The Price of Israel

The following article by the highly respected American columnist, Charley Reese, reached us by e-mail on Dec. 18. Its contents should be of concern to every member of the Western World at this critical hour. -- Publisher, CIS

The Christian Science Monitor published in its Dec. 9 edition a story about Thomas Stauffer, a consulting economist, who said recently that the total cost of U.S. support for Israel since 1973 is $1.6-trillion, or twice the cost of the Vietnam War. This is relevant because the Israelis have just demanded from the U.S. taxpayers another $4-billion to cover the cost of their oppression of the Palestinians as well as an $8-billion loan guarantee. Ladies and gentlemen, there isn't a state in the union that is not facing a financial crisis, and if the U.S. government caves in yet again to the Israeli lobby on this matter, it will be prima facie evidence of mass insanity or of the worst corruption since the administration of Ulysses S. Grant.

Stauffer made his speech in a lecture commissioned by the U.S. Army War College for a conference at the University of Maine. He has converted past aid into 2001 dollars and counts this cost as follows: Israel has been given $240-billion (remember, this is current dollars), while Egypt has been given $117-billion and Jordan $22-billion as bribes for signing a peace treaty with Israel. In 1973, when the Arabs attacked Israel in an effort to recover territory taken by Israel in the 1967 war, U.S. support for Israel triggered the oil embargo. This, according to Stauffer, kicked off a recession that cost $420-billion of output; the boost in oil prices cost $450-billion; the necessity to build a strategic oil reserve, another $134-billion. He points out that the United States has already guaranteed $10-billion in commercial loans to Israel and $600-billion in housing loans, and he expects the U.S. Treasury will end up paying for all of these. He goes on and on listing more costs, direct and indirect. Israel, for example, is the only recipient of foreign aid allowed to spend a sizeable percentage of the money on Israeli products rather than American. It's the only country from which our defense contractors are required to buy a certain amount of Israeli-made equipment. It is the only foreign country that gets its aid in a lump sum and then invests it in U.S. bonds so that taxpayers not only make an annual gift to Israel but also have to pay Israel interest on that gift.
The fact is that the Israeli government and its powerful lobby have taken advantage of the good-heartedness of the American people.

The American people are generous, but never generous enough to satisfy Israeli demands for more of our people's hard-earned tax dollars. It is one thing to provide emotional support. It is one thing even to guarantee coming to the defense of another country if it is attacked. It is quite another to undertake the permanent subsidy of a foreign country, something our federal government does not even do for its states. We have all kinds of problems in the United States that need attention. It's time to tell the Israelis "We can no longer afford you."

I highly recommend that you read the complete story in the Monitor. It should open your eyes to a problem that will not be fixed unless the American people make their voices heard in Washington. If we are going to be forced to subsidize a foreign country, I would rather it be France. We can at least get a decent meal in France and enjoy the art treasures collected there. Furthermore, France would not involve us in its quarrels. It's America's policy of absolute support for Israel and Israel's cruel treatment of the Palestinians that are a big part of our problem with terrorism. We stand convicted in the eyes of the Muslim world of practicing a double standard by condoning Israel's human-rights violations and protecting it from international sanctions. That, too, is a terrible price the American people can no longer afford to pay. (End of Mr. Reese's article)

COMMENT: My only comment is that no comment is necessary! Mr. Reese has simply exposed, in temperate language yet with great clarity, the criminal injustice of Washington's pro-Zionist Middle East policy.

Zionist Richard Perle: 'Inspections or Not, We'll Attack Iraq'

The Christian News, a Lutheran journal published in New Haven, Missouri, under the above caption in its December 2 issue, published the following report:

War, Whatever Exclusive By Paul Gilfeather, Whitehall Editor
George Bush's top security adviser last night admitted the U.S. would attack Iraq even if UN inspectors fail to find weapons. Dr. Richard Perle stunned MPs by insisting a "clean bill of health" from UN chief weapons inspector Hans Blix would not halt America's war machine. Evidence from ONE witness on Saddam Hussein's weapons programme will be enough to trigger a fresh military onslaught, he told an all-party meeting on global security. Former defense minister and Labour backbencher Peter Kilfoyle said: "America is duping the world into believing it supports these inspections. President Bush intends to go to war even if inspectors find nothing. "This makes a mockery of the whole process and exposes America's real determination to bomb Iraq."
Dr. Perle told (British) MPs: "I cannot see how Hans Blix can state more than he can know. All he can know is the results of his own investigations. And that does not prove Saddam does not have weapons of mass destruction." The chairman of America's defense policy board said: "Suppose we are able to find someone who has been involved in the development of weapons and he says there are stores of nerve agents. But you cannot find them because they are so well hidden. "Do you actually have to take possession of the nerve agents to convince?
We are not dealing with a situation where you can expect co-operation." Mr. Kilfoyle said MPs would be horrified at the admission. He added: "Because Saddam is so hated in Iraq, it would be easy to find someone to say they witnessed weapons building. "Perle says the Americans would be satisfied with such claims even if no real evidence were produced. "That's a terrifying prospect." (End of The Christian News item)

Canada's weakness and bad attitude

The following article by Barry Cooper appeared on the Opinion Page of the December 14th issue of the St. Petersburg Times in Florida.

"Every nation," said Winston Churchill, "must have an army, either its own or somebody else's." His words bear on the fundamental question of Canadian security policy today: Because of Canadian military weakness, the upper half of the North American continent is increasingly going to be secured not by Canadians and Americans working together, but by Americans alone, acting under American commanders and on behalf of American interests. Canadians have lost a lot of sovereignty because of military weakness; we are about to lose a lot more.

Historically, Canadians took care of domestic security well enough, and relied on the British army and the Royal Navy for external defense. But from the summer of 1940, when Britain appeared to be on the verge of defeat by Germany, to the present, Canada has relied on the United States for help to guard the approaches to the country and to the continent. Until the past generation or so, Canada has been capable not of defending itself, but of not being a burden to the United States. Today, however, Canada has provided Washington, D.C., with an unnecessary problem: how to deal with a friendly country that is rapidly running out of defense capability and doesn't see its weakness as a problem.

Canada's current defense posture is not encouraging. Consider first the country's best-equipped and most battle-ready service, the navy. Ottawa's long-standing naval strategy is built around the concept of a flexible task group that can operate in combination with other navies or, rather, with the only one that counts for Canada, the U.S. Navy. Canada has three 30-year-old destroyers and a fourth tied up in British Columbia because there are not enough sailors to put her to sea. In addition, four surplus submarines have been purchased from the Royal Navy, but there have been problems making them serviceable. Canada also owns two old and rusty support ships. About the only blue-water vessels that are approximately equal to their U.S. equivalents are a dozen Halifax-class frigates. They are still relatively up-to-date - except that they carry Sea King helicopters. At 40-plus years of age, these dangerous helicopters are considerably senior to the pilots who fly them.

Worst of all, half of Canada's surface fleet and trained sailors are committed to Operation Apollo, Canada's military contribution to the international campaign against terrorism. But the current levels of commitment are simply not sustainable. There are no plans to replace the old ships. There is no slack to take the frigates out of service to upgrade them. By conservative estimates, within five years, Canada will be unable to mount any task group deployments.

Matters are even worse in the other two services. The number of operational CF-18 jet fighters has declined from 122 some 20 years ago to about 80. One reason so many Air Canada pilots are so young is that they took early retirement from the air force. Worst of all is the army. It needs 24 new fire control support technicians a year to operate certain wheeled armored vehicles. Over the past four years, a total of four technicians have been recruited. Canada has no first-class tanks.

The reason for the sorry state of the Canadian Forces is obvious: Successive Canadian governments spent the "peace dividend" long before there was a hint of peace. Currently, defense expenditures constitute 1.1 percent of the gross domestic product, which places us just ahead of Luxembourg. The United States spends Canada's defense budget in less than a week. Moreover, the Americans have noticed.

For U.S. defense planners, the Canadian Forces are past the point of no return: Canada may as well not have an army, the air force is minute and the navy will soon enough be rust. In short, Americans today can no longer neglect Canada and trust Canadians to do their duty. It is one reason why the animosity between official Washington, D.C., and official Ottawa is nearing an all-time high. For the United States, Canadians have become weak freeloaders with a bad attitude. Machiavelli explained what all this means for Canada-U.S. relations: "Among the evils of being unarmed," he said, "it causes you to be despised." Canadians are going to have to get used to being despised. (End of Mr. Cooper's article)

COMMENT: Barry Cooper, the author of the foregoing article, is a political science professor at the University of Calgary, and a recognized authority on military defence and national security questions. Our Prime Minister, in these closing months of his regime, seems obsessed with finding a lasting 'legacy' to mark his years of governance. He seems not to realize that he has already in his long years in parliament and the office of Prime Minister, created his 'legacy': sleaze, corruption and one-man dictatorship. Professor Cooper's analysis of our present pitiful national defence mess is powerful evidence of this part of the PM's legacy.

Spirit of Fragmentation

Three months ago we received the following
NEWS RELEASE from a new Western Independence Party of BC, headquartered in Nanaimo, B.C.

The Western Independence Party of B.C. (WIPBC) has announced that it has formed the province's newest political party, and is now ready to begin a membership drive. WIPBC believes that the province should be a land of freedom, equality, hope, and prosperity. The best assurance of this will be to empower the citizens of this province to control their government, ensuring responsibility and accountability. The Canadian federal system has proven unsatisfactory and fiscally unsupportable. British Columbians need to control their own destiny, and to manage their resources for their own benefit.

The party has been in its formative stage for almost two years, and has established five constituency associations to date, just by word of mouth. We now believe that enough preliminary work has been done to permit us to go public with the objective of substantially increasing membership. As the government of British Columbia WIPBC would:
1. Establish a Constituent Assembly to draft a B.C. Constitution, for approval by the citizens, that will define and limit the rights and powers that the citizens grant to the B.C. government, and will ensure the equality of rights and responsibilities of all British Columbians. Only if the citizens develop and approve this Constitution will it meet the test of a true constitution as defined in Black's Law Dictionary, namely: "a Charter of government deriving its sole authority from the governed."
2. Implement direct democracy, based on the Swiss model, for the citizens of British Columbia, in order that all aspects of governance in the province are subject to the will of the people.
3. Simultaneously negotiate changes in the relationship of B.C. with the Federal government and the rest of Canada, with the aim of gaining fair and equitable treatment and representation for all the citizens of B.C. and Canada.
4. If those negotiations fail, a WIPBC government would recommend to the people that a referendum be held on the issue of independence for B.C. On the question of separation, the last thing WIPBC wants is for the province to have to separate, but the first thing WIPBC wants is for the people of B.C. to be given fair and equitable treatment within Confederation, which will require massive changes in the way the country is governed.

Then, for some twenty years or more, Victoria lawyer Doug Christie has headed up the Western Canada Concept Party - a party with a vision of a four-western-province program for a new country. This movement enjoyed some success in support during the Trudeau government and its unpopular National Energy Program which invaded provincial resource jurisdiction and development. Ottawa's Kyoto policy could have similar political side effects.

And reports indicate that there are at least two semi-separatist/independent groups considering party action in Alberta. The highly respected Report magazine in its Dec.16th issue ran a major report captioned "Separatism surges in Alberta" with a subheading "A new poll shows soaring support for both independence and joining the U.S."

For most of the past three decades the Quebec government was Separatist, in a referendum came within about one percent of voting to separate, and actually formed the official Opposition in the Federal Parliament for several years in the 1990s! I mention this rather widespread spirit of disenchantment with the status quo political situation in our country, and demand for reform and change, because unless there is constructive reform in our parliamentary institutions and meaningful accountability in politics and respect for our Constitution, sooner or later there will be a separation or fragmentation in either east or west.

There is a 'Third Option'! The present political/constitutional situation in our country today, as I see it, is a deteriorating mess. Even our majority governing federal Liberal government is in complete disaray, devoid of both vision and principle. It's only 'strength' is the disunity, weakness, and lack of vision and principle of the opposition. A continuation of this status quo situation will finally fragment completely our nation. In other words, both present options - status quo and separatism - lead eventually to the same option: fragmentation and break-up. But this need not be our fate. There is another way - a third option. A way that includes: accountable government, respect for our Constitution and provincial jurisdictions and sovereignty. In our next issue, we hope to launch a series which will challenge this issue.
Remember: All that is necessary for the triumph of evil, is that good men and women do nothing.

Supplementary Section No. 1 January, 2003 Fed gun registry -- the scam of the century

The Dec.15th Toronto Sun, under the caption "Registry a boondoggle from the word go," published the following column by its highly respected columnist Peter Worthington

Auditor General Sheila Fraser mostly blames the fiasco of ballooning costs of gun registration on the government for withholding details from Parliament, but also on MPs for not checking spending programs more diligently. While her skepticism of the government is valid, she's a bit off base regarding Parliament and gun registration. If the Commons and the public had paid even minimum attention to Garry Breitkreuz, the Canadian Alliance MP for Saskatchewan's Yorkton-Melville riding, they'd have known virtually everything Fraser discovered in her audit - including the $1-billion overspending. Since the day firearms registration was introduced in 1995, Breitkreuz has been on top of events and issued warning after warning on the waste, costs and basic foolishness of the whole program, which will not appreciably curb violence or gun crimes. No one knows more about the subject or has been a more adamant critic than Breitkreuz - not because he's a gun nut, but because the whole program has been an unmitigated, costly disaster from the start, when its original cost was estimated at $2-million - $119-million to implement, $117-million from registration revenues.

Breitkreuz research is mostly from open sources, so if he could document abuses, other MPs could too. Reality is, the government cares not a whit if the gun registry works, it just wants it implemented. Without Fraser's intervention, there was no end in sight for spending. One billion dollars was only the start, with no qualitative effects on reducing gun crimes. That's not opinion, that's fact. Ostensibly, reducing violence is the motivating factor in gun registration, which some critics see as leading toward confiscation, as in Britain and Australia.

Consider: last year there were 554 homicides in Canada - 31% of victims shot, 31% stabbed, 22% beaten to death. "Trying to register all the firearms in Canada doesn't make any more sense than trying to register all the knives and baseball bats," says Breitkreuz.

Handguns easy to find In gun killings, 64% were committed with handguns - which the RCMP has been registering since 1934. In fact, handgun homicides have jumped from 49.8% in 1991 to 64.3% in 2001, indicating that acquiring illegal handguns is no problem for those who want to use them. One need look no further than the Jamaican gang shootings in Toronto recently - some provoked by little more than an insult - to realize how easy it is to acquire handguns. In Jamaica, gang and political shootings are almost a cultural quirk.
Registration of hunting rifles and shotguns becomes mandatory on Jan. 1. Homicides from long guns have decreased from 38% in 1991 to 26.9% in 2001.

Breitkreuz has turned up another oddity about homicides in Canada last year: 65% of accused killers had a criminal record, as did 51% of their victims. Most from both groups, perpetrators and victims, had convictions for violent crimes. These statistics indicate a preponderance of gang or criminal killings. Also, most killers and their victims had consumed alcohol and/or drugs at the time of the murders.

More evidence that gun registration is irrelevant in curbing violence, which is a social malaise. Of the estimated 3.3 million gun owners in Canada, 1.4 million had failed to register by this October, meaning most will automatically become criminals on Jan. 1. This figure of gun owners is almost certainly inaccurate. In the mid-1970s, Statistics Canada reckoned there were some 16 million guns in Canada. Today, the government claims there are only 7.9 million guns, 4.5 million of which have already been registered. Who's kidding whom? What happened to the vanished 8.1 million firearms?

More boondoggle. Breitkreuz notes that if the $1-billion wasted on gun registration had been spent to alleviate the critical shortage of MRI machines (Magnetic Resonance Imaging), Canada would have proportionately as many as the U.S. As it is, people have to wait months, even in Toronto, for an MRI appointment - often in the wee hours of the morning. Right now there are 110 MRI machines in Canada - 2.5 per million of population, while in the U.S. there are 8.1 MRI machines per million people. To match America, we should have at least 254 MRI machines which cost $4.2 million each to buy, install and operate. The money Canada has already spent (wasted) on gun registration could have purchased over 200 MRI machines, and made those agonizing waits by patients a mere memory.

Forty years ago, Canada's homicide rate involving firearms was roughly what it is today, even though homicides in general have dropped to 1.3 per 100,000 of population compared to 1.8 per 100,000 at a time when long guns didn't have to be registered. In other words, the whole gun registration ploy is as unnecessary as it is wasteful, and always has been. Instead of registering all firearms, it might be more useful to keep track of those who use illegal guns to commit crimes and kill people. (End of Mr. Worthington's column)

Mr. Worthington's assessment of this Federal government's gun registration ploy, which we were told by irresponsible Minister Rock(head) would cost taxpayers a net expenditure of only two million dollars, but which has already cost nearly one billion dollars, is indeed the crime of the century when we consider this huge misuse of tax-dollars while such essential services as medicare and national defence and security are starving for funding. But even that's not the full extent of this Rockhead of a crime. Even a moron would know that criminals are not going to register their weapons. So we end up with only the loyal, patriotic gunholders who bothered to endure the cost and trouble of registering rather than turning in or disposing of their guns, now in the registry.

In short, about all Minister Rockhead and his bureaucracy has managed to accomplish:
1. Misuse and waste the tax-dollars and time of Canadian taxpayers.
2. Cause the disarming of a major section of our law-abiding citizenry who have up to now constituted a voluntary but important component of our national defence capability.
3. While causing the disarming of this large law-abiding section of Canadians, our Rockhead politicians haven't even as much as inconvenienced our criminals with their arsenals.
Is it really any wonder our governments are nearly all in a mess and in debt!

Is Fed Immigration Policy now threatening Medicare?

A "C-FAR" E-mail, dated Dec. 1, sent out a message by Paul Fromm, director of Canada First Immigration Reform Committee, on the subject "Aged Immigrants Impose $27-Billion Burden on Medicare." Here it is in full:

"If our health care system is staggering, one major reason is our immigration (policy). Not only are we importing large numbers of people with AIDS, hepatitis and histories of having had little medical attention in the past, but, through the vote-buying family-reunification scheme, Ottawa is admitting large numbers of parents and grandparents of immigrants and refugees already here. While seniors constituted 17.7 per cent of Canada's population in 1996, they composed 27 per cent of the foreign-born. Today, the gap would be even larger. So much for the widely promulgated nonsense that we're bringing in young strapping foreigners to toil hard and pay taxes to support us all in our old age."

The E-mail then reprinted the following piece by columnist Diane Francis, captioned "An unconscionable $27B health bill - Elderly immigrants equal big tax burden," from the Nov. 28th Financial Post:

"After months and many tax dollars, Roy Romanow's healthcare report will conclude that Ottawa do nothing except earmark all future budget surpluses to pay for soaring healthcare costs. "But Ottawa could save billions of dollars without reducing the quality or accessibility of healthcare to Canadians. All it needs to do is stop Immigration Canada from importing needless healthcare overheads into the country.

"Each and every year since 1986 elderly healthcare users, equivalent to the size of the population of Cornerbrook, Nfld., (roughly 20,000), have immigrated here. Between 1986 and 2000, some 210,000 parents and grandparents were let into the country. This flow is so significant that it could have added as much as $27-billion since 1986 to the overall cost of healthcare in Canada.

"For instance, a Health Canada study found per-capita healthcare spending on seniors is more than three times that for the population as a whole, or roughly $8,068 for those 65 years of age or older. "Assuming those 210,000 are 65 years or older now, and still alive, they have added to provincial health budgets some $1.694-billion each and every year. Over 15 years, this would have totalled $27-billion.

"This enormous and unnecessary cost began to accumulate in 1986 when Ottawa decided to make the sponsorship of relatives a priority over points-assessed, economically independent immigrants. This opened a floodgate. "Before 1986, the rate of sponsorship was only one sponsored relative for every eight immigrants. Since then, nearly half of all immigrants to the country have been sponsored relatives, with the elderly representing roughly 10% of the overall total. "And it's getting worse.

"In 2001, Immigration Canada increased the number to 21,261 parents and grandparents, or 12% of that year's total immigration. Put another way, 21,261 old immigrants automatically adds another $170-million in medical costs. "No other country does this. "If families in Australia or America want to reunite, they must pay their medical expenses and buy private insurance coverage. "But in Canada, taxpayers are forced to pay the medical bills of strangers and are inconvenienced because of the addition of tens of thousands of newcomers to the medical system. "Why has no one in Ottawa seen this and done something about what amounts to a thoroughly unjustifiable and unnecessary cost? "It's because Ottawa sets immigration and health policies, then shoves all the costs down to lower levels of government, namely the provinces.

"Another problem is that this Immigration Canada healthcare burden primarily hurts only three provincial budgets - Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia. This is because virtually all immigrants end up in Toronto, Montreal or Vancouver. And it's in these cities that healthcare budgets, and lineups, are growing faster than the economy or tax revenue. "Even for those who believe Canada requires large-scale annual immigration, there is no justification for importing tens of thousands of elderly strangers who rack up a tab in the billions for surgical, emergency, hospital, nursing and pharmaceutical goods and services. Besides, letting 20,000 old people into Canada each and every year contributes to the demographic challenges the country is said to face.

"Older immigrants also cause another problem. Their entry contributes to the deficit in skills by taking 21,000 places away from young educated or skilled workers who want to immigrate. "Apologists defend elderly immigration as a humane practice that helps immigrants become more productive by allowing them to import their extended families. "I agree. "There is nothing wrong with letting immigrants bring in their mothers, fathers or grandparents. But the rest of us should not have to pay their medical expenses. They should pay their own way, especially since these parents and grandparents have not, and likely will never, contribute a single dime of taxes to help pay for the country's healthcare system

"It's interesting to note that while Ottawa is willing to shove these healthcare costs down the throats of provincial health departments, it does not extend its own generosity to these people. Elderly immigrants cannot get pensions unless they have lived here for at least 10 years after retirement. "Clearly, the federal government must rein in Immigration Canada and prevent these people from coming or else force them to pay their own medical costs. "Failing that, the provinces should refuse to provide free healthcare to any elderly newcomer and provide, instead, healthcare insurance for them to buy."

COMMENT (By Ron Gostick): From the foregoing E-mail, it's evident that both Mr. Fromm and Ms. Francis are very knowledgeable on Canadian immigration matters, and their views well founded and clearly expressed. For which they are to be commended. However, while on this subject of Immigration, there are a few constitutional points that I would like to comment upon:
1) Section 95 of our present Canadian Constitution, on Page 35, it states that Immigration policy is a joint Provincial and Federal jurisdiction. But it doesn't appear that the provinces have too much say at the present time.
2) In the mid-'90s, as a result of the work of this Service, there was considerable interest in constitutional questions and problems, especially in Alberta and other western provinces; and about that time in southern Alberta a citizens group began studying and researching this question seriously, and in the late '90s formed the Canadian Constitution Committee - which, after about another two years of serious work, in 2000 published a Draft Proposal for a Revised and Updated CANADIAN CONSTITUTION 2000 A.D. This past year, after distributing throughout Canada some thousands of this document, inviting and studying feedback, the Committee made several constructive improvements to its original Proposal, and issued a second edition of its proposed CANADIAN CONSTITUTION 2000 A.D.
Its Section on Immigration, on Page 19, reads as follows:

"Immigration"

"75. In each Province the Legislature shall make Laws in relation to Immigration into respective Province, but no such Law shall infringe upon the right of movement of any Canadian Free Citizen within Canada.

"76. The Federal Government shall make Laws respecting Immigration relative to the following requirements:
1. Documentation of Citizenship from Parent Country.
2. Immigrant's Legal Status from Parent Country.
3. Status of Political Climate in Parent Country.
4. Employability and Self-sufficiency of Applicant.
5. Health Status of Applicant.

"77. Every Provincial Government shall Annually advise the Federal Immigration Department as to the number of Immigrant Workers, listing Skills, Trades and Qualifications, that are needed within that said Province for the following Twelve Months."

The Canadian Constitution 2000 Proposal brings Immigration requirements and policy much more under Provincial jurisdiction and control. After all, its in the provinces where nearly all immigrants will live and receive most of their services - education, medical service, welfare, etc. This Constitutional Proposal brings jurisdiction and policy-making back to the provinces, closer to the people where their lives are lived.

Canada, more and more this past half-century, has become a top-down dictatorship until today it's almost a one-man dictatorship. This 'Constitution 2000 Proposal' is designed to restore genuinely democratic, constitutional, responsible and accountable government - at all levels.

Now available We now have in stock a supply of the Canadian Constitution Committee's second printing (slightly updated) of its Draft Proposal for a Revised and Updated CANADIAN CONSTITUTION 2000 A.D. This printing includes a high-quality reproduction of all the provincial and territorial flags (full colour) of our country, a valuable Index, a most valuable mini-booklet of introduction, and a few clarifications and improvements in text. The regular price of this new printing is $10 a copy. But until Feb. 28, its sale-price is $8. Those who purchased a copy of the first printing may have a copy of this new printing for only $5.

Supplementary Section No. 2 January, 2003

Bush's Mideast plan : Conquer and divide

FLESHERTON, Ont., Dec. 9/2003 - This morning's Toronto Sun, under the above caption carried the following column by its eminent Foreign Affairs correspondent Eric Margolis.
It was this past weekend that the UN received its inspectors' report re. alleged Iraqi weapons of war, and he deals with the Middle East problem. Here is his report in full:

NEW YORK - Arms inspections are a "hoax," said Tariq Aziz, Iraq's deputy prime minister, in a forthright and chilling interview with ABC News last week. "War is inevitable."
Aziz is the smartest, most credible member of President Saddam Hussein's otherwise sinister regime - my view after covering Iraq since 1976. What the U.S. wants is not "regime change" in Iraq but rather "region change," charged Aziz. He tersely summed up the Bush administration's reasons for war against Iraq: "Oil and Israel." Aziz's undiplomatic language underlines growing fears across the Mideast that U.S. President George Bush intends to use a manufactured war against Iraq to redraw the political map of the region, put it under permanent U.S. military control, and seize its vast oil resources.

These are not idle alarms. Senior administration officials openly speak of invading Iran, Syria, Libya and Lebanon. Influential neo-conservative think-tanks in Washington have deployed a small army of "experts" on TV, urging the U.S. to remove governments deemed unfriendly to the U.S. and Israel. Washington's most powerful lobbies - for oil and Israel -are urging the U.S. to seize Mideast oil and crush any regional states that might one day challenge Israel's nuclear monopoly or regional dominance. The radical transformation of the Mideast being considered by the Bush administration is potentially the biggest political change since the notorious 1916 Sykes-Picot Treaty in which victorious Britain and France carved up the Ottoman-ruled region.

Possible scenarios under review at the highest levels:
Iraq is to be placed under U.S. military rule. Iraq's leadership, notably Saddam Hussein and Aziz, will face U.S. drumhead courts-martial and firing squads. Iraq will be broken up into three semi-autonomous regions: Kurdish north; Sunni centre; Shia south. Iraq's oil will be exploited by U.S. and British firms. Iraq will become a major customer for U.S. arms. Turkey may get a slice of northern Iraq around the Kirkuk and Mosul oil fields. U.S. forces will repress any attempts by Kurds to set up an independent state. A military dictatorship or kingdom will eventually be created. The swift, ruthless crushing of Iraq is expected to terrify Arab states, Palestinians and Iran into obeying U.S. political dictates.

Independent-minded Syria will be ordered to cease support for Lebanon's Hezbollah, and allow Israel to dominate Jordan and Lebanon, or face invasion and "regime change." The U.S. will anyway undermine the ruling Balath regime and young leader, Bashir Assad, replacing him with a French-based exile regime. France will get renewed influence in Syria as a consolation prize for losing out in Iraq to the Americans and Brits.
Historical note: In 1949, the U.S. staged its first coup in Syria, using Gen. Husni Zai'im to overthrow a civilian government.

Iran a principal foe
Iran will be severely pressured to dismantle its nuclear and missile programs or face attack by U.S. forces. Israel's rightist Likud party, which guides much of the Bush administration's Mideast thinking, sees Iran, not demolished Iraq, as its principal foe and threat, and is pressing Washington to attack Iran once Iraq is finished off. At minimum, the U.S. will encourage an uprising against Iran's Islamic regime, replacing it with either a royalist government or one drawn from U.S.-based Iranian exiles.

Saudi Arabia will be allowed to keep the royal family in power, but compelled to become more responsive to U.S. demands and to clamp down on its increasingly anti-American population. If this fails, the CIA is reportedly cultivating senior Saudi air force officers who could overthrow the royal family and bring in a compliant military regime like that of Gen. Pervez Musharraf in Pakistan. Or, partition Saudi Arabia, making the oil-rich eastern portion an American protectorate.

The most important Arab nation, Egypt - with 40% of all Arabs - will remain a bastion of U.S. influence. The U.S. controls 50% of Egypt's food supply, 85% of its arms and spare parts, and keeps the military regime of Gen. Hosni Mubarack in power. Once leader of the Arab world, Egypt is keeping a very low profile in the Iraq crisis, meekly co-operating with American war plans.

Jordan is a U.S.-Israeli protectorate and its royal family, the Hashemites, are being considered as possible figurehead rulers of U.S.occupied "liberated" Iraq; more remotely, for Saudi Arabia and/or Syria.

The Gulf Emirates and Oman, former British protectorates and now American protectorates, are already, in effect, tiny colonies.

In Libya, madcap Col. Moammar Khadafy remains on Washington's blacklist and is marked for extinction once bigger game is bagged. The U.S. wants Libya's high-quality oil. Britain may reassert its former influence here.

Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia, short of revolution, will remain loyal western satraps under highly repressive, French-backed royalist and military regimes.

Yemen's former British imperial base at Aden and former French base at Djibouti will become important permanent U.S. bases.

The White House hopes Palestinians will be cowed by Iraq's destruction, and forced to accept U.S.-Israeli plans to become a self-governing, but isolated native reservation surrounded by Israeli forces. The lines drawn in the Mideast by old European imperial powers are now to be redrawn by the world's newest imperial power, the United States. But as veteran soldiers know, even the best strategic plans become worthless once real fighting begins. (End of Mr. Margolis' column)

COMMENT: Based on the past 16 months' developments, this piece by Eric Margolis deserves close monitoring, especially its last sentence.

Introducing Project Strait Gate

Taking A Stand In Front Of A Church That Takes No Stand from: We Hold These Truths, P.O. Box 14491, Scottsdale, Ariz. 85254 (480) 947-3329
This article, including the three lines above, is reprinted from the November 2002 issue of the New Times Survey journal published in Melbourne, Australia. - Editor, TCIS

Eleven conservatively dressed protesters stood along the busy boulevard in front of the fashionable First Southern Baptist Church of Scottsdale, Arizona, on Sunday morning, November 10th. They were demonstrating opposition to the Southern Baptist Convention's policy on War in the Mideast. Each protester held a prominent sign, some marking the five parking lot entrances offering complimentary literature where members arrived and departed. This may not be the first antiwar protest held at a church, but the sponsors assert it will not be the last.

Project Strait Gate Most demonstrators held large yellow and black signs identifying "Project Strait Gate" (Matthew 7:13). This passage contains a parable about a difficult path having a narrow gate at the end. Christ used these metaphors to describe the way to spiritual life, as opposed to the easy path and wide gate that leads to spiritual destruction. The sign messages included: Blessed are the Peacemakers Demand Peace Iraq? What Would Jesus Do? Choose Life, Not War

Silent Demonstration The demonstration was nearly silent without chants or bullhorns. The only conversation occurred when the Pastor, W. Berry Norwood and a few congregants spoke to the protesters about the local church's position on war. Some church members heatedly asked the obvious question, "Why are you at our Church?" They were given 12 printed pages of a research report entitled, The Source of the War Problem: Why Judeo Christians do not demand Peace, and a flier entitled Bush Wars ... Like Father, Like Son. The Pastor invited all the protesters to come inside to hear his message. Ironically, according to the program, the sermon was about "This Church and the Future." "Inside the service, a good bit of time was spent discussing the unexpected visitors. The Pastor repeated his theme many times that this church is not political and takes no position on war. But he asserted that he thought most of the members support the "Commander and Chief." He also claimed that Southern Baptist Churches are independent and therefore not bound by the positions of the hierarchy.

Growing Movement During the church's service, the protesters met for a devotional time in a neighboring parking lot. Before the day ended, new volunteers had doubled the size of the movement. The Strait Gate Co-ordinator, Terry Marshall, plans to split the group into several teams to cover two or more churches at the next Sunday. He states that only two or three well-informed persons are needed to make an effective showing at many churches.

More Information Those wishing information about participating in Project Strait Gate should contact the sponsors and ask how to get started: www.whtt.org (Strait Gate website soon) info@whtt.org (480) 947-3329.

Letter to Pastors (The following letter is being sent to area church leaders):
Dear Pastor: Project Strait Gate will soon visit your Church. This letter is about morality, not politics. Our purpose is to influence fellow Christ-followers to oppose the continued slaughter of innocent persons of every race and religion in this endless chain of serial wars that now seem to entrap America. We believe that any nation, no matter how noble its history, is doomed to mediocrity, immorality and national bankruptcy if it allows its leaders to push for one war after another. We hope you have taken a firm position for peace in our land, and we trust you have found a way to let your congregation know how you feel on this vital issue.

Strait Gate Founders Our Strait Gate founders are for the most part 3rd and 4th generation Americans who venerate the founding documents of our country. Not one of our group is a pacifist. Most have served our country honorably in the military one or more times. This writer served twice. We know that Christ's followers are responsible not only for their own children, but for all of God's creatures who are being victimized. Only Christians can be expected to understand this.
Anti-war demonstrations are erupting in record numbers all over the world, but unfortunately many are appealing to the least oral element, Washington politicians. The most moral voters in America should be found in churches. It is in the church that the education must be done, and the change for peace made.

Message of Peace A nation-wide movement has begun to visit America's churches with a message of peace and brotherly love as taught by our Savior in a similar time of war and hatred. Christ calls the leaders of the church to be "peacemakers" but many are ignoring His words. Others simply think war is too "political" to talk about. Our published report, The Source of Our War Problems: Why Judeo-Christians Do Not Demand Peace, reveals the terrible truth. It is available free to you if you request it. We also present programs about the wars in the Mideast, some based upon our own research trip to the Gaza Strip in March 2002, now available to churches.

Lack of knowledge is not forgivable in the information age. Imagine a Charlton Heston God booming out, "You say you didn't know; why do you think I gave you the Internet?" Sadly, many of America's Christian leaders have become facilitators of "Serial Wars." "Facilitator" is a term applied to those who unknowingly, often in the name of love, make it possible for an addict to conceal his addiction. The facilitator is often a wife or mother who thinks she is helping by extending sympathy when discipline is needed. Much of America's Christian Right is facilitating politicians' "serial wars" in the Mideast. In the last 13 years, a million or more innocent persons have already been killed. Killing is killing, be it an Afghan family, an Iraqi mother, Palestinian children, or an unborn American child.

Ending Serial Wars We are committed to ending Serial Wars before America is destroyed from within, as other war-making civilizations. These (American war-making) spokesmen have declared for you that the Palestinian people must abandon their homes and get out of the territory known since 1948 as "Israel." This is un-Christian, and it is also anti-Christian because some of the Palestinians are Christians! This position insures perpetual killing and unlimited injustice. Is yours a "pro-life" church supporting every act of peace? Hear Jesus' words," ... For as much as you have done to the least of these (brothers) you have done to me," and, "suffer the little children to come unto me," and not least, the great and humble Beatitude, "Blessed are the peacemakers, for theirs is the kingdom of Heaven." We invite anyone to show us where Jesus ever made even one statement that justifies taking the life of a Palestinian or Iraqi, especially a child?

On October 30th in tiny Taos, New Mexico, two thousand demonstrators marched on the summer home of Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld. Children wore Halloween skull masks and older people carried signs pushing for peace. Those marching included the Mayor and hundreds of children. I wonder how many were pastors of Taos' Christian churches? I hope everyone was there. An estimated 300,000 Italians marched for peace in Florence on Saturday, November 10; and the Church of England announced its official opposition to the War in Iraq on Veterans Day. Righteousness must start with the church. Peace is of God. War is man-made. This is why we will soon visit your church. We invite you and your advisory board (to) come out to join us in protest. Please let us know if you wish to schedule a moral, non-political educational program on the Mideast, or call if you wish to confer with us. Toward the Strait Gate, C.E. Carlson, Director, Project Strait Gate -(Matthew 7:13).

COMMENT (by Ron Gostick): That seems to be the end of the letter to the pastors by C.E. Carlson, director of the Strait Gate project, whose website is listed as https://www.whtt.org/articles /020707.htm The balance of this article - which space constraints don't permit our publishing - promotes literature, tapes, etc., claiming that many 'evangelical' Christians in the United States are today really 'Judeo-Christians' - mandated to the use of vengeance, force and violence in imposing views and policies on others, rather than Jesus' way of love, compassion charity and understanding. However, this "Strait Gate" development in our Southern Neighbour's religious institutions is encouraging.

And also significant and encouraging are recent media reports that the early enthusiasm following 9/11 for the aggressive international bomb-and-kill response of the Bush regime, without first ascertaining and removing the CAUSE behind this anger against America, is now on the wane. The responsibility of Canadians at this critical moment in history is two-fold:
1) strengthen our own national defence forces, co-operating closely in continental defence; and
2) do everything possible, co-operating internationally, to pressure Washington to re-examine and evaluate its foreign policy, especially on the Middle East, make the necessary changes, and then start playing a constructive process of making peace instead of fomenting hatred, violence, war and death.