrity of the ludicrous independent Kosovo, a country that has never existed before last Sunday?

Are we prepared to risks peace and stability in Europe in order to reward ethnic Albanian Muslim terrorist’s for their takeover of Serbia’s ancestral homeland, the province of Kosovo?

Muslim Albanians civilians have burned many Christian churches, forced Serbians to flee the province and terrorized those that remained. Law enforcement by the United Nation forces have been colossally ineffective at maintaining the peace and to complicate matters the Muslim terrorists who grappled the province from Serbia were given police roles by the UN protectorate. Under UN protection the insurgents also have control of the Parliament. This is like assigning the mice to guard the cheese.

The recognition of independent Kosovo by the United States, in my opinion, was a mistake. Kosovo has always been part of Serbia, and declared its independence so that the Muslims of Kosovo could have their own Islamic state in the middle of Europe. It will not be long, I believe, before Serbian Christians find themselves having to leave Kosovo or risk their lives in a country which will not tolerate religions other than Islam.

small>Technorati Tags: Kosovo,Serbia,Islam,Islamic

Really, Michelle? This is the first time?

We should all be concerned when a would-be First Lady says she has "never really been proud of my country until now." It is a warning about how radical an Obama presidency would be.

At a campaign rally in Madison, Wis., on Monday, the wife of Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., declared: "Let me tell you something. For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country."

An editorial in Investors Business Daily comments:

Is ignorance the culprit here, or is it ingratitude — or perhaps an unhealthy mix of the two?

Michelle Obama was born in 1964, so her adulthood began in 1982. Is there really nothing about America she could think of to be proud of over the past quarter-century? How about the way firefighters, EMT personnel, police and ordinary people sacrificed to help each other in the aftermath of 9/11?

Maybe she forgot about the billions we gave in charity after the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami killed hundreds of thousands and left homeless over a million more, contributions dwarfing those of other countries — including hundreds of millions of dollars from those evil American corporations.

She may have been unaware that the U.S. military mobilized an aircraft carrier battle group and dispatched numerous strategic and tactical airlifters, plus dozens of Navy and Marine Corps helicopters, in efforts that ranged from search-and-rescue to disaster relief. The Navy also deployed the 1,000-bed hospital ship USNS Mercy.

By the way, a quick look at the census life expectancy tables show that American blacks in 1982 could expect to live just 69.4 years. Due to improvements in medicine and greater access to care, today it's 74 years of expected life. She's not proud of that?

Even if she was unaware of all this, which is highly unlikely, shouldn't the fact that a black woman from the south side of Chicago can graduate from two Ivy League schools itself be enough to make Mrs. Obama proud of such a country?

The fact that it doesn't indicates a radical mind-set that does not appreciate what makes America great — and a presidency that would be destructive of the country's greatness.

We need to be very concerned about an Obama Presidency. Aside from being the most liberal Senator in the Senate, he and his wife are radicals who believe in European-type socialism. Further, because of his inexperience in foreign policy, he is relying on foreign policy advisors who have been notoriously anti-Israel and sympathetic to the "oppressed" Palestinians. Warning! Danger Ahead!

Technorati Tags: Barack Obama,Michelle Obama,America,Foreign Policy

Obama's Foreign Policy Team of concern to Jews

Barack Obama, not having foreign policy experience, is relying on his advisors for his foreign policy. The problem is that he has chosen advisors who are notoriously anti-Israel.

An article in The American Thinker by Richard Baehr and Ed Lasky points out the probable anti-Israel policy if he is elected.

Over the past month, controversy has erupted over the issue of Senator Obama's foreign policy advisers and the impact that they might have on a future President Obama's policies toward Israel, and on American foreign policy in the broader region. Articles in the Washington Post, Newsweek, American Thinker, New York Sun, Politico, Commentary Magazine, The New Republic, CAMERA and other publications have precipitated this controversy.

Both those who support Senator Obama and his quest for the presidency and those who have concerns often share the same goal: ensuring that our next president comes to office well-prepared for the demands of the highest office in our nation. The President is uniquely powerful in the realm of foreign policy. In these perilous times, all of us want to ensure that the man or woman who steps into the White House in January is well-prepared to deal with the foreign policy challenges that lie ahead.

The problem arises when you look at who Obama has chosen for his policy advisors.

Newsweek published a list of Senator Obama's foreign policy advisers that included Zbigniew Brzezinski and Robert Malley. A few weeks later, the Washington Post on October 2, 2007 published a list of foreign policy advisers for all the major candidates, which list included the names of Zbigniew Brzezinski, Robert Malley, Samantha Power and Susan Rice as advisers to Senator Obama. Subsequently, Martin Peretz -- an Obama supporter -- wrote at the end of December that he got the "shudders" when thinking about the foreign policy influence of "Zbigniew Brzezinski... Anthony Lake, Susan Rice and Robert O. Malley".

Some of his advisors:

Samantha Power

Senator Obama's supporters have uniformly ignored the role and the views of Harvard Kennedy School of Government professor Samantha Power, who is very problematic regarding Israel, Iran, and for that matter, American supporters of Israel (see below). Power left her position at Harvard to work for Obama for a year after his election to the US Senate. She is now identified as a "senior foreign policy advisor.".

In the case of Power, it was Senator Obama who made the initial contact with her after reading her book on genocide. Power is now actively working for the campaign. She cannot be casually dismissed as one of Obama's many advisors, with no particular assigned role.

It is not at all hard to imagine her having a senior foreign policy role in an Obama administration, perhaps as US Ambassador to the United Nations, an organization she views warmly. The problem for those who favor a strong US-Israel relationship is that Power seems obsessed with Israel, and in a negative way. Much like the authors of the Baker-Hamilton report, she believes resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is central to solving other problems in the Middle East. And it is clear that her approach to addressing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would be for the US to behave in a more "even handed" fashion, which of course means withdrawing US support for Israel, and instead applying more pressure on Israel for concessions.

Zbigniew Brezinski and Robert Malley are also cause for great concern with respect to Israel.

Read the whole article for more information.


Technorati Tags: Israel,Barack Obama,Samantha Power,Foreign Policy

MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. DAY - 2008

“Martin Luther King Jr. Day offers Americans an opportunity to reaffirm their commitment to eradicating racism in all its forms,” said Thomas Bowden, an analyst at the Ayn Rand Institute.

Ayn Rand once wrote: “Racism is a doctrine of, by and for brutes. It is a barnyard or stock-farm version of collectivism, appropriate to a mentality that differentiates between various breeds of animals, but not between animals and men.” The essence of racism, she explained, is “the notion that a man’s intellectual and characterological traits are produced by his internal body chemistry, which means, in practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors.”

“Achievement of a truly color-blind society will require not only that private individuals reject racism but that government policies and programs cease to favor some citizens over others on the basis of skin color,” Bowden said. “The solution to racism in government does not lie in further race-conscious, affirmative action programs that generate de facto quotas, nor in multicultural education that locates personal identity in one’s ethnic group. Because such policies are themselves racist, they are part of the problem.

“A model of good government policy is President Truman’s executive order ending segregation in America’s military services. Issued 60 years ago, Executive Order 9981 declared ‘that there shall be equality of treatment and opportunity for all persons in the armed services without regard to race, color, religion or national origin.’

“This official policy exemplifies a government’s proper attitude toward its citizens,” Bowden said. “Every law-abiding adult has an equal right to serve in government, provided he or she can satisfy the position’s objective requirements. In setting standards, government agencies must be forbidden by law from making irrational distinctions among citizens, as by favoring some soldiers over others on the irrelevant basis of skin color.

“In a famous speech, Martin Luther King Jr. eloquently envisioned a world without racism: ‘I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.’ Americans should be proud of their nation’s historical achievements in ending slavery, Jim Crow laws, segregated schools, and many other forms of institutionalized racism. On this holiday, we should embrace the challenge contained in King’s eloquent remarks and recommit ourselves to the task of fully eradicating racism from this nation’s public policies.”


Technorati Tags: racism,Martin Luther King,affirmative action

VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION "S"

In typical political double-speak, the City of Los Angeles has put a measure on the ballot titled, ""Reduction of Tax Rate and Modernization of Communications Users Tax", as Los Angeles City Measure Proposition "S".

I don't know how it is going to modernize communications but I can tell you for sure it is anything but a "Reduction of Tax Rate". While the City has been collecting a 10% tax on cellular phone service service, the courts have declared the tax invalid because, in violation of Prop. 218, the City did not get voter approval for the imposition of the tax. The City is appealing that decision, but in case they lose, which they probably will, they have decided to bring out Proposition S. If you vote NO for Proposition S, and the City loses in the courts, there will be NO tax on electronic communications.

Prop S does reduce the tax rate from the invalid 10% rate to a 9% rate. But actually, if the city loses its appeal the rate will be 0%. Prop S also imposes the tax on a host of new electronic communications that were not included before, such as using the internet, DSL, VOIP, PCS and other electronic services.

The tax is estimated to raise approximately $270 Million for the city of Los Angeles. The City is disingenuously claiming that without the tax it won't be able to hire new police, or, run the city. The City of Los Angeles has a budget of $6.7 Billion. The tax would produce another 4% of revenue for the City.

My thoughts are that they can certainly find $270 Million to cut in the budget.


City Controller Laura Chick recently stated, "we shouldn't think of asking taxpayers for more money until we get our house in order."

City Hall squanders your money on wasteful programs (e.g., sphincter-control classes for civil servants), gives away millions in "pork" for special interests (e.g., millions in subsidies for downtown developers), and fails to guard against embezzlement (e.g., over $1 million from the housing agency). (For more examples of waste, look at the "Spreadsheet of Shame.")

The special election itself is an example of waste: instead of putting Prop S on the ballot during the general elections in November 2004, 2006 or 2008, City Hall spent $5.1 million to add it to the presidential primary in February 2008.

Further, nothing in Prop S requires City Hall to spend the money on hiring more police. Rather, Prop S is a general tax, which means Villaraigosa and the City Council can squander your money on anything they want. Why trust them with even more money?

VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION S


Technorati Tags: Los Angeles,Internet Tax,Proposition S,Elections

President Reagan's Christmas Message - 1981

In a world of political correctness and the culture wars, in the time of the ACLU, and its like, trying to remove any Christmas spirit from the public arena, the Christmas address to the nation by President Ronald Reagan in 1981 is refreshing.





Merry Christmas to all, and God bless us, every one!


Technorati Tags: Christmas,Ronald Reagan,Culture war,Political correctness

THE CHILLING EFFECT OF THE BUSH/SCHWARZENEGGER FREEZE

Adam Smith's key insight was that both
parties to an exchange can benefit
and that, so long as cooperation is
strictly voluntary, no exchange
can take place unless both parties do
benefit.

Milton Friedman
__________________________________

George Passantino of the REASON FOUNDATION wrote an
article today in the FlashReport about the proposed
freeze in interest rates which will protect borrowers
who made bad decisions and will punish investors who
invested in mortgage-backed securities because they
believed in the sanctity of contracts.

It is easy to call yourself a supporter of economic freedom
and the rule of law amidst a rapidly rising economy. Now
with dark clouds of the recent rise in mortgage
foreclosures—and more expected on the horizon—political
expediency has eroded the support for free markets in
some of its perceived champions.

Even self-proclaimed devotees of the late Milton Friedman,
President George W. Bush and California Governor
Arnold Schwarzenegger, sound more like critics than
Friedman supporters.

In the wake of a perceived mortgage crisis both have
attempted to use the coercive power of government to
solve the problem. Both plans center on agreements
with the largest mortgage servicing companies to
“voluntarily” freeze interest rates on adjustable rate
mortgages for a set period of time.

Upon Friedman’s death, President Bush remarked that
“Milton Friedman has shown us that when government
attempts to substitute its own judgments for the judgments
of free people, the results are usually disastrous. In
contrast to the free market's invisible hand, which
improves the lives of people, the government's invisible
foot tramples on people's hopes and destroys their dreams.”
Perhaps the President should re-read his talking points and
share a set with the Governor.

There are several flaws in the approach to “voluntarily”
freeze rates. First, it is disingenuous to call the plan
completely voluntary. When a government seeks a
“voluntary” commitment in one hand, you can be sure
that the hammer of regulation is hidden behind the
back in the other hand.

Moreover, such a freeze is tantamount to a moral bailout.
While it may not necessarily be a financial bailout of the
S&L magnitude, it bails out lenders and borrowers from
bad decisions and forces someone else to shoulder the
cost. Behind each mortgage is a pool of investors that
make life decisions, such as retirement planning,
based on an expected return of those investments.
Forcing these investors to eat a loss by government
fiat is fundamentally unfair. Moreover, this tramples
the rule of law and the sanctity of a contract. And, of
course, as the regulatory feeding frenzy grows,
you will no doubt see a host of new efforts to clamp
down on lending practices and in doing so eliminate
the access to capital that so many families depend upon.

Equally troubling, the proposals seem to try to encourage
responsible borrowing by only applying to people that are
current on their notes but who can’t afford the rate
adjustment. It doesn’t take a Nobel Prize Economist
to figure out that thousands of families that actually can
afford the rate adjustment, and who made those decisions
willingly, will nonetheless seek relief by claiming that they
will not be able to afford it. And what constitutes not being
able to afford it? Does a family that goes out and finances
tens of thousands of dollars worth of home entertainment
equipment and luxury automobiles and whose monthly
debt obligations have increased dramatically qualify for relief?

Perhaps most troubling of all is that this move to freeze
rates and ratchet down the industry with new, tougher
regulation completely misses one fundamental reason
that so many Californians have turned to adjustable rate
mortgages and other exotic loans. The price of
housing in California is simply too high.

Is it any surprise that five of the ten areas with the
highest foreclosure rates nationally are in California,
or that in some markets there are more foreclosures
than new homes for sale?

If Schwarzenegger and Bush want to stay true to their
philosophical allegiances to Friedman, they could start
by tackling the root causes of the affordability crisis
that has driven so many families to secure loans
that are a poor fit for their unique conditions.

According to statistics from the California Building
Industry Association, California homes were on par
with national prices as late as the 1970s. As
development became more difficult in California,
prices relative to the nation began to shoot upward.
Now, California home ownership rates are 10%
lower than the nation.

If California really wants to ensure that people have
a home to live in, we need to make housing more
affordable. New regulations on mortgages or short
term freezes will not do that.

The price of regulation—both in hard dollar fees
and in the costs of time—can easily add $50,000
to the cost of each home. That can account for
$300 or more in each monthly payment. In many
jurisdictions, the cost of regulation is much higher
than that.

At the same time the costs of regulation are increasing,
anti-growth activists have become experts at utilizing
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
and other well-intended laws to stop development
or force substantial delays which also results in
significant costs. The longer a home takes to build,
the more it costs in interest and construction expenses.
On top of that, finding land that is suitable for devel-
opment is increasingly difficult, and when land is found,
political pressures typically mount against “affordable
housing.” While such conditions exist in varying
degrees around the nation, there is a uniform need
to address them.

While it may seem politically appealing for government
to directly help people keep their homes, as Friedman
said of government intervention, the results are usually
disastrous. Both Schwarzenegger and Bush would do
well to focus, instead, on underlying cost drivers of
the housing market that are truly governmental in origin.

People, faced with home prices they simply cannot
afford, have far too often found refuge in loans that
probably don’t fit their personal economic conditions.
While no amount of intervention can eliminate the
obligation that anyone has to fully understand
and honor the terms of the contract they sign, it
would nonetheless be helpful for government to
eliminate or reduce some of the cost drivers that
they developed and which have helped fuel this perfect
storm.
____________________________________
George Passantino is a Partner in Passantino Andersen
Communications, LLC and a Senior Fellow at the Reason Foundation.
Technorati Tags: Free Markets,Sub-Prime,Sub-Prime Mortgage,Government Intervention

CHANUKAH REFLECTIONS - 2007

By Yoram Ettinger

1. THE HASMONEAN DYNASTY:

*Mattityahu son of Yochanan, the priest led rebellion – 166/7BC

*Yehuda son of Mattityahu – 166-161BC

*Yonatan son of Mattityahu – 161-143BC

*Shimon son of Mattityahu – 143-135BC

*Yochanan Hyrcanus son of Shimon – 135-104BC

*…

*Mattityahu Antigonus – 40-37BC



2. HISTORICAL CONTEXT. Alexander The Great - who held Judaism in high esteem and whose Egyptian heir Ptolemy II translated the Torah to Greek - died in 323BC following 12 glorious years at the throne. Consequently, the Greek Empire disintegrated into five, and thirty years later into three, kingdoms: Macedonia, Syria and Egypt. The Land of Israel was always militarily contested by Syria and Egypt (and Gaza was always a main invasion route!). In 198BC, Israel was conquered by the Syrian kingdom. In 175BC, a new king assumed power in Syria, Antiochus (IV) Epiphanies, who viewed the Jews as pro-Egyptians and held Judaism with contempt. In 169BC, upon his return to Syria from a military victory over Egypt, he devastated Jerusalem, massacred the Jews, forbade the practice of Judaism (including the Sabbath, circumcision, etc.) and desecrated Jerusalem and the Temple. The 167BC-launched rebellion against the Syrian (Seleucid) kingdom featured the Hasmonean (MACCABEE) family: Mattityahu, a priest from the town of Modi'in, and his five sons, Yochanan, Yehuda, Shimon, Yonatan and Elazar. The heroic (and tactically creative) battles conducted by the Maccabees, were consistent with the reputation of Jews as superb warriors, who were hired frequently as mercenaries by Egypt, Syria, Rome and other global and regional powers.



3. INSPIRATION TO BENJAMIN FRANKLIN'S "REBELLION AGAINST TYRANTS IS OBEDIENCE TO GOD". The Maccabees were a tiny minority of “rebels” - condemned by the "loyalists/pragmatists" - rising against an oppressive super-power. They were condemned as "the enemies of peace" and "extremists." They prevailed due to their principle-driven, determined and can-do state-of-mind. They demonstrated the victory of the few over the many, right over wrong, moral over immoral and truth over lies. The Maccabees have become a role-model for America's Founding Fathers, including Paul Revere and the organizers of the Boston Tea Party.



4. INSPIRATION TO PATRICK HENRY'S "GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH" and NEW HAMPSHIRE'S "Live Free Or Die". The Maccabees' sacrifice and political incorrectness has preserved and inspired today's Jewish religion, language, culture and sovereignty. They followed in the footsteps of Abraham, Phineas the High Priest, Joshua & Calev, King David and Elijah.



5. AN EARLY VERSION OF “IN G-D WE TRUST” was the Maccabees’ battle cry, which adopted Moses’ battle cry against the builders of the Golden Calf. A literal translation of the battle cry is “Whoever trusts G-D; join me!”



6. CHANUKA'S UNIQUENESS. Chanukah is the only Jewish holiday which commemorates a Land-of-Israel national liberation struggle, unlike Passover (Exodus from Egypt), Sukkot/Tabernacles & Shavouot/Pentacost (on the way to the Land of Israel), Purim (Persia), etc. Chanukah is the longest Jewish holiday (8 days) with the most intense level of Light (8 consecutive nights of candle lighting).



7. ORIGIN OF THE NAME, CHANUKAH: THE HOLIDAY OF EDUCATION. According to the first book of Maccabees, Yehuda (who succeeded Mattityahu, the priest) ordered the Jewish People to observe an eight day holiday on the 25th day of the month of Kislev, 165BC, in order to commemorate the INAUGURATION (CHANUKAH in Hebrew) of the holy altar and the Temple, following Syrian desecration. A key feature of Chanukah is EDUCATION of the family (The Hebrew word for education is CHINUKH, spelled with the first four of the five letters of Chanukah). The Hebrew word, Chanukah, consists of two words, CHANU (they rested/stationed) and KAH (25), which refers to the fact that the Maccabees re-consecrated the Temple on the 25th day of the month of Kislev (purging it from the idolatries installed by the Seleucids). Some have suggested that the celebration of Christmas on December 25th and the celebration of the New Year 8 days later (January 1) have their origin in the 25th day of Kislev (which always “accompanies” December) and the 8 days of Chanukah as well as the 8 days of circumcision.



8. HOLIDAY OF LIGHT AND REMEMBRANCE. The first day of Chanukah - the holiday of light - is on the 25th day of Kislev, the month of miracles (e.g. Noah's Rainbow appeared in Kislev). The first and last Hebrew letters of Kislev equal (in Jewish numerology) 26, which the total sum of the Hebrew spelling of Jehovah. Moses completed the construction of the Holy Arc on the 25th day of Kislev, as was the date of the laying the foundation of the second Temple by Nehemaya. The 25th (Hebrew) word in Genesis is LIGHT ("OR" in Hebrew). A Jewish metaphor for the Torah is light. The 25th stop of the People of Israel - on their way from Egypt to the Promised Land - was Hashmona (same root as Hasmoneans in Hebrew). Chanukah commemorates the victory of Light (Maccabees) over Darkness. While light stands for remembrance, darkness (Chashecha in Hebrew) stands for FORGETFULNESS (Schichecha in Hebrew, spelled with the same Hebrew letters as Chashecah/darkness).



9. ORIGIN OF THE NAME, MACCABEE. Yehuda’s middle name was Maccabee, derived possibly from the Hebrew word MAKEVET (The Power Hammer), which described Yehuda’s tenacious fighting capabilities. It may have derived from the Hebrew verb CABEH (to extinguish), which described the fate of Yehuda’s adversaries. Another possible interpretation of the name is that MACCABEE is the Hebrew acronym of “Who could resemble you among Gods, Jehovah” (“Mi Camokha Ba'elim Adonye” in Hebrew).



10. LEGACY OF THE MACCABEES: Faith, moral clarity, long-term vision, defiance of odds (the few against the many), willingness to sacrifice short-term convenience on the altar of long term national security, and awareness that nations who do not adhere to their roots and are not willing to sacrifice for Liberty forsake their future and do not deserve Liberty. NO FREE LUNCH FOR SOVEREIGN PEOPLES, especially in violent and unpredictable neighborhoods.





11. CHANUKAH DEMONSTRATES THAT WISDOM IS SUPERIOR TO KNOWLEDGE AND UNDERSTANDING. According to Jewish definition of intellect, “Khokhma” (faith in divinely inspired wisdom, morality and capabilities) is superior to “Beena” (human understanding and interpretations) and “Da'att” (human intelligence/knowledge). The Greek/Syrian culture was based on the superiority of human knowledge and (tenuous) moral standards. The Greeks/Syrians felt constrained, and therefore threatened, by Jewish faith in divine (permanent) morality. Chanukah demonstrates the victory of divine morality over convenience-driven human definition of morality.



12. EIGHT DAYS OF CHANUKAH REPRESENT THE COVENANT BETWEEN G-D AND THE JEWISH PEOPLE, DIVINE CAPABILITIES AND OPTIMISM. Chanukah terminated the prohibition of circumcision, hence one of the causes for the 8 day duration. Chanukah represents the renewal of that covenant between G-D and the Jewish People. The ancient Temple Menorah consisted of seven branches, which commemorated the seven days of creation. The Chanukah Menorah has eight branches, reflecting the additional level of divine capabilities over and beyond human expectations: The victory of the few over the many and the lasting of one day supply of oil for eight days. Some have suggested that the eight day celebration was designed to make up for the holiday of Tabernacles, which could not be celebrated by the Maccabees due to the war. The shape of the digit 8 represents infinity: No end to divine capabilities to enhance human fortunes, as evidenced by the survival of the Jewish People against all odds. The root of the Hebrew word for the digit 8 (“Shmoneh”) is "oil" (Shemen), which is also the root of "Hasmonean" (Hashmonayim in Hebrew).



13. A LESSON TO ISRAEL's LEADERSHIP: Shimon the Maccabee - who succeeded Judah and Yonatan the Maccabees - responded to an ultimatum by the Syrian/Greek Emperor Antiochus (Book of Maccabees A, Chapter 15, verse 33): "We have not occupied a foreign land; We have not ruled a foreign land; We have liberated the land of our forefathers from foreign occupation." Thus responded Simon the Maccabee to Emperor Antiochus' ultimatum to end "occupation" of Jaffa, Jerusalem, Gezer, Ekron and Gaza.



14. KEY GEOGRAPHIC SITES OF THE MACCABEE LEGACY, the cradle of today’s Jewish State: Modi’in, Mitzpah (Nebi Samuel), Beit Horon, Ma’aleh Beit Horon, Hadashah, Beit Zur, Ame’os, Michmash, Judean Desert, Jericho. Other than Modi’in, the rest are beyond the “Green Line.” Are they currently “occupied” by the descendants of the Maccabees???



15. CHANUKAH-PASSOVER-PURIM. The heroes of Passover and Purim had no choice but to defy their enemies. The Maccabees turned down physical peace in return for spiritual assimilation. They refused to sellout the cradle of Jewish history. They were willing to pay any price for the protection of their values and heritage. Chanukah symbolizes the victory of conviction and roots over short-term convenience and over opportunism/cynicism (sometime presented as "realism" or "pragmatism").



16. SEVEN CHANUKAH ("Inauguration" in Hebrew)-LIKE EVENTS: Chanukah of the Creation (Genesis 2:1-3), Chanukah of the Sanctuary (Numbers 7:1-11), Chanukah of the First Temple (Kings 1, 7:51, 8:1-11 & 62-66), Chanukah of the Second Temple and the Ingathering (Ezra 6:13-18), Chanukah of Jerusalem's Wall (Nehemiah 6:15-16), Chanukah of the Temple Priests in 165BC (Maccabees 1, 4), Chanukah of the After World. Some attach the significance of each Chanukah to a corresponding day of the Creation.


Technorati Tags: Judaism,Chanukah,Maccabee,Hanukkah

Up Close and Personal: The Shunning of Israel

In the Chesler Chronicles, Phyllis Chesler tells about how the assembled Arab Foreign Ministers at Annapolis refused to shake the hand of Israeli Foreign Minister, Tzipi Livni. She further relates what a disaster for Israel this "summit" meeting was:

At the recent Annapolis meeting, behind closed doors, up close and personal, the assembled Arab foreign ministers refused to shake hands with Tzipi Livni, Israel’s Foreign Minister. She asked her Arab counterparts, especially her Saudi counterpart, why they did not want to shake hands with her. “I am not plague-ridden” Livni said. According to the Dutch minister, all the Arab ministers backed away from her as if “she were Dracula’s sister.” (These details are contained in both today’s Washington Post and in Guysen International News.)
My friend and colleague, Dr. Nancy H. Kobrin, had only three, chilling words for me about this: “Zainab Bint al-Harith”. That is the name of the Jewish woman long and falsely alleged to have poisoned the prophet Mohammed.

In addition, the United States, Israel’s strongest ally, apparently just circulated the Annapolis resolution to members of the UN Security Council—but without first showing anything to Israel’s Ambassador, Dan Gillerman who was, at the time, busy celebrating the General Assembly’s November 29th, 1947 resolution that created a Jewish state. What a difference sixty years can make! (These details are contained in the New York Sun).

Livni and Gillerman have just both been publicly shunned. Israeli diplomats will have to grow bionic skins in order not to suffer the effects of such interpersonally cruel behavior. But look: Israelis have been kidnapped, blown up and wounded for life by Islamist terrorists. It can always be worse but the two kinds of assaults are intimately connected. The fact that the world allows the state sponsors of terrorism to isolate and shame Israeli diplomats also allows and even encourages terrorist fanatics to continue their murdererous rampage. One breeds the other; this is the cycle of violence.

Israel’s civilian supporters have also been shunned, both behind closed doors and in public. May we all continue to bear this mistreatment with honor, patience, grace, and faith. And, as we count our blessings, let us also remember that Israel is a nuclear power whose military prowess has already proved essential in the battle against Iran and Syria—and that Saudi Arabia is also well known for refusing to extend its hand when it comes to aiding other Muslims.

The significance and consequences of the Annapolis meeting are far worse than I have so far suggested. But many people understand public slights more than they understand diplomatic negotiations; however, for those who primarily focus on the latter, let me stand on the shoulders of others and point out that 1) Israel- and Jew-hating Arabists in the State Department have won one more round; President Bush refuses to publicly criticize the Saudis and has also failed to appoint diplomats who might do so privately.

Worse: As former Minister Natan Sharansky has just pointed out, while Iran may be perceived as a threat to the stability of Arab national despots, democracy is perceived as the second biggest threat to their continued rule. Sharansky also notes that Mahmoud Abbas has absolutely no power. Thus, what is the point of forcing Israel to negotiate with the powerless diplomat when the United States has failed to bring Hamas, which controls Gaza, to the table in Annapolis?

In addition, Ted Belman of Israpundit has sent me Carolyn Glick’s rather ominous report. Apparently, and not coincidentally, U.S. Ambassador Richard Jones just had an unprecedented meeting with the President of the Israeli Supreme Court, Dorit Beinisch, in which Jones demanded that the Israeli Court “interpret Israeli law in a prejudicial manner in order to demonize Israeli opponents of Palestinian statehood and the ethnic cleansing of Jews from Judea and Samaria.”

Why Israel is caving in to its previous commitments to its people is something I fail to understand. They say that when you know a friend is about to commit suicide you must do everything possible to prevent it. I feel the same about Israel. We must do all we can to prevent Israel from committing suicide.

Chesler concludes:

According to David Bedein in Frontpage, Prime Minister Olmert “stood down from his opposition to international supervision of the agreement’s implementation. Nothing remains of the principle established by Yitzhak Rabin, which was maintained by all Israeli prime ministers, that only Israel would decide whether the Palestinian side had met its commitments.”

Finally, according to Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook HERE, one day after Annapolis, Abbas’s Palestinian Authority re-broadcast a map in which Israel was completely absent and the Palestinian state occupied what is now Tel Aviv, Ber-Sheva, Jerusalem, and Haifa.

And he’s the “good guy.”

Here’s what I have to say to the Israeli people: Vote Olmert out of office as quickly as possible. Do not, God forbid, assassinate him. President Beinisch: How dare Mr. Jones tell you what to do? Tell him to go to Hell—which is right next door in Sudan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia. To Jews and to our supporters and to freedom-loving people everywhere: Hang in, hang on, trust no one. Be prepared for anything.

I agree totally with Ms. Chesler. Israel is being sold out. Olmert must be replaced.

UPDATE:For "What was agreed to at Annapolis will destroy Israel", see Israpundit.

Technorati Tags: Annapolis,Israel,Middle East,Abbas,Palestine

U.S. Must Reject Law of the Sea Treaty

Many people are not aware that in the next couple of weeks the U.S. Senate is going to vote on whether the U.S. should ratify the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST). If the U.S. ratifies this treaty we will be subjecting ourselves to the sovereignty of the United Nations when it comes to maritime issues. This treaty is not in the best interest of the United States, as you will see below.

For some reason, the Bush Administration originally rejected the ratification of the Law of the Sea, but is now pushing for immediate ratification. President Reagan, and every subsequent President rejected the Law of the Sea Treaty. It is important for us to do a letter and phone campaign to the Senate to let them know how the people feel about this treaty.

We were able to convince the Senate that the people did not want them to approve the immigration bill, and we can do the same with this ill-advised treaty. We have the power to let the Senate know that we do not want this treaty ratified. Read below to find out about LOST.

____________________________________________________

The U.S. Must Reject LOST

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea - commonly known at the Law of the Sea Treaty, or LOST - is the darling project of the transnational progressives, or "transies."

Their goal is nothing less than the establishment of world government at the expense of traditional sovereignty.

Unfortunately, the Bush Administration has decided to push for immediate ratification of this fatally-flawed accord. This is a monumental and dangerous policy shift.

See below for the problems with LOST and how the U.S. will relinquish sovereignty to the United Nations if it ratifies the Treaty. For complete information, go to this web site.


President Reagan explicitly rejected the Law of the Sea Treaty in 1982. We should do the same today.

For comments on LOST from other organizations:

The Heritage Foundation

Cato Foundation

Competitive Enterprise Institute

Related Articles:

Law of the Sea Treaty Doesn't Hold Water - World Net Daily

Conservatives mobilize against LOST - Human Events

_____________________________________________________

Problems with LOST

As part of its efforts to increase public and political awareness of the Law of the Sea Treaty's serious defects, the Coalition to Preserve American Sovereignty has put together several point papers that document the treaty's egregious and dangerous shortcomings.

Each of the point papers provides background information on the relevant subject matter, dissects the arguments of treaty proponents, and then documents LOST's most worrisome provisions, often with language from the treaty itself.

The point papers can be found here.


Contact Your Senators!!

Get involved and educate your Senators about the harmful effects of the Law of the Sea Treaty. Click here to see ten issues of concern raised by the treaty. We encourage you to write a brief e-mail to your Senators highlighting several of the points in this document.


While original letters are most effective, click here for language and formatting suggestions.


Technorati Tags: LOST,Law of the Sea Treaty,Senate,Treaties

The Way It Was in Hollywood

On November 9, 1961, Samuel Goldwyn, the head of Samuel Goldwyn Studios, wrote a letter to Producer/Director Jerry Wald at 20th Century Fox. The letter reads, in part, as follows:

Dear Jerry:

...

Today we are at a very crucial period in history. Even if the cold war never develops into a hot one, our country still has its hands full all over the world. The pictures we send abroad have an effect in every corner of the globe.

Therefore, I feel we must exercise today a higher degree of self-discipline and self-censorship then ever before. We should never lose sight of the fact that, no matter how entertaining a picture may be or how much money it may make, it can do our country a great deal of harm if it plays into the hands of our enemies. [emphasis added] No one among us can serve as another's conscience - but that is why it behooves every one of us to look at ourselves critically and completely honestly. We have a great responsibility in this regard - far greater than almost any other segment of our country - and we have to guide ourselves accordingly.

Naturally, what I feel in this regard is carried over into my opinion regarding the subject of film festivals which you mention.

...

Samuel Goldwyn must be turning in his grave to see his admonition ignored by today's Hollywood, as anti-American picture after anti-American picture is released and plays into the hands of our enemies.


Technorati Tags: Hollywood,anti-American Films,Samuel Goldwyn,anti-war films

Roots of Islamic Terrorism: How Communists Helped Fundamentalists

In the current issue of Global Politician, Antero Leitzinger, published an article about the source of Islamic terrorism and how it was taught by Communists and Socialists to the Muslims. The article begins:

This article traces the roots of Islamic terrorism, with special focus on Afghanistan. Notes are added on practical and philosophical problems of world media in finding the right track. From systematic errors in revealing little details, to serious misconceptions about basic facts and principles, we can relatively easily learn how much of "common knowledge" rests actually on superficial research and popular myths. Instead of becoming critical and aware of the traps laid around the issue, both Islamists and Islamophobes fail to recognize how they are manipulated.


Terrorism is real

Terrorism is not as difficult a concept as some claim. It is a political ideology (-ism) on the use of terror, which is arbitrary, unrestricted and unspecified fear. This excludes traditional warfare against regular armies and police forces, and individual assassinations of public figures.

Neither separatism nor criminal violence as such is necessarily terrorism. To call an act terrorism, we should always ask: Does this really spread blind terror among the general populace? A bomb blown in a market place, or in a civilian airplane, intends to create common fear among customers and bystanders alike, because just about anybody could become a victim. The victims are typically anonymous, and the very idea of the act was to cause damage or a credible threat. The assassination of a political leader, throwing stones on occupation troops, or bombing of enemy positions during a declared war or after an order to surrender has been given, may be repulsive and kill innocent people, but there is no terror, if no average "man of the street" needs to feel uneasy about his security the next day. No women or children should need to fear that they could be mistaken as presidents, soldiers, or military installations. Somebody may have bad luck and be targeted accidentally, but if it is terrorism, we will find ourselves asking: Why? What is the object?

Terrorism is rarely the ultimate end itself, as anarchy or communism is thought to be, but merely a method to promote some politics. That is why terrorists represent a political ideology. Even when they are in fact nothing but common criminals or psychopaths, terrorists make efforts to find a political excuse for their acts.

We know that not every political movement has created a terrorist splinter group, or served as an excuse for terrorism. Actually, terrorism has been the favourite method of extreme socialists only - both of the (left-wing) international, and the (right-wing) national varieties. Since the Jacobins of the French revolution held a "Reign of Terror" in 1794, the international socialists (communists) and national socialists (fascists) have shared a common tendency to use terrorism.

A clear definition of terrorism helps to identify and trace it through history. It can be dated and located. This makes it very real - and thus also possible to be exterminated.


How Socialists became Islamic terrorists

Modern terrorism was born within a year, 1967-1968. International socialists (communists) started the fashion all over the world simultaneously, which should make us suspicious about the common roots. National socialists followed suit, turning Marxists of Muslim origin into Islamists of Marxist origin.

In May 18th, 1967, Yuri Andropov took over the leadership of the KGB. The Russian security services evolved into a state within the Soviet state, as it became clear when Andropov became the communist party's general secretary after Leonid Brezhnev's death, in 1982. During Andropov's era, which was far longer than that of any other KGB chief, the Soviet secret services supported international terrorism through satellite states and Marxist "liberation fronts". "On becoming chairman of the KGB in 1967, Andropov immediately announced his intention to revive KGB 'special actions' as an essential tool of Soviet policy during the Cold War." (Andrew & Mitrokhin, p. 374)

The man who became Andropov's deputy was former Azerbaijani KGB chief Semyon Tsvigun, who committed suicide on January 19th, 1982. His wife was the sister of Brezhnev. Eduard Topol wrote a spy novel about the case, titled "Red Square". In the novel, Tsvigun's widow accuses Andropov for being an anti-Semite, organizing international terrorism, and having his subordinate assassinated. Reality, however, does not corroborate any rift within the KGB. Tsvigun's son became a KGB officer too, and was appointed as a Soviet diplomat in Cairo from August 1984. Tsvigun's son-in-law became the main supplier of arms to Islamist terrorists in Afghanistan, by 1995.

On June 2nd, 1967, violent student demonstrators met the Shah of Iran in West Germany. All of free Europe was plagued by student demonstrations in May 1968, causing a nearly revolutionary situation in France. Numerous left-wing terrorist cells were formed in Germany, Italy, and other western countries. Their activities peaked in 1977, after which the West German terrorists retired in communist East Germany.

The (North Irish) IRA and (Basque) ETA started their terrorism in 1968, with peaks around 1976. Andropov considered an IRA request for arms delivery for three years until subscribing it in 1972. (Andrew & Mitrokhin, p. 378 and 384-385)

German and Italian left-wing terrorists cooperated by summer 1969, and in October 1971, altogether 16 terrorist groups held a meeting in Florence, Italy. Beside the IRA and ETA, many Palestinian and Latin American (ERP, ELN, MLN, MIR) groups joined to the international terror network by 1973.

In the USA, Soviet agents incited racial tension by writings in the name of the Ku Klux Klan, and by a bomb explosion in New York City, in summer 1971. (Andrew & Mitrokhin, p. 238) The same year, Soviet agents made contacts to a Quebecois separatist group, the FLQ.

In Latin America, communist Cuba was the source of revolutionary activities in many countries, although the KGB kept its own agents there too. (Andrew & Mitrokhin, p. 386) In October 1967, "Che Guevara", whose girl-friend was an East German, was executed in Bolivia, becoming a romantic idol for teenage girls. Thirty-four years later, his picture could be seen on the T-shirts of young Palestinian brawlers. In Mexico, the KGB was involved in student riots from July to October 1968, prior to the Olympic Games. Uruguay experienced urban guerrilla activities by the MLN, peaking between 1968 and 1972. Argentine followed between 1970 and 1975. Communists had big hopes on Chile, but were bitterly disappointed by the military coup in 1973.

By the end of the 1970s, communist optimism was definitely on the decline everywhere in the world. At that point, the KGB desperately needed any kind of a boost of revolutionary spirits. Surprisingly, the Middle East came to rescue.

In December 1967, a Lebanese Christian, George Habash, who had been a Pan-Arabic national socialist, had broadened his field by founding the PFLP, a Palestinian organization. Although it split already by the next year, the PFLP remained the most pro-Soviet Palestinian terrorist group, with widest global ties. It caused the Central Committee of the Soviet Communist Party to adopt the Palestinian cause in 1968. In July 1970, Andropov allowed the first direct Soviet arms delivery to the PFLP. From that on, both the KGB and - perhaps even more so - the Russian military intelligence, GRU, provided Palestinian terrorists with arms and training. (Segaller, p. 126-127; Livingston & Halevy, p. 140; Lunev, p. 80; Kuzichkin, p. 206; Andrew & Mitrokhin, p. 381) From 1972 on, this was co-ordinated by Habash, who had close connections to Japanese and Latin American terrorist groups. (Livingston & Halevy, p. 208-209)

The man chiefly responsible for exporting Palestinian terrorism was Wadi Haddad, deputy leader of the PFLP, recruited as agent "Natsionalist" by the KGB in 1970. Andropov revealed his aims in a report to Brezhnev himself: "The nature of our relations with W. Haddad enables us to control the external operations of the PFLP to a certain degree, to exert influence in a manner favorable to the Soviet Union and also to carry out active measures in support of our interests through the organization's assets while observing the necessary conspirational secrecy." (Andrew & Mitrokhin, p. 380)

The once fashionable airplane hijackings had been begun by the PFLP in July 23rd, 1968. At that time, the Soviet Union, having supported the establishment of Israel and armed its forces 20 years earlier, had already invested a lot of resources into the Palestinian cause and Arab Socialism. Arms had been initially smuggled through Egypt. (Barron, p. 77)

"By the summer of 1968, the Soviet Union had progressed far toward converting Egypt into its principal base of subversion against the Arab world." (Barron, p. 62) Thirty-three years later, Egypt was the principal base of Islamic terrorists. Soviet Union, however, failed in Egypt. In May 1971, Anwar Sadat wiped out most of KGB agents. In July 1972, Soviet advisors were expelled from Egypt. Eight years later, Sadat paid for this with his life, being assassinated by members of an Islamist group. Sadat's peace policy toward Israel made it easy for the remnants of the KGB network to ally with the right-wing Muslim Brotherhood. This is the background of Ayman az-Zawahiri, the second man of al-Qayda.

Yasser Arafat's al-Fatah organization received its first Soviet arms shipment in September 1972. Palestinians were, however, split into pro-Iraqi and pro-Syrian parties and factions. Although both Iraq and Syria were ruled by an Arab Socialist Baath party, and extremely friendly toward the Soviet Union after the end of 1950s, the deepening friction between these two Arab states cut through the Palestinians, and frustrated Soviet efforts to unite Arabs against Israel and the western world.

The Yom Kippur War of 1973, and the subsequent oil embargo from October 1973 to March 1974, which was aimed against the USA, taught the KGB two lessons: that the traditional, orthodox Arab Socialist partners and their Palestinian proxies could not be trusted and achieved little through military endeavours and terrorism; but that the future was economic, and lay with the oil-fields in Saudi Arabia and Gulf emirates. Thus Political Islam, or Islamism, replaced Socialism as the most promising basis for winning Arab hearts and hurting western interests in the Middle East. After the debacle in Egypt, the KGB turned toward Saudi Arabia, where King Faysal had been assassinated in May 1975, and King Khalid ruled until 1982. Here, the KGB could find most valuable connections through the Muslim Brotherhood.

The key link may have been Muhammad Maruf ad-Dawalibi, former Prime Minister of Syria, and founder of the Islamic Socialist Front in autumn 1949. He had declared already in April 1950, that Arabs would prefer "thousands time more to become a Soviet Republic than to be spoils of Jews". (Reissner, p. 332, 355 and 422-423) Dawalibi's preference for Soviet rule had not been shaken by Soviet support for Israel as late as September 1951. Instead, he recommended Arab leaders to seek even harder for Soviet support. (Reissner, p. 357 and 366) Dawalibi was exiled from Syria, but he became a councellor of King Khalid, and the chairman of the Islamic Conference that convened in Pakistan in 1976. (Reissner, p. 394 and 423)

The article then goes on to explain the Soviet and Communist involvement in fomenting Islamic terrorism against the West.

Iran became Russia's most loyal ally after the Islamic revolution in 1979. This relationship has lasted over two decades, and is still cherished by the Islamists among Shi'ite clergy and security services. When Soviet troops invaded Afghanistan later the same year, there was only one spontaneous demonstration in Tehran, after which Iran has tamely followed Russia's actions against neighbouring Muslim people.

The Iranian revolution took the KGB by surprise, but it was a pleasant surprise, and the Soviet Union choose to side with the Islamist revolutionaries already by November 1978. Azerbaijan's contemporary president, former party leader and KGB chief (a successor and friend of Tsvigun), Hayder Aliyev, was the expert on Middle East, who had soon convinced the Politburo, that Ayatollah Khomeini should be supported by the Soviet Union. (Taheri, p. 218) This assessment caused a permanent division within the Iranian communist (Tudeh) party, because it was instructed to support Khomeini despite the doubts of the party's own general secretary. He was replaced by a relative of Khomeini. (Kuzichkin, p. 264 and 285)

Among the closest associates of Khomeini, there were many Communists who had conveniently grown beards. Mustafa Ali Chamran had studied in California and Egypt before he founded a Red Shi'ite secret society. His pupils included later foreign minister Ibrahim Yazdi, oil minister Mohammed Gharazi, and a Lebanese fellow student in Berkeley University, Hussein Shaikh al-Islam, who led the occupation of the US Embassy in Tehran. This occupation, shortly before the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, focused Iranian radicalism into anti-Americanism. (Taheri, p. 78 and 139-140) Mohammed Beheshti, whose death at a bombing on June 28th, 1981, remained a mystery, had resided in East Germany. Khomeini's early companion and foreign minister, Sadegh Ghotbzadeh, was a link to Syria. Most left-wing radicals were repressed only after summer 1981, by which time many former Communists had successfully accommodated with the new regime. Both Ghotbzadeh and Chamran had received Palestinian terrorist training. As a student in the USA, Ghotbzadeh had been recruited by the GRU. (Livingston & Halevy, p. 153-154; Kuzichkin, p. 302)

"It is significant that anti-Americanism was first propagated as a major theme of Muslim fundamentalism by young men and women from Islamic countries who had spent time in the United States as students or workers." (Taheri, p. 206) These included the founding father of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Said Qutb, who had lived in the USA for two years around 1949/1950. The four pilots of September 11th, 2001, included one native German citizen, whose Moroccan father was no Islamist at all, a Lebanese of liberal background, and a United Arab Emirates' subject, both of whom had spent five years in Germany, and the Egyptian-born terrorist leader Muhammad Atta, who had immigrated into Germany nine years earlier.

Daniel Pipes' article "The Western Mind of Radical Islam" describes well, how so many Islamic terrorists actually adopted more ideas from contacts to western society than from their own traditions: "Fundamentalist leaders tend to be well acquainted with the West, having lived there, learned its languages, and studied its cultures. ... Indeed, the experience of living in the West often turns indifferent Muslims into fundamentalists. ... In contrast to this ostentatious familiarity with Western ways, fundamentalists are distant from their own culture. ... Having found Islam on their own as adults, many fundamentalists are ignorant of their own history and traditions." (http://www.danielpipes.org/articles/199512.shtml)

This became very obvious through the biographies of those who committed the suicide attacks of September 2001, and who were typically from wealthy families, liberally educated, and had lived many years in Hamburg, London, and America. Pipes takes notice of the fact that "fundamentalist Muslims" (or rather, "Islamists", as they care little of traditions and their true fundaments), have introduced distinctly Christian notions into their religion. He presents plenty of detailed examples, among others that "fundamentalists have turned Fridays into a Sabbath, something it had not previously been. ... Ignorant of the spirit underlying the Shari'a, fundamentalists enforce it along territorial, not personal lines..." (http://www.danielpipes.org/articles/199512.shtml), and so forth.

It is a lengthy article, but for those who are interested in the history of how Islamic terrorism against the West began, it is important to understand the substance of this article. It goes on to explain the Soviet support of the Taliban and of Al-Queda. You will also get a better understanding of what is happening in Chechnya.

I highly recommend your reading this article for a complete understanding of the origins of Islamist terror.


Technorati Tags: Islam,Terrorism,Soviet,Russia

The Judeo-Christian Values of America

The American Thinker has an excellent essay on the Judeo-Christian Values of America.

Excerpt:

Judeo-Christian Values have a foundational role in America, beginning with the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness..."

Since the pursuit of happiness, as Sigmund Freud surmised, is tied to human love and to creative work and play, the principles of American Judeo-Chri