Ireland Declares War On Saddam

The following, under the above caption and apparently authored by "Time for a chuckle," was received at our office a few days ago. - Publisher

Saddam Hussein was sitting in his office wondering whom to invade next when his telephone rang. "Hello! Mr. Hussein," said a voice with a thick brogue. "This is Paddy down in the Harp pub in County Sligo, Ireland. I am ringing to inform you that we are officially declaring war on you."
"Well, Paddy," Saddam replied, "this is indeed important news! How big is your army?"
"Right now," said Paddy, after a moment's calculation, "there is meself, me cousin Sean, me next-door neighbour Seamus, and the entire dart team from the pub. That makes eight!"
Saddam paused. "I must tell you, Paddy, that I have one million men in my army waiting to move on my command."
"Begorrah!" said Paddy, "I'll have to ring you back!" Sure enough, the next day, Paddy called again. "Mr. Hussein, the war is still on! We have managed to acquire some equipment!"
"And what equipment would that be, Paddy?" Saddam asked.
"Well, we have two combines, a bulldozer, and Murphy's old farm tractor."
Saddam sighed, "I must tell you, Paddy, that I have 6,000 tanks and 4,000 armoured personnel carriers. I've increased my army to 1.5 million since we last spoke."
"Saints preserve us!" said Paddy, "I'll have to get back to you." Sure enough, Paddy rang again the next day. "Mr. Hussein, the war is still on! We have managed to get ourselves airborne! We've modified Harrigan's ultra-light with a couple of shotguns in the cockpit, and four boys from the Shamrock pub have joined us as well!"
Saddam was silent for a minute and then cleared his throat, "I must tell you, Paddy, that I have 1,000 bombers and 2,000 fighter planes. My military complex is surrounded by laser-guided, surface-to-air missile sites, and since we last spoke, I've increased my army to TWO MILLION!"
"Jesus, Mary and Joseph,!" exclaimed Paddy, "I'll have to ring you back." Sure enough Paddy called again the next day. "Top o' the mornin' Mr. Hussein! I am sorry to tell you that we have had to call off the war."
"I'm intrigued," said Saddam, "why the sudden change of heart?"
"Well," said Paddy, "we've all had a long chat over a few pints, and there's no way we can feed two million prisoners."

Our only comment: I hope that "Time for a chuckle" sent copies to the main principals in this farce: Messrs Saddam and Bush.

Don't go overboard, Mr. Margolis Eric Margolis is the internationally respected Foreign Affairs columnist of the Toronto Sun. Following is his March 9th column which appeared under the caption, "Why France is America's true friend."

Miami - Watching American TV can be a surreal experience. Sandwiched between ads for instant weight loss products, predigested fast food and incontinence panties, cable TV commentators bay like rabid dogs for war against Iraq, and subject nations daring to oppose President Bush's crusade to venomous abuse or sneering disdain.
France, which speaks with the strongest, most logical voice of those opposing war, has become the special target of vituperation and hatred in America's leading neo-conservative media - Fox TV, the Wall Street Journal, New York Post - and the Bush administration's bete noire. Particularly so, now that France, Germany, and Russia vow to veto U.S. attempts to ram a war-enabling resolution through the UN Security Council.

France, many Americans claim, should do whatever Washington orders out of gratitude for the U.S. "saving" it in two world wars. U.S. television features angry veterans standing in American military cemeteries in Normandy, denouncing France for "stabbing America in the back" - as if invading Iraq to grab oil and crushing Israel's enemies had anything to do with World War II. Few flag-waving pundits mention America sat out almost 40% of WWII until attacked by Japan....

In the eyes of Europeans and most of the world, George Bush's administration looks dangerously aggressive, dominated as it is by petrohawks and new-conservative ideologues linked to Israel's far right. These little Mussolinis have no time for diplomacy or multi-nationalism. No wonder a recent Pew Research poll found that formerly favourable ratings of the U.S. have plummeted in 19 or 27 nations surveyed. It seems at times that President Bush is even more eager to bomb Paris than Baghdad. In fact, the administration has been treating France like an enemy, rather than America's oldest ally and intimate friend. Neo-conservatives even accuse France of anti-Semitism, a disgusting slander.

Doing the right thing Far from being an enemy, France has been doing what a true good friend should do: telling Washington its policy is wrong and dangerous, unlike the hand-kissing leaders of Britain, Spain and Italy, who crave Bush's political support, or the East European coalition of the shilling, ex-communist politicians pandering to Washington for cash. Seventy percent of British, and 90% of Italians and Spaniards oppose Bush's crusade. France's President Jacques Chirac speaks for an overwhelming majority of Europeans and, indeed, the world's people, in urging the U.S. to opt for diplomacy and UN inspections over a war that will not be worth the loss of a single American soldier, not to mention tens of thousands of Iraqis and chaos across Misopotamia. So, too, warns the great and wise Pope John Paul II.

The contrast between France's reasoned diplomatic response and Bush's belligerent behaviour could not be more stark. As is the dignified, logical tone set by President Chirac and Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin compared to the bullying low-brow, locker-room talk issuing from the White House that has seriously damaged America's reputation and image around the globe.

Last week Turkey's new parliament, chosen in the first truly democratic election in memory, followed Europe, courageously rejecting Washington's bribes and demands that U.S. ground forces be allowed to attack Iraq from Turkish territory. Washington's churlish response - withdrawing its bribes, threatening punishment - contrasted curiously to Bush's claims his goal in Iraq is bringing democracy to the Mideast. Democracy, it seems, is fine so long as it does U.S. bidding. Inconveniently, Turkey's people and democratic government voted a resounding No to war. How long the Turks can resist intense pressure from the U.S. and its friends, Turkey's hard right generals, remains to be seen.

Bush's crusade against Iraq will go on with or without Turkey. The war will be akin to throwing a grenade into a huge hornets' nest. France, which lives next to the Arab world and has 5 million Muslim citizens, warns an invasion and occupation of Iraq will roil the entire region, spark more terrorism, and hit Europe with a dangerous backlash. But Bush couldn't care less, as he would say.

While Bush prepares war against demolished Iraq, he is ducking the surging nuclear confrontation with North Korea, which, unlike Iraq, truly threatens North America. Outrageous dereliction of duty over Korea, obsessive warmongering against Iraq, crude, aggressive behaviour worthy of Leonid Brezhnev's Soviet Union, threats against the UN, a $400-billion deficit that will infect the world with inflation, and damage to America's reputation - such are Bush's "accomplishments" to date. Who needs enemies with world-class blunderers like this in charge?

America's friends and neighbours, led by France, the mother of diplomacy, rightly warn the steroidal Bush administration to halt its rush to war. President Chirac and Foreign Minister de Villepin deserve the Nobel Peace Prize. Americans owe France an apology, and a hearty "merci mon ami." (End of Mr. Margolis' column)

COMMENT (by Ron Gostick - Mar. 11/2003): First, a few words respecting Mr. Margolis's high regard for France's diplomacy in this critical period triggered by pro-war forces. France and Germany, as major powers in the European Union, naturally do not look with favour upon a war 'next door' in Iraq, as Washington plans to move into the Middle East to establish hegemonic and geopolitical control of that whole strategic area and its oil resources, and ensure that the Israeli state alone has a monopoly of weapons of mass destruction in that part of the world. It seems that spontaneously, and with little or no planning or organization, an anti-war movement has sprung up and into action by the peoples around the world. Sensing this rising ground swell of opposition to a mad 'rush to war' and a possible Armageddon of death and destruction, many prominent people and political figures around the world have joined the forces for peace rather than war. And in recent weeks, our own Prime Minister seems to have joined and is playing a prominent role in this movement.

Following are a few notes and observations respecting the world's precarious situation in general, and our PM's role in particular.
The Toronto Sun, Feb. 14/2003, published a report captioned "PM Bombs Bush." Here are the opening paragraphs:

"CHICAGO (CP) - Prime Minister Jean Chretien dropped a foreign policy bombshell last night, saying much of the world doubts America's motives as it barrels towards war with Iraq. "In a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations, a respected foreign policy think tank, the PM said a war could lead to Washington fatally undermining the United Nations. " 'The price of being the world's only superpower is that its motives are sometimes questioned by others,' the Prime Minister said in prepared remarks. " 'Great strength is not always perceived by others as benign. Not everyone around the world is prepared to take the word of the United States on faith.' "Chretien's speech marked the first time Canada expressed suspicion of the Bush administration's motives for resorting to war to topple Iraqi strongman Saddam Hussein. …"

The National Post, Feb. 27/2003, published a front-page reported "Bush Wants To Remake Mideast." Following, are excerpts:

"WASHINGTON - ... George W. Bush yesterday sketched out his vision of a region remade by democracy and peace and no longer a terrorist threat. " 'The world has a clear interest in the spread of democratic values, because stable and free nations do not breed the ideologies of murder; they encourage the peaceful pursuit of a better life,' the President, standing in front of a backdrop of U.S. flags, said. ... " 'A new regime in Iraq would serve as a dramatic and inspiring example of freedom to the other nations of the region,' Mr. Bush said, turning to soaring rhetoric as he envisioned ending Saddam Hussein's 'nightmare world' and transforming an expanse stretching 'from Morocco to Bahrain and beyond' with peace, liberty and democracy so that the region no longer poses a threat to the rest of the world. ... "Mr. Bush's vision has made many U.S. allies in the region, most of which are sclerotic monarchies or repressive republics, fearful of their own disenfranchised people catching the democracy bug from a remade Iraq. Skeptics note that if free elections were held in countries ranging from Saudi Arabia to Egypt, the current pro-American governments would probably be replaced by Islamic zealots. …"
The NP report went on to outline the hundreds of billions a war and then occupation of Iraq would cost the U.S. Treasury -- (which is already running up a huge deficit! - Ed.) -- and noting that: "While the President waxed optimistic about reshaping the Middle East, Hamid Karzai, the President of Afghanistan, was in town warning that the United States should make sure it does not forget its still unfinished job of rebuilding the country that served as a launching pad for the Sept. 11 terrorists. " 'It would be very unwise to think that it's okay to reduce attention to Afghanistan,' Mr. Karzai said... "There is reason for his disquiet. "There are reports of Taliban and al-.Qaeda fighters gathering in the wilds of Afghanistan and Pakistan for a spring offensive against his still shaky government. Poppy growing is rampant, warlords are still powerful, the new central army is tiny and aid lags far behind government needs. …"

'Where do you stop?' The Toronto Sun, Mar. 1, carried a report under the above caption. Here are its opening paragraphs:

"MEXICO CITY - Prime Minister Jean Chretien had a dire warning yesterday for world leaders - if they fail to block the U.S. bid to oust Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, they could be next. " 'I think there are very grave consequences when we try for a regime change,' Chretien said during a press conference in Mexico yesterday. " 'And if you start changing regimes, where do you stop? This is the problem: Who is next? Give me the list. I'm all right, I've got 11 months to go.'

The National Post, Feb. 2/2003, carried a report captioned "No moral grounds for war, Graham says." Here are two excerpts:

"Bill Graham, the Foreign Affairs Minister, yesterday rejected British Prime Minister Tony Blair's assertion that the western world is morally obligated to invade Iraq. "Colleen Beaumier (Liberal MP for Brampton-West Mississauga), who recently travelled to Iraq as a one-person Canadian peace delegation, said she is opposed to war on Iraq because it would be a war on children - children who have been denied medicare and food through sanctions. " 'Saddam Hussein was everybody's friend when we gave him those weapons of mass destruction to go after Iran. But to say we're doing this for the human rights of the Iraqi people after what we've done to them after all those sanctions is complete and utter nonsense and nobody believes that,' she said.

The National Post, Feb 28, carried an "analysis from Kuwait City" by Peter Goodspeed. Here are excerpts:

"The Arab world is in almost total disarray as the leaders of 22 Arab states begin to gather in the Egyptian Red Sea resort of Sharm el-Sheikh this weekend to discuss the possibility of a war against Iraq. "They fear what a war will do to Iraq. They fear what a war will do to themselves. But even more, they fear what will happen after the war. "A few months ago, Amr Moussa, the Egyptian Secretary General of the Arab League, bluntly warned war in Iraq 'will open the gates of hell.' ... "They (the Arab leaders) fear all the talk of democracy and regional transformation may be mere camouflage for other agendas. "They suspect Washington may be more interested in their oil or in a permanent military presence in their region. "And they suspect that the United States and Israel, two states who they feel have humiliated the Palestinians in particular and the Arab people in general, for decades, may 'reshape' the Middle East to suit their own interests. "They also fear the United States, as an unparalleled superpower, may now be adopting the doctrine of pre-emptive war and the anti-terrorist policies of Israel - policies which, they say, have failed to bring either peace or security to the region. …"

Press reports claim that 94% of the Turkish population oppose war with Iraq. Yet, because the country is staggering under an overload of debt, with interest rates reportedly as high as 60%, the Turkish government is haggling with Washington and the International Monetary Fund for grants and loans in exchange for allowing the U.S. to use its country as a military base - and, if the price is right (reportedly about $US34-billion), possibly joining in the war against their neighbour!

COMMENT: There are a few points that need to be clearly reiterated, including the following:
The suggestion by President Bush that those who are not for his pro-war policy is against the United States is nonsense. The publisher of this Service, and those associated with it, are opposed to Washington's present pro-war foreign policy; but no way are we opposed to or in any way dislike our American neighbours. On the contrary, they are a kind, generous and friendly people. We love visiting the U.S., and we enjoy and welcome American visitors to our country. They are great neighbours and friends.
What we are opposed to is the war fever of Bush, and those behind and around him who guide him on policy, and would involve us in war with an Arab state which has been no threats to its neighbours the past ten years and is no threat to us in the Americas but which could inflame and result in war with the whole Islamic world - without ever addressing the real grievance their world has with U.S. Middle East policy.

As for Canada: We suggest our PM immediately step down from office, be nominated for this year's International Peace Prize which he can cherish as his Great Legacy the rest of his days. While we and our new administration get busy and begin building up our own national defence forces so we can start carrying our own weight in the defence and future of this Continent.

On Target Vol. 53 - No. 3 Supplementary Section No. 1 March/April, 2003

All around the Crown Commonwealth

It may be significant that every member country of our Crown Commonwealth has an On Target publication: Australia, a 4-page weekly newsletter; New Zealand, a large 16-or-20-page bimonthly newsletter; the U.K., a semi-monthly 20-30-page booklet-style newsletter; and here a 4-page section of this now-bimonthly Service.
* For the information of our readers, we are reproducing in the following columns almost the complete issue of the February 7th edition of the Australian On Target, published in Melbourne The Australian League of Rights.

THOUGHT FOR THE WEEK: "Society is a continuum. It exists through time. It does not consist solely of those who happen to be alive at any given moment; it is both an inheritance and a bequest. This continuity is expressed through the universal moral law which is superior to both transient 'majorities' and transient power. It's overthrow by power-seekers, however temporary, can only result in catastrophe. As St. Thomas Moore, Lord Chancellor of England, put it, 'England is hedged thick with laws, which, if they were uprooted, such a gale would blow through the realm that no man could stand.' Charles I stated the same thing regarding the rights of the subject: 'Their liberty does not consist in making laws, but in having Law.' ... What is the remedy for our present predicament? It is not to seek to defeat power with power, to cast out Beelzebub by Beelzebub .... Power properly resides in the person ... and nothing is so effective as individual initiative. Certainly the collectivists both fear and hate individual initiative, it is indeed the one thing they do fear."
Anthony Cooney, introduction to "The Moral Implications of Centralized Power," by E.D.Butler 1970

Free trade talks stumble on
by Jeremy Lee

By the time this is read, Trade Ministers from 25 countries will be meeting at the Imperial Hotel in central Tokyo to map out this year's agenda and programme for the "Doha Round" - the World Trade Organization's pursuit of 'free trade' in about every area of life. Looming large on the agenda are the two issues of free trade in agricultural products, and the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), which would open up every area of domestic services - health, transport, water, sewerage, welfare, electricity, road-building and other public works, communications, etc. - to "international competitition," including Competition Commissions and accountancy standards. The cheapest tender, including labour required, would, of necessity, be compulsory. Any idea of Australian projects for Australians would be abolished.

Add to this list international conformity in taxation and budgets and the need for national governments would no longer be required. The proposal is so "globally totalitarian" that few have heard of it and those that have find it hard to believe it could be an actuality. But governments, with one eye over their shoulders at increasingly restless electorates, are shuffling their feet. Among the most starry-eyed is Australia, which stopped protecting its farmers and industries long ago, and imagine it's only a matter of time before giants such as Europe, the US and Japan follow our enlightened lead. All of which is hard to sustain when we look at the massive subsidies the United States has agreed to pay its farmers - over $US300-billion for the next ten-year period - while it keeps up the rhetoric of 'free trade' for the rest of us.

Japan, too, is digging in its heels. The Australian Financial Review (3/2/03) said:
" …In Japan, the peak farm lobby, the Central Union of Agricultural Co-operatives (Zenchu) has flatly rejected any US and Cairns Group proposals for sharp reductions in farm tariffs, including a top-tariff cap of 25 per cent. "If that happens it would destroy Japanese agriculture," says Zenchu's manager of international policy, Masahiro Konno. 'From the standpoint of agriculture associations in Japan, we cannot find any midpoint between our stance and the stance of exporting countries; and we think we should not make any compromise ...' "

Asked about the status of the farm talks, an Australian official simply sighs and says: 'We are shaping up for a stalemate'…" Sacrificing another great Australian industry Australia's cane industry, which stretches from northern New South Wales almost as far as Cooktown, has produced prodigiously for well over 100 years since long before Federation. It has supplied Australia's sugar needs and exported onto the world market. It has prevented other countries selling sugar in Australia with tariff protection, thus keeping our own industry viable. All that is changing. At a time when world sugar prices have tumbled, and giants such as Brazil are stepping up their already massive cane plantations, the rug is being pulled out from under our own producers, threatening to destroy them.
Three recent reports, including a Federal Government report and Queensland Government report, have recommended 'de-regulation' (that trendy 'free market' word).

No support for 'inefficient' farmers! Currently, the world price for sugar is half the average world price of production. Other sugar-producing nations make up the difference with subsidies. Australia won't. Of Queensland's 6,400 cane farmers about one-third (2,700) have an average debt of $428,000 each, and the industry's total debt is $1.2-billion - about the same as the total value of the crop. Already, the crisis in the cane industry is having a drastic effect on towns and industries. Five years ago, some 160 cane harvesters a year were being sold. By 2001 this had been reduced to 15, and in 2002 only nine. It is estimated that 50% of the farmers in the Burdekin were unable to pay their last water bill due to financial hardship. The farmer receives a miserly 16 cents a kilogram for sugar which retails to the consumer for $1.36.

World wheat prices are tumbling again. Wool is at the highest level for some time, but drought-beset producers are unable to take advantage. The drought has turned a slow destruction into a quick catastrophe. One hopes that it will shake Australia into the realization of how important its remaining farmers are. But there is no sign of such realism yet. They are still the sacrificial lambs on the altar of insane global policies which few nations take seriously except our myopic rural politicians.

Australia's trade deficit Our trade deficit in December almost touched $3-billion - our biggest ever. Imports were up 12 per cent and exports down 2 per cent. The Government's response? The Weekend Australian (2-3/2/03) reported:
"... The Federal Government said strong imports were a sign the Australian economy continued to outpace the rest of the world ... " Pardon me? Does this mean that if our imports had been 24% higher, rather than 12%, we'd be better off still?

As a reflection of this marvellous state of affairs a report by two sociologists, Peter Dawkins of the University of Melbourne, and Editor-at-large of The Australian, Paul Kelly, shows one Australian child out of every six living in a household with no employment. Conscious of how well the nation is doing, a report in The Australian Financial Review (3/2/03) told us that the average Coalition Federal MP spent $129,000 in 2001 on newsletters and stationary. Four backbenchers spent more than $300,000 each, no doubt to keep their electorate informed about what a marvellous job they were doing. In 1992-93 the average amount spent was about $12,000. They can't have had as much good news to report!

Liberals against war The former President of the Liberal Party, John Valder, has launched a movement called "Liberals Against War," with one or two other former front-benchers. One wonders whether there are any current Coalition MPs who are opposed to the war. We'll never know, unless a miracle happens. They are all subject to strict party orders that they must keep their consciences to themselves and vote as they are told. Simon Crean (Opposition leader -Ed.) was asked whether he would move for a "conscience vote" in parliament over a war against Iraq. He declined, preferring the same 'party solidarity' as the Coalition. It makes an absolute mockery of the parliamentary process.…

Financing Destruction Whatever happens, it's not going to come cheap. Under the heading BUSH WAR CHEST TO LEAVE U.S. IN THE RED, The Australian (5/2/03) reported:
"The US will run record deficits for the next two years and remain in the red for a further three under a $US2.23-trillion ($3.345-trillion Cdn. -Ed) budget plan published by President Bush yesterday. "The White House proposals seek a massive and sustained boost to military spending, accelerated tax cuts and a squeeze on most domestic programs. Over the next five years the US budget deficits will total $US1.08-trillion, starting with $US304-billion this year and $US307-billion next year ... The money is earmarked for elite special operations forces, more unmanned drones, new warships, a boost in military pay and more testing of the President's planned missile defence shield …"
So far we haven't discovered whether this added budget spending will include fridge magnets for all American households!

World's Falling Birthrate The United Nations releases a report every two years on projected global population growth. The latest report has surprised the doomsayers by releasing the news that the world's population has peaked and is beginning to fall. A Sunday Times (UK) report told us:
"…In 2000 the average fertility figure for 2050 was estimated at 2.1 children - the replacement level - but recent shifts have been so remarkable that the forthcoming report for 2002 will reduce this projected world average to 1.86. The current Western average is 1.6. Alarmist predictions of a world population of more than 10 or 11 billion by mid-century would not be reached ..." And George Bush is doing his little bit to help!

Multicultural-Immigration Time-Bomb For some electors, the policy of 'multiculturalism' has produced some bitter fruits and is now being examined closely. It has dawned on them there is in their midst a 'multicultural-migration time-bomb,' which has been 'ticking away' during the politically correct years. Newspapers now see fit to publish letters on the worrying subject, something that would have been unheard of ten years earlier. Many are questioning why these policies were allowed to be pursued in the first place. Some ask why were migrants encouraged to form enclaves and why were they not encouraged to assimilate as were the post-WW2 immigrants? Electors need to be asking their federal politicians these questions and demanding answers.
The League (The Australian League of Rights, which is the publisher of their On Target - Ed.) warned that Australia was heading for disaster, pointing out there was, as yet, no country in the world that demonstrated 'multiculturalism' worked successfully. It is tempting to say 'we told you so!' Especially when one remembers all the smears and personal attacks League members endured for daring to publicly question the bipartisan multicultural policies of the major parties. (End of the Australian On Target)

COMMENT: You will have noted that Australia's problems are in the main, the same ones that we have here in Canada. And the same is true for New Zealand and the United Kingdom. We might note, too, that all our publications support a common policy, published each year in our Christmas issue: upholding our Christian heritage of freedom and responsibility, property rights, accountability of public institutions, and full equality of every citizen before the law.

The Nuclear Bomb Hoax
By Imad Khadduri

The following report was published in a 'bulletin' which accompanies the foregoing Australian On Target newsletter:

... Imad Khadduri's response to Colin Powell's speech to the United Nations from Yellowtimes.org is surely worthy of circulation. A MSc in Physics from the University of Michigan and a PhD in Nuclear Reactor Technology from the University of Birmingham, Khadduri worked with the Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission from 1968 until 1998. He was able to leave Iraq in late 1998 with his family. He now teaches and works as a network administrator in Toronto. He has been interviewed by the Toronto Star, Reuters, and various other news agencies in regards to his knowledge of the Iraqi nuclear program. The following is an edited version of his response:

"In his speech in front of the UN Security Council on February 5, 2003, Colin Powell did not offer any viable new evidence concerning Iraq's nuclear weapon capability that Bush and his entourage continue to wave as a red flag in front of the American people to incite them shamefully into an unjust war. "On the contrary, the few flimsy so-called pieces of evidence that were presented by Powell regarding a supposed continued Iraqi nuclear weapon program serve only to weaken the American and British accusations and reveal their untenable attempt to cover with a fig leaf their threadbare arguments and misinformation campaign ...
"Powell, in a theatrical query, asked why the Iraqi scientists were asked to sign declarations, with a death penalty if not adhered to, not to reveal their secrets to the IAEA inspection teams. Exactly the opposite is true. The four or five, as I recall, which I read in detail, held us to the penalty of death in the event that we did not hand in all of the sensitive documents and reports that may still be in our possession! "Had Powell's intelligence services provided him with a copy of these declarations, and not depended on 'defectors'' testimonies who are solely motivated by their self-promotion in the eyes of their 'beholders,' and availed himself of a good Arabic translation of what these declarations actually said, he would not, had he in any sense been abiding by the truth, mentioned this as 'evidence.'
"This is exactly the cause of the second untruth brandished by Powell:
that Iraq is hiding or is still working (it is hard to discern from the tangle of his word what is really meant) on its 'third' uranium enrichment process by referring to the cache of documents in the house of Faleh Hamza ... this was well documented and explained in our final report to the IAEA inspectors in late 1997, which they confirmed and referred to in their own final report on the matter... "Arrogantly, the Americans are wondering why other scientists are not coming forward. Even worse, Blix chose to wave this torn flag in front of the Security Council in his report on Monday, January 27, 2003. This fact alone was one of the reasons I have decided to come out. Even Mohamed Baradei, the head of the IAEA, chided Blix the following day for not taking into account IAEA's knowledge on this matter, which was that the 3000 pages of documents were financial statements and Faleh's own lifetime research work, and had nothing to do with the nuclear weapon program. That is why he kept them at his home.

"It was becoming apparent that Blix was succumbing to the American pressure tactics and leaned backwards to provide them with flimsy 'proof' at the expense of his supposed fairness and mandate as a UN official. Powell grasped even this straw. "Powell only accused but did not provide any evidence that Iraq had tried to get nuclear grade fissile material since 1998. He vainly gave the impression that everything was set and readily waiting for just this material to be acquired and the atomic bomb would be rolling out the other door. He did not bother to ask himself the following questions: "Where is the scientific and engineering staff required for such an enormous effort when almost all of them have been living in abject poverty for the past decade, striving to simply feed their families on $20 a month, their knowledge and expertise rusted and atrophied ... "Where is the management that might lead such an enterprise? The previous management team of the nuclear weapon program in the Eighties exists only in memories and reports... "Where are the buildings and infrastructure to support such a program? The entire nuclear weapon program of the Eighties has been either bombed by the Americans during the war or uncovered by the IAEA inspectors ...
"Powell should only take a look at North Korea's atomic weapon facilities, or perhaps even Israel's, to realize the impossibility of hiding such structures with the IAEA inspectors scouring everything in sight ..."

Enterprise Report Vol. 53 - No. 3 Supplementary Section No. 2 March/April, 2003

"How're things in Alberta?"

Neil Wilson of Nanton, Alberta, national chairman of The Canadian Constitution Committee, is in touch with Canadian in every area of our country. Following, is a copy that came to our attention, of a reply he sent to a contact in Ontario recently. February 20, 2003

Once again Bob, hello: Bob, you asked, "How're things in Alberta?" Well Bob, I don't know if the media in your part of the country has picked up on it or not, but there is a growing sentiment in these parts that Albertans are about to challenge their position within confederation. I know of five groups that are actively campaigning to petition the Alberta provincial government to hold a referendum on the issue of remaining within our co-called confederation. The leader of the Western Canada Concept party (Doug Christie - Ed.) has dropped his initiative to maintain a separatist party in favour of heading up a movement that encourages the citizenry to sign a petition to present to the Alberta Legislature. The Albertan pulse is quickening. The Alberta Independence party is quiet but still shadow boxing. A professor at a local university has started a forum with resolutions/demands that will be entered at a PC meeting in central Alberta at the end of next month. A group out of Drayton Valley has set an agenda to do the same. And a political activist who is involved in the directorship of a PC constituency intends to be present at the same meeting.

All have one demand of the Provincial Government, and it is this: "The Provincial Government is to assume the exclusive authority over those issues that are local and private in nature!" Such as property rights, civil rights, healthcare, direct taxation, etc. This will be accomplished by directing the Provincial Government to procure acknowledgement from the central government of Canada of these constitutionally legitimate jurisdictions. Failing that, the Provincial Government will be directed to hold a provincial referendum under the provisions of the recent (federal) Clarity Act.
Bob, you and I have beaten this jurisdictional drum for the last eight years, and I am glad to have the company, but this activity is not likely to be taken favourably by your province of Ontario. If other provinces come to their senses and assume their constitutional authority or disassociate from the Union, Ontario might find itself with a foreign border on three sides. Metro-Toronto has more representation in the House of Commons than the whole of Alberta, and more influence as to what happens to Albertans than we do. We will rectify that one way or another, believe it. Regards, Sir, Neil E. Wilson

COMMENT (by Ron Gostick): I quite understand the constitutional concerns and frustration of Albertans and other Western provinces. But I shall reserve further comment at this point.

Imagine life without Ottawa

Now let's hear from a prominent B.C. spokesman. Gordon Gibson, a former West Coast Liberal leader and presently a leading columnist, is author of the following piece in the Feb. 26th issue of National Post:

For a bit of innocent fun in these troubled times, imagine that suddenly, overnight, Ottawa vanished - with that government disappeared from the face of the Earth. I propose this thought experiment to reassure Andrew Coyne, my troubled friend in these pages, that the world would not end. Andrew waxed anxious and much wrought a few days ago at the allegedly separatist - if that's what they were - musings of Alberta's Ralph Klein. Oh woe, what would become of us were the hegemony of Disneyland-on-the Rideau to end? Well, I think the sun would come up the next day and perhaps shine more brightly than ever.

Envision it: Poof, Ottawa is gone. Of course by this I mean no harm to the flesh-and-blood creatures who live there, even the sleazier inhabitants of the patronage and chequebook world of lower Liberalism. Let us look simply at the central apparatus of the state. The Senate might be converted by the last subsidized HRDC grant into an attraction - a wax museum, say, and the House of Commons to a Chamber of Horrors. Nothing much changed there. Canada would overnight lack a foreign policy and a military - again, little new. (We might rent some policies and troops from the United Nations, that institution which, for some reason, many Canadians hold in such high regard.) For the rest, imagine that the remaining provincial governments were to simply adopt existing federal laws and responsibilities as required, with treaties between them reflecting existing policies on equalization, transportation, free trade, individual mobility, the payment of pensions and the like. Put the Charter into each provincial constitution and the Supreme Court into limbo, there to converse eternally with the Governor-General. Allow the provinces with actual oceans to look after the fishery, and people with actual native Indians for neighbours to address that policy tragedy. Adopting the U.S. dollar would put paid to the Bank of Canada as well as protect our assets from further decline, and the federal surplus extracted from the taxpayer would revert to the people rather than being dispensed as pork in pursuit of votes and the interests of friends of the government.

Are we having fun yet? You bet. Life in this world would, in fact, go on - and do so very well. In due course things would gradually change as one province or another started doing things differently than the Natural Governing Party would have done them, but so what? There is a very high probability that the changes would better suit local needs. And we would never, ever, hear about Quebec separatism again. The purpose of all of the above is to make the point set out by the British historian Arnold Toynbee some 40 years ago as follows: "A national state is not a God. It is a public utility, like a gasworks."

To put it another way, Canada as such is not important. What is important is the welfare of Canadians. If a reorganization of this vast chunk of real estate would further that to the overall benefit, well and good. (And I suspect Mr. Klein would, indeed, have a real foreign policy.) This is not an argument against the state. Such constructs may be only public utilities, but they are extremely important ones. Anyone who has thought much about the relationship between the individual and the collective knows that a well functioning collective is absolutely basic to the self-realization and happiness of the individual. It's just that no particular form of the collective is sacred. It is "whatever works." And if Canada could be made to work better through deep decentralization (say), then we should not fear that topic.

There is a caveat, of course. You do not change such basic things as constitutions lightly, because you face such fearsome things as the Law of Unintended Consequences and the Law of Equal and Opposite Reaction, not to mention the law of Mr. Murphy. In addition, one of the great virtues of the state is the fact it is in the position to enter into very long-term contracts with the citizen, and almost all human beings put a high value on stability and order. Indeed, while in Canada where the state is sovereign Parliament is legally entitled to do revolutionary things every day, and government risks the wrath of the people should change be too rapid. That said, it is an interesting fact that the thought of experiment I have described would hardly affect our daily lives at all, except for the better. Maybe we should try a little bit of it. I think I would start by actually listening to the provinces rather than the "take it or leave it" approach - a quote from the first ministers' conference - of the Chretien era. If that is not too radical an idea. (End of Mr. Gibson's column)

COMMENT: With the exception of the suggestion that the provinces should put the Trudeau Charter in their constitutions, there seems to be a lot of common sense in Mr. Gibson's thinking.

Refederated or not, Canadians face a huge problem with their Charter and their judges.

Now, for an informed, small-c conservative view from Central Canada, we turn to Ian Hunter, professor emeritus in the faculty of law at the University of Weston Ontario. Professor Hunter's column, captioned as above, is reprinted from the March 3 issue of Citizens Centre REPORT magazine.

One incendiary element fuelling the desire of some Canadians if not for separation then at least for a different kind of federation, is the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Now I realize that the Charter is popular. Public-opinion polls show that Canadians love their Charter (mainly because few know either what it says or how it works). For most of Canada's existence it was poets, playwrights and novelists who struggled to define the Canadian identity. Now, thanks to the Charter, it is not the poets, playwrights or novelists who define us - it is our omniscient judges. Let me illustrate. In its decision in Chamberlain v Surrey Board of Education, handed down four days before Christmas, Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin told us exactly what we are: "Canada is a diverse and multicultural society, bound together by the values of accommodation, tolerance and respect for diversity." As far as I can discover, this absolutist definition is the only absolute allowed in our otherwise postmodern era. In Canada, she wrote, courts "must exercise a fairly high degree of supervision over decisions involving tolerance and diversity," even where, as in this case, the decision in question was made by duly elected school board trustees.
So, thanks to our Supreme Court's intervention, Kindergarten and Grade 1 children of Surrey, B.C. will not be deprived of such enduring works of literature as Asha's Mums (1990) and One Dad, Two Dads, Brown Dads, Blue Dads (1994).

As in its previous Trinity Western University decision, the Supreme Court majority emphasized that, in our free country, trustees may hold whatever private religious convictions they choose, so long as they are scrupulous to ensure that such beliefs do not influence their actions. It reminds me of the Russian poet Tanya Khodevich writing of the Stalinist years: You can pray freely But just so God alone can hear. Madam Justice McLachlin wrote: "The view that a certain way of living is morally questionable cannot become the basis of social policy." But what is the Criminal Code, Madam Justice, except a compendious statement about ways of living that are morally unacceptable? With respect, I would revise the chief justice's definition: "Canada is a postmodern society, bound together by no coherent principle beyond interest-group politics, where all who do not bend the knee before the great god Equality - and blessed be her name! - will gradually be herded by courts and human-rights commissions into the lion's den."

Kevin Michael Grace has pointed out that the words "tolerance" or "intolerance" appear 14 times in the Supreme Court's decision. The word "diversity" appears 21 times; "diverse" 10 times. Not one of these words appears in the B.C. School Act. But our judges have long since declined to take direction from the statutes they are duty-bound to interpret. If judges don't like what is actually in the statute, they "read it out"; if "tolerance" and "diversity" are not mentioned in the statute - no problem, just read it in.

It is difficult to maintain fictions like "democracy" or "the rule of law" in the face of such realities. So where does this leave us? If more Christian litigation before thoroughly secularized courts is not the answer, then what is? To that question, I have no convincing answer. One thing I know is that in searching for an answer, little assistance will come from the institutional churches, at least not from the mainline Protestant denominations. They made their peace long ago with Caesar, dropping any pretence to a prophetic voice. Christians owe allegiance to Caesar, it is true, but we have it on the authority of Jesus Christ (Luke 20:25) that Christians owe their primary allegiance to God. Christians have, as it were, dual citizenship; temporarily they reside in the city of man, but they belong eternally to St. Augustine's city of God.
Christians in Canada cannot escape their dual citizenship; they are of the country that is called Canada, but of the kingdom that is called Christ.

In Canada today, Caesar, having extracted his demands, insistently and from the bench demands that we render up what is rightfully God's. The question that conscientious Christians, of whatever denomination, must now ponder is this: have we reached, or are we in imminent danger of reaching, the point where Christians can no longer give tacit consent to the existing governance? Or, to put it another way, if the law of Canada increasingly demands what the law of God forbids, can faithful Christians continue to comply? That is a large and disturbing question, and I do not raise it lightly. But given the demonstrated animus of the current judicial regime, and particularly the Supreme Court of Canada, against Christian believers, a showdown between Church and State is inevitable.

At the end of his influential book, After Virtue, Alasdair MacIntyre pointed out that there came a day in the history of the Roman Empire when it lost the allegiance of its citizens: "Men and women of good will turned aside from the task of shoring up the Roman imperium and ceased to identify the continuation of civility and moral community with that imperium." For Christians in Canada, it seems clear that we have reached that point. (End of Professor Hunter's column)

COMMENT: In the three foregoing articles we have three outstanding Canadians, all highly respected and of great experience in their fields of endeavour, and each from a different section of our country - and each one of them is telling us, indeed warning us, that we must have fundamental change if we want a happy, united and prosperous society in our Canada of the future. None of them wants force or violence. But all of them want essential and constructive change. Can sensible, loyal Canadians afford to disregard their warnings?

Slowing the rush to war

Michael Coren is a prominent columnist for the Toronto Sun, an author of note, and has a regular program on a Toronto television station. Following, are excerpts from a column he wrote for the Feb. 22 Sun. I have to admit I was wrong. On my television show the evening before the huge peace marches across the world last weekend I said they would achieve very little. I misjudged the mood of the people of Europe, North America and Australia. Goodness me, even the Iraqi government didn't believe the figures when they were told that tens of millions of people had protested against war. Let me say immediately that I give no significance to the usual suspects. The types who turn up to every protest, who boast of having marched against everything and everyone. The hard left, the soft minds. They annoy rather than impress. No, it was the number of people who wouldn't otherwise have come together to speak out against anything that so startled me. If you like, ordinary people. Families, community groups, church organizations, charities, seniors. The weather in Canada was dreadful on the day, but still the numbers were overwhelming. In Britain, the strongest ally of the United States, about a million people marched through London. Now London is my home town, and I've seen some pretty large demonstrations. But a million! It was the largest political gathering in British history. Such a phenomenon simply cannot be ignored. Indeed, it hasn't been by British Prime Minister Tony Blair. His leadership is in danger ... No leader can govern a country when so many people are so opposed to a major policy. In the United States, there were similar numbers, if spread around the nation. Something else is worth noting. Only in the U.S. are many church leaders in support of (or not actively opposed to) war with Iraq at this stage. In the rest of the world, the denominations are united in calling for patience. ... It was GK Chesterton who stated it most clearly and cleverly. "Any man who says 'my country right or wrong' is no patriot. It is like saying 'my mother, drunk or sober.' " In other words, blanket approval of the actions of a loved one is not love at all but either blind adoration or simply apathy. (End of the Michael Coren excerpts) In short, Speak Up! patriot -- before the arsenist torches another conflagration.

A Special Report Vol. 53 - No. 3 Supplementary Section No. 3 Mar.-Apr., 2003

The following essay by Israel Shamir, dated 3-14-3, was received by us on the Internet on Mar. 14. Mr. Shamir is a highly respected Israeli Jewish journalist of great experience. - Publisher, CIS.

A new spectre haunts America. It enters the well-protected boardrooms of newspapers and banks, shakes the deep foundations of its towers. It is the spectre of glasnost: the dark secret of Jewish power is out. Just recently it was 'third rail,' touch-and-die, deadly dangerous to mention, certain end to career. Just recently Joe Public snapped his TV from an eminence with an Israeli passport to a member of a Jewish think-tank, and muttered to himself:
Surely it is just a coincidence that so many important and largely unelected people in our country happen to belong to this small minority group. Surely it is just a coincidence that they belong to different parties but reach the same conclusions. Surely it is just a coincidence that ninety per cent of American foreign aid goes to their cousins in prosperous Tel Aviv. Surely it is just a coincidence that they run our newspapers, television, cinema, universities. Anyway, we are not allowed to notice this elephant in our sitting room.

Only rare desperados comment, as Edgar Steele did on Rense.com: "The silence in America concerning Jews is simply deafening, isn't it? The old adage has it that, when visiting a foreign country, to ascertain who really runs things, one need determine only who is spoken about in whispers, if at all." Judged by this Measure, the Jews rule supreme. Indeed, when I referred to 'Jewish media lords' during a UNESCO conference in the summer of 2001, the audience's hearts missed a beat. The yet-unfought War on Iraq changed this.

The American Ultimatum date was set on 17 March, the Jewish feast of Purim. 1991 saw destruction of Iraqi armies and death of 200,000 Iraqis. Too many coincidences for a purely American war. The Americans peeped into the bottomless abyss of World War Three and woke up from their generation-long stupor. Thus the first victim of the Iraqi War is not truth, but the strongest taboo in the West. A Democrat member of Congress, usually a most docile specimen, one James Moran, dared to tell his supporters: "If it were not for the strong support of the Jewish community for this war with Iraq we would not be doing this." He was immediately slapped by a Jewish overseer: "It is simply stunning to hear Representative Moran make such accusations," said National Jewish Democratic Council Executive Director, Ira N. Forman. "First, a number of the current leaders of the antiwar movement are Jewish, and Jewish organizations have clearly not been at the forefront among those groups actively and stridently supporting a war on Iraq." Forman had spoken, and the media reported and amplified his view, and Moran duly recanted, slapped. But he is not the only one.

The secret is out, and like the secret of King Midas and his long ears, it is being sung now from coast to coast, despite the frantic efforts of the organized Jewish community to clamp the lid back on the boiling cauldron. Kathleen and Bill Christison,
(1) two ex-CIA experts, exposed the link between right-wing American Jews and the Bush Administration. Edward Said, the most celebrated American thinker of Palestinian origin, stated the cause: "An immensely wealthy and powerful republic has been hijacked by a small cabal of individuals, all of them unelected and therefore unresponsive to public pressure."
(2) He was seconded by courageous Herman, Neumann and Blankfort. These Americans of Jewish origin object to the unelected, anti-democratic Jewish power as they would object to any disproportionate minority power. Their presence, as they were not afraid of the anti-Semitic label, was instrumental in turning the tide and saving the intimidated majority from its browbeating.

Edward Herman, the author of Manufacturing Consent (together with Noam Chomsky), wrote of "the powerful pro-Israel lobby in the United States, which advances Israeli interests by pushing for U.S. aid and protection to Israel, and, currently, by pressing for a war against Iraq, which again will serve Israeli interests. This lobby has not only helped control media debate and made Congress into 'Israeli occupied territory,' it has seen to it that numerous officials with 'dual loyalties' occupy strategic decision-making positions in the Bush administration."

Jeffrey Blankfort, the Californian who defeated ADL (Anti-Defamation League) in court and made Foxman pay heaps of dollars for his espionage against activists, took an important next step and rejected the views upheld by Noam Chomsky, Joel Beinin and Stephen Zunes, for these older radicals play down the crucial importance of Jewish power. Jeff Blankfort notices the roots of the Rapture Evangelical'' meteoric rise in the US. This obscure sect would never have left its lair in remote Dixie, but for the Jewish media lords. Jeff noticed that when Black Entertainment Television was taken over by Viacom, whose owner, Sumner Redstone (né Murray Rothstein), was recently described in the New York Times as the world's biggest media owner, he eliminated BET's news program and began running evangelical Christian infomercials for Israel. Blankfort's list of 'Jews in media'(3) enables an understanding of the secret of Jewish charm, and it can be compared with a similar extensive list by Prof. Kevin MacDonald of California State University.

The Iraqi War, and even more its linkage with Palestine, became the litmus test of Jewish power. Organized Jewry pushed for war and at the same time denied its involvement. Thus in New York City, the City council rejected an anti-war resolution, and only 12 of its 51 members were for it. This is not strange for heavily Jewish New York. Indeed, a Democrat, Rep. Robert Jackson, said it in a most straightforward way: "New York City is the home away from home for most Jews; and many members of the Jewish community think (the war is) in the best interests of the state of Israel." Jackson was certainly right, but a Jewish newspaper (4) (surprisingly or not, all newspapers in New York area are Jewish) condemned him for racism: "(He claimed that) not only do the Jews run New York City, but they've cowed their opponents into silence. Jackson could as well call New York Hymietown."

This response is remarkable for its typically Jewish logic. First, the opponent's rational argument is perverted and distorted, then it is aligned with opprobrium; and at the last stage, the opponent is destroyed forever. That is one of the secrets of Jewish might: the Jews enter a dialogue berserk-like, with great vehemence, quite foreign to the Socratic style. While sane people are satisfied with quoting their opponent and fighting his arguments, madmen (for berserk is a temporarily-mad individual) go for the jugular. Now, Bill Keller of the NY Times read the Riot Act to the Americans. He kindly allows that 'most of the big Jewish organizations and many donors are backing the war' but insists that 'the idea that Israel's interests are driving one of the most momentous shifts in America's foreign policy is simple-minded and offensive.' Well, Keller is certainly being paid for his convictions by a Jewish media lord, and one of the nastiest, Arthur Sulzberger Jr. the owner of the NY Times, the Boston Globe and a host of other publications. This undermines the possible veracity of Keller's words. Let something similar be written in a thoroughly non-Jewish newspaper!

But alas, there are no important media outlets in the US that are not owned or controlled by Jews. Surely a coincidence? Do not bet on it. A few days ago, in the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, an important all-Jewish conference on anti-Semitism took place under the auspicious aegis of the Sasson Centre. The talk given by the French Jewish historian Simcha Epstein dealt with pre-war France but pertained more immediately to America. This is what Epstein said: "The pre-war anti-Semites said that the Jews of France organized a syndicate secretly bankrolling and subverting the press. And what did the Jews say at that time? They said: 'Of course not! No, it's a lie, of course not! We are not engaged in conspiracies!' And what did the historians and the Jewish historiography coming afterwards say? 'Of course not! It is anti-Semitic drivel!' But we know now from Jewish sources that before the WWII the Jews of France secretly financed the press. "Since the end of 19th century, there was a secret Jewish organization, well financed, which bought and bankrolled newspapers. Sometimes it took over existing newspapers, which suddenly became pro-Dreifus because they received Jewish subsidies. Newspapers were created especially by the Jews. Two very important papers of the period, one was called Les Droits de 1'Homme, the Rights of Man, was financed by the Jews, and L'Humanité, which was the Socialist and then the Communist newspaper of France, was also financed by Jews. I say this on the authority of Jewish sources of course.

"And this brings us to a dramatic dilemma of historiography. Saying this, saying what I said, is something horrible and unacceptable, because it means that the Jews organized a conspiracy and secretly bought the media, or part of the media. That was precisely what the anti-Semites said at that time, and what they still say today. And we know now from Jewish sources that the allegations were true, that there was a Jewish clandestine activity of bankrolling the press." End of quote.

Some people perceive every suggestion that Jews are able to act together as a mad conspiracy theory. Let them read and reread this report by a Jewish historian made at a Jewish conference. If it is proven now beyond any reasonable doubt that the Jews of France secretly bought and subverted French media for many years in order to distort the national discourse and eventually push unprepared France into the horrible and unneeded World War Two, is it impossible to consider that the Jews of the US have secretly taken over their national media and are now pushing the US into a horrible and unneeded World War Three?

Actually there is no need for secrecy. One of the chief Zionist ideologists, Zeev Hefetz (ex-spokesman of PM Begin), wrote in an American daily: "Disarming Iraq is only a start in Middle East" as "the Arab and Iranian (sic!) cultures" are "irrational" and that nothing can be done, short of war, to "improve the collective mental health of Arab societies."(5) Certainly this massive 'disarmament' will be carried out by American soldiers, though the commands will be given by the Jewish chicken-hawks roosting in Pentagon.

As for reasons for the war, they were eloquently stated by a keynote speaker at a conference on anti-Semitism by Yehuda Bauer, the director of the Holocaust Memorial Institute Yad va-Shem in Jerusalem: The Jews are not a nation, neither a religion, he said. They are a civilisation, and they have their civilising mission. They cannot tolerate the competing civilisation of Islam, as they could not tolerate Christendom or Communism. That is why the war with Islam is unavoidable. But the war is avoidable. Even today, at minutes before H-hour, the war is avoidable. And if fire is unavoidable, let the Jewish advisers of President Bush be fired. Let this Purim see the great Exodus of the "Wolfowitz Cabal" from the Pentagon.

Excluding the clinical possibility of his actual zombification, G.W. Bush should be able to understand that he has been misled by this powerful, unelected minority. They cannot deliver what they promised. Moreover, their own days at the helm of the Republic are numbered. They over-estimated their abilities, and pushed too hard. As the frog of La Fontaine, they can blow up. Bush still can do a U-turn, and save himself and his country. In a way, today's America reminds of Russia in 1986, at the beginning of glasnost. After the Soviet citizens were allowed to learn who rules them and how, the days of the Soviet regime were counted. Glasnost gave place to perestroika. Now, for the first time in a generation, Americans are allowed to see the men in power, the toxic combination of the Right-Wing Democrats of Lieberman, the Republican neo-liberals, the Neo-Cons and plain Con-men. The Iraqi War brought them forward and presented them in clear light. Now is the time to undo their hold. …

That is why American patriot forces should not wait for the next elections, or for the end of war. They must act now, by calling the war off. They have an enemy, but he is not in Iraq. What is called for is a new American revolution, on a par with ... the abolition of slavery, with de-monopolisation of the discourse; that is of media and universities, for starters.

In the beginning of the Twentieth Century, Americans undid the mighty Standard Oil. They created new anti-monopoly laws and terminated the threat to democracy. This achievement could be repeated now.

Notes: (1) Kathleen and Bill Christison, 'A Rose By Another Name: The Bush Administration's Dual Loyalties,' Counterpunch, Dec. 13, 2002.
(2) http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2003/628/op2.htm
(3) Here is enough sampling to indicate that it is not: First of all, Sumner Redstone (né Murray Rothstein) owns $8-billion worth of Viacom, which gives him the controlling interest in CBS, Viacom, MTV worldwide (Brian Graden, president), and most recently he bought Black Entertainment Television and proceeded immediately to cut down its public-affairs programming. The president of CBS is Leslie Mooves, the great nephew of David Ben-Gurion. Michael Eisner is the major owner of Disney-Capitol Cities, which owns ABC. David Westin is president of ABC News. Although it has lost viewers, Nightline host Ted Koppel is a strong supporter of Israel. Lloyd Braun is chair of ABC Entertainment. And there is the perennial Barbara Walters. Neil Shapiro is the president of NBC News. Jeffrey Zucker is the head of NBC Entertainment and Jack Myers has some important post there, as well. Although Rupert Murdoch of Fox is not Jewish, Mel Karamazin, the president of the corporation is, as is Peter Chernin, the second in command at Murdoch's News Corps. … Jamie Kellner is chair and CEO of Turner Broadcasting. Walter Issacson is News Director of CNN which also has Wolf Blitzer, host of Late Edition, Larry King , Paula Zahn, and Andrea Koppel … Jordan Levin is chairman of Warner Bros. Entertainment. Howard Stringer is chair of Sony Corp. … Joel Klein is chair and CEO of Bertelsmann's American operations, the largest publishing conglomerate in the world. Mort Zuckerman, chair of the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish American Organizations, owns US News and World Report and the NY Daily News. Arthur Sulzberger, Jr. publishes the NY Times, Boston Globe, and a host of other publications. Marty Peretz publishes the New Republic, which is unabashedly pro-Israel, as is William Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard. Donald Graham, Jr. is chair and CEO of Newsweek and the Washington Post. Ron Rosenthal is Managing Editor of the SF Chronicle and Phil Bronstein the Exec. Editor. Columnist William Safire, Tom Freidman, Charles Krauthammer, Richard Cohen, Jeff Jacoby, are among the most widely syndicated columnists. There are a number of widely syndicated talk show hosts such as Michael Savage (ABC) on more than 100 stations, Michael Medved, 124 stations, and Dennis Prager who has an Israeli flag on his website. Others include Ron Owens, Ben Wattenberg, and former ZOA official Jon Rothman, all in San Francisco on ABC. In Hollywood, which was founded by Jews, there is of course, Stephen Spielberg, David Geffen, and Jeffrey Kranzberg of Dreamworks, Eisner of Disney, Amy Pascal, chair of Columbia, and many more. … And that's just for starters.

From the boss to the delivery it's an impressive list. While they certainly can't be put in the same box when it comes to Israel, they more or less guarantee that there will be limits to any criticism they may make of Israel."
(4) NY Post 22.02.02
(5) November 12, 2002 The New Haven Register (END)

(Source: https://www.rense.com/general35/poawer.htm) (End of the e-mail received)

COMMENT- Two closing thoughts: 1. The identity, background and credentials of the author, Israel Shamir, together with the documentation he presents, speaks for itself respecting credibility. 2. Don't be blaming rank-and-file Jewish or American people for the mess some of their leaders have landed us in. These ordinary people are as much victims as we all are. But it does present a challenge we all must meet and successfully resolve.