We All Recognize the Lies

What does a government do when nobody believes the lies any longer? I have just received a prospectus for a major investment programme from a well-respected corporation. What interested me most was its summary of the current and future climate for investing. I quote from the prospectus:
"Life in Australia is a little tougher these days. We are now part of the Asian Trading Bloc and Asia is a tough market. "Australian workers earn $100 a day. Asian workers earn $5 a day. If we produce the same product, it's almost impossible for us to compete on a level playing field. "Many economists are now admitting that Australia, as part of Asia, cannot survive with its current standard of living. "Australia needs to borrow heavily overseas just to pay part of the interest on its debt. The borrowing continues to increase the debt. "Every man, woman and child in Australia has a debt of $42,000. Yet every man, woman and child has only $400 in savings deposits. "It is a well kept secret that 49% of the workforce in Australia is public-service related (US 7%, UK 12%). The actual unemployment figure in Australia is over two million. This is disguised by politicians for obvious reasons. There are only seven million potential workers in Australia. "There is, therefore, only two-and-a-half million fully employed workers supporting a population of nineteen million. "It quickly becomes clear that if you do have a job, you will soon be taxed out of existence in order to pay for fourteen-and-a-half million nonproductive residents ... not to mention the excesses of over-government. No, it wasn't written by Treasurer Costello, nor by industrial Relations Minister Tony Abbott, both of whom would like us to believe we are about the most prosperous economy in the world at the moment. Nor was it written by the Business Council of Australia, which wants massively increased immigration of skilled workers to provide a bigger pool of workers and consumers.

While it is a much more accurate description of the current situation within the boundaries of orthodox economic theory, Social Crediters would immediately recognize the gaps and omissions. No account is taken, for example, of Australia's massive bank of productive technology, which has increasingly taken over from manual labour. Machines, computers, robots, lasers and automation have increasingly taken over from human labour forces, and where applied correctly are more accurate and productive. If it were not for the debt-system we would continually produce more and better with less effort. There is no need for this to reduce the standard of living. In fact, it should continually be enriching it! Nevertheless, the prospectus was much more accurate in describing our present position than the 'line' continually pushed by politicians. We should really be asking whether there are shortages of physical production? Is there enough wheat, for instance, to provide all Australians with bread? Ask the wheat farmers, who are continually trying to find markets. We produce well over a tonne of wheat for every living Australian. What about sugar, beef, mutton, rice, vegetables, cotton, wool? Or steel, cement, bricks? Or oil, coal, natural gas? Singapore and Hong Kong can produce none of those things.

If there is more than enough physical production for all Australians, why do we have to tax one-half of the population to punitive levels in order to get a bare minimum to the other half? If it comes to a question of providing all Australians with high-standard food, housing, clothing and transport, Australia has already won the battle -- and again, we can do it with less and less human muscle-power. But we try and distribute the results through a privately owned debt system, which has blinded us to what we already have, hypnotizing us into believing there isn't really enough, and that we must tighten our belts and live like coolies to justify our existence. If we continue to allow propagandists to create a false picture of Australia, we shall have to accept the consequences that will be forced on us -- that we classify our fellow-Australians into two classes, "productive" and "non-productive," or "winners" and "losers." The only criteria for this classification will be whether or not we have a job. And, if we want more "productive" jobs, we must all accept lower wages and a reduced standard of living. The lie has been so well painted that we half believe it ourselves, while the real truth stares at us from behind the propaganda. (End of Mr. Lee's first item)
Mr. Lee then goes on to conclude with the following two items:

THE CENSUS

The final results of the national census have now been collated and published. There are some interesting results. "There are still almost 13 million who classify themselves as Christian of one denomination or another. We have 358,000 Buddhists, 95,000 Hindus, 282,000 who follow Islam, and 84,000 Jews. "When it comes to income, the real position is alarming: - There are 938,000 Australians 15 years and over who have "Negative/Nil" weekly incomes. - There are 215,000 Australians over 15 with a weekly income less than $39. - There are 353,000 Australians over 15 with a weekly income between $40 and $79. - There are 418,000 Australians over 15 with a weekly income between $80 and $110. - There are 732,000 Australians over 15 with a weekly income between $120 and $159. - There are 1,366,000 Australians over 15 with a weekly income $160 and $199. - There are 1,868,000 Australians 15 or over with a weekly income between $200 and $299. "The figures above show there are 5,890,000 Australians aged and over living on weekly incomes of $300 or less. (The figures in each category have been rounded to the nearest thousand.)

"While, obviously, not telling the whole story, the above is enough to show a very significant portion of the Australian community is living on or below levels of acceptable poverty, and that none of this is reflected in the "powerful, booming economy" which Treasurer Costello would like us all to believe. "Put it another way -- there are almost 6 million Australians whose annual incomes are less than one-sixth that of a back-bench federal politician. How do they survive? By taking on an ever-increasing amount of household debt, which is at a higher percentage of household income than at any time in Australia's history.

THE REMNANTS OF RURAL AUSTRALIA

All the major industrial nations subsidize their farmers, the most notable being that "champion of free trade," the U.S., with the exception of Australia. The much-vaunted 'improvement' in conditions for the cultural sector, which lasted for a few months, is over. The future looks grim. "The Australian Financial Review (25/6/02) said: 'Farm income faces a 40-percent slide in the next financial year, hit by a slump in prices for most major rural commodities ... In the latest quarterly forecasts, issued yesterday, the Australian Bureau of Agriculture and Resource Economics predicts 2002-03 will see the first decline in the net value of farm production in four years. " 'Farm income is expected to slump from $9.7-billion this financial year to $5.78-billion in 2002-03 … The forecast slump will be driven by a 9-percent fall in revenue and a 1.5-percent increase in costs. …' "If, as seems likely, this eventuates, it may be the final goodbye to a viable rural Australia. It is already overstretched, with townships, rural industries and jobs crumbling. "So what will Australia do? Send Mark Vaile overseas again, to demand that our trading partners abandon their farmers as Australia has done?"

COMMENT (by Ron Gostick) Just two short comments: Our Canadian situation in several respects is somewhat like Australia's, not only in the obscene and widening disparity in income between our elitist and lower economic classes, but also with our chief trading partner, the U.S., ignoring free-trade agreements whenever it suits Washington, and escalating subsidization of U.S. agriculture, and slapping a heavy tax on imports of Canadian softwood lumber. One of the greatest scams of history is taking place today, as the fruits of our nation's heritage of modern technology are being claimed exclusively by only one small class of big-monied people - while they rightfully belong to everyone, to every member of our nation. We are working on a small book dealing with this little-understood theft of our national heritage, and it should be published by October. More on this later.
Ethics got lost somewhere along the way
Not only investors, but Canadians at large, have been somewhat shocked in recent months by revelations of the widespread 'bankruptcies,' failures and crashes of large national and international corporate entities, involving fraudulent accountancy and scamming the shareholding public. The Calgary Sun, July 14, published under the above caption the following column by Ted Byfield dealing with this mounting problem:
We're hearing much lamentation among investors these days, accompanied by great deploring from the media, over the wrongs, moral deficiency, and outright dishonesty of gentry in the corporate world. Two five-star companies, Enron and World Com, have been discovered issuing false financial statements, hoodwinking investors, misrepresenting their company positions by billions of dollars, while stock markets reel downward in consequence. How, the victims and others ask, could men in such esteemed positions possibly have allowed themselves to wallow in sleaze and corruption? Where were the accountants who were supposed to keep them honest? Right in it along with them, apparently. But how could such a state of affairs come about? Where was their honesty, their integrity?
It's a good question, but for an answer you have to go a long way back. To begin with, these men had been brought up by parents who had probably endured the Great Depression and fought the Second World War. They looked at their kids and said, "I don't want them to go through what I went through." So they made sure their kids did not, that things came easily for them. They were raised in cities, not farms. Where their father couldn't afford a car until he was maybe 30, these kids had one at 16, often bought by the old man. They attended schools from which most harsh realities had been removed. The strap was pretty much gone. The phenomenon of the "social promotion" had come into being, so the humiliation of repeating a grade was unknown. Matriculation examination results were considered confidential, whereas in their parents' day, everybody's marks were published in the newspapers. Most important, however, they were taught to believe in "the self." The self was the be-all and end-all of everything. Self-realization, self-actualizing, self-esteem, these were the goals, not only of education but of life. Morality, meanwhile, was presented as a "personal thing" and never actually called morality. It was replaced by "values." You had your values; I had mine; he had his. The important thing was that you must never seek to impose your values on someone else. Now this implied, of course, that there was no such thing as real values, an objective standard against which everybody'' values could be measured. For teachers to even suggest such a thing was out of line. It implied that some values were true and some weren't, or some closer to the truth than others. Wasn't this the sort of thinking that led to intolerance and wars? Certainly, it was. So to think that something was really bad, not merely bad in somebody's opinion, was in itself a major evil.
Long before graduation, these people would have become "sexually active." But here too, all the old rules had disappeared. As long as the parties "consented," anything went. The pill was available, and if it failed, abortion was similarly available. Marriages could be entered upon and abandoned with relative ease. Divorce might certainly involve bad feelings but rarely a bad conscience. Then came the business world. The buzz word here was "appropriate." Whether a certain course of action were right or wrong, was rarely if ever asked. To even think in such terms had by now become meaningless. A few people in universities and various think tanks were examining something called "ethics," but since no one could really say where ethics came from, to question whether something were "ethical" was almost as pointless as asking whether it were right. What mattered is whether it were "appropriate." The great virtue of the appropriate was the facility with which it could be quietly changed. What was inappropriate yesterday could become appropriate today. Not only did it change from one day to the next, but also from one industry to the next, and from one boardroom to the next. Thus something that would have been inappropriate in a corporate balance sheet last year would become wholly appropriate next year. "But is it honest?" some ancient board member might ask. There would be an exchange of glances, a tolerant smile. Did such a man really belong on the board? Perhaps he had outlived his usefulness. Honesty, he surely knew, was all a matter of personal opinion, a matter of "values." And that, I suspect, is how the whole thing happened. (End of Mr. Byfield's column)

COMMENT: What this whole sorry affair indicates is the extent of deep-rooted corruption, not only in government today, but in top levels of corporate financial institutions. And it's rather obvious that the public supervisory services responsible for enforcement of regulations respecting protection of the public interest are, for whatever reason, no match for the greedy scam artists who seem to be increasingly infesting both our public and private business and institutions today. As Mr. Byfield suggests, this goes right back to the ethics and moral standards learned in the homes and schools of our society. And without a sound ethical environment, healthy and responsible business can't long survive. At stake is nothing less than the health and quality of our society of tomorrow.

Klein 'draws a line' at gay marriage
The National Post, July 19, published a report under the above heading. Here are excerpts: "Alberta will never allow gay marriage, and if the Supreme Court of Canada upholds an Ontario court decision allowing same-sex unions, the province will invoke the notwithstanding clause of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to protect the 'sanctity of marriage' between a man and a woman, Ralph Klein, the Premier (of Alberta), said yesterday.
" 'It's the only circumstance under which the notwithstanding clause would be used without a. referendum,' he said. 'And it would be automatic. So it simply will not happen in this province, because the sanctity of marriage and the solemnization of marriage, under the Marriage Act, is written law, that it is between a man and a woman.' "He added: 'That's not to say we won't do our part to protect gay rights. But marriage is where we draw the line.' "Mr. Klein was responding to an Ontario Superior Court decision last week that said banning same-sex marriage violates constitutional rights. The court has given Ottawa two years to change the definition of marriage ... so that homosexuals may legally marry. ... "Mr. Klein said he expects the federal government to challenge the ruling, in which case Alberta's position would be moot. 'But if for some reason the Supreme Court of Canada, or whatever court prevails, upholds the provincial court ruling and it extends to, say, Alberta, then of course we will invoke the notwithstanding clause.' …" Brave words by Premier Klein. But we've heard them before when he's threatened to stand up to Ottawa's impositions -- only to wilt and purr like a contented pussycat when the other premiers and federal boys got working on him.
Right? Ralphie! Albertans (and others) might drop him a line of support.

ON TARGET SECTION

Bush's Mideast vision is a myopic fantasy

The Toronto Sun, June 30, 2002, published the following article by its Foreign Affairs Correspondent, Eric Margolis. NEW YORK

It's hard to know whether to laugh or to cry at U.S. President George Bush's much-awaited "vision" of Mideast peace unveiled last week, a speech so obviously crafted by special interests and driven-by domestic politics that the rest of the world winced in embarrassment. Even moderate Israeli leader Shimon Peres called it a "fatal mistake." The view abroad was captured by veteran British journalist Robert Fisk, who acidly wrote that Israeli PM Ariel Sharon, who has made six visits to Bush's White House, should be allowed to run the White House press office, to "spare the American President the ignominy of parroting everything he is told by the Israelis." Bush's message to Palestinians: basically, no state until you kick out Yasser Arafat, stop resisting Israeli occupation, develop true democracy, do what Israel tells you, create capitalism, eliminate corruption and stop-causing trouble. Then, some day, the U.S. might consider an "interim" Palestinian state whose borders and sovereignty would be "provisional," provided Israel agrees. Bush might as well have told Palestinians they won't get their freedom and homeland until they can recite the U.S. Tax Code in Apache.
Bush, a man untroubled by deep thought or irony, had the chutzpah, as we New Yorkers say, to urge Palestinians to adopt Scandinavian-style democracy, while telling them they cannot re-elect Arafat, who was elected in a fair vote by over 80% of his people -- rather better than President Bush, who slid into office thanks to court orders and voter exclusions in Florida. As for corruption, Arafat's thieving PLO cronies look like the homeless compared to Bush's megacrook pals at Enron who helped finance his elections.

Corrupt autocracies
Why didn't Bush urge free elections on America's other Mideast clients -- Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Morocco and the Gulf states, mostly corrupt autocracies run by generals or feudal monarchs? What the President wants is an obedient Palestinian version of Afghanistan's new leader, CIA "asset" Hamid Karzai, who was put into power with U.S. and British bayonets and billions in bribes.

Bush politely suggested Israel stop building settlements.
Considering that Sharon scorned Bush when the President ordered him to pull his U.S.-armed and financed troops out of the West Bank, there is zero chance Israel will stop gobbling it up. Sharon has made it perfectly clear by his actions that he will never withdraw from the West Bank or Golan, which Israel occupies illegally, and will never accept a viable Palestinian state. Worse, Sharon appears likely to be succeeded by rival Benjamin Netanyahu, who actually calls Sharon "soft" on Palestinians. What Bush and Israel's rightists want is apartheid-style bantustans -- tribal reservations policed by Palestinian kapos, surrounded by Israeli troops, covering about 40% of Palestine. Israel will get the rest. In fact, Israeli peace groups recently revealed there are now 400,000 Jewish settlers in the Occupied Territories and Golan, not the 200,000 previously believed.

When the Oslo Accords were signed in 1993, there were 85,000 Jewish settlers. Arafat's U.S.-financed Palestinian Authority and its security apparatus are dictatorial, thoroughly corrupt and abuse human rights. Arafat winks at terror attacks on Israeli civilians, is a liability to his people and should make way for new leadership. But so should Sharon and Israel's expansionists, who have plunged their nation into a bloody morass and provoked anti-Semitism around the globe.

A pox on both houses.
Israel, at least, has moderate, capable alternative leaders like Peres and Yossi Beilin, who can bring some sanity to the political scene. The only real Palestinian candidate, Marawan Barghouti, is in an Israel prison. The PLO is totally discredited among Palestinians because of corruption and close co-operation with the U.S. and Israel. This leaves the extremist groups -- Hamas and Islamic Jihad -- as the choice of a majority of Palestinians. Bush's relentless undermining of Arafat's PLO has strengthened Palestinian radicals and played into the hands of Sharon, who vows he will never deal with "terrorists." Israelis and their American supporters greeted Bush's speech with predictable adulation. Bush and his advisers hope to increase their share of the Jewish vote in November's critical U.S. mid-term elections from 19% to over 50%. Embracing Israel's far right also delighted ardent Bush supporters on the Christian far right. Many of these rustic fundamentalists believe that when all Jews are moved into Biblical Israel (including the West Bank), their Christian Messiah will return and destroy the world in Armageddon. Good Christians will then go to paradise.

President Bush's "vision" for Palestine is a myopic fantasy seen through rose-coloured glasses supplied by his alter ego, Ariel Sharon. The plan is frightful news for Palestinians, bad news for Israeli's seeking peace, and bad news for Americans. Bush has put domestic politics and his re-election before America's proper national interests. He has undermined real peacemakers among the Israelis and Arabs. Worse, instead of playing honest peace broker in the Mideast, Bush's total identification with Israel's far right ensures America will again become the target of extremists from an increasingly enraged Muslim world -- and of furious Palestinians who now have nothing to lose except the cruel mirage of a fraudulent "provisional interim" state. (End of Mr. Margolis' article)

COMMENT (by Ron Gostick): While we cannot vouch for the precise accuracy of Mr. Margolis' depiction of Americans' 'far right' televangelists' 'vision' of the last days leading up to Armageddon, it does seem increasingly obvious that they are doing their very best to fast-track God's plan, whatever it may be, and put an early end to our inhabitable world!

Palestinians suffer from lack of water
The Globe and Mail, May 18, 2002, published a report by its Paul Koring under the above caption, with this sub-heading: "The amount in settlers' pools would supply farming village for months, Paul Koring is told." Following, are excerpts:

"Beit Furiq, West Bank "Working amid a fetid stench, Mohammed Nassara gathered the dead chickens from among the merely listless and dying yesterday, and threw them wearily on to a mounting pile, another grim symbol of the bitter clash of cultures in the parched land west of the Jordan River. "Beit Furiq, a poverty-stricken Palestinian village, has a timeless history of sheep herding and tending the olive groves that climb the rocky hillsides up to imposing Israeli settlements on the heights above. Beit Furiq is dying of thirst. "The village's farmers need 50 truckloads of water a day during the summer, when their wells run dry, but their water shipments have been blocked by Israeli checkpoints for the past month. " 'Yesterday, one truck made it, today none,' Atef Hanini, the village mayor, said as he used some precious spring water to make coffee for rare visitors to the town. "The settlements, he said, pointing to the modern houses of Itamar and Eilon Moreh on the heights above, 'have swimming pools with enough water to satisfy Beit Furiq for two or three months.' A thick Israeli pipeline lifts water to the settlements.

"Water, even more than land, has become a key battleground in the struggle being steadily lost by the Palestinians and won by the Israelis. Although only 250,000 Jewish settlers live in scattered, fortified communities in the West Bank, among more than two million Palestinians, 80 per cent of West Bank water is consumed by Israelis. "For years, Mr. Hanini has begged the Palestinian water authority (which needs permission from the Israeli military) to dig deeper wells in search of ever-shrinking aquifers, so that the farmers of his village won't have to buy it from Nablus and haul it in by tractor and truck. "Without trucked water, the 60,000 chickens that are the livelihood for about 50 of Beit Furiq's several hundred families will die within days. Then the sheep. …"

COMMENT: Just picture the plight of these pathetic, dispossessed souls, languishing in abject poverty and servility in their own ancient homeland, deprived by illegal Israeli 'settlers' not only occupying their land but also denying them even a livelihood by seizing their water. Put yourself and your family in the situation of these helpless Palestinians, and then we'll better understand some of the negative reactions and rising hatred of many of the younger members of the Palestinian people against not only their Israeli oppressors, but against the U.S. government and others who finance and supply the Zionist state's military build-up and aggression.

U.S. Congressman speaks out

This past January 30th, we received an e-mail copy of an address U.S. Republican Congressman Ron Paul recently made. Here are a few excerpts:
"Our presence in the Persian Gulf is not necessary to provide for America's defense. Our presence in the region makes all Americans more vulnerable to attacks and defending America much more difficult. The real reason for our presence in the Persian Gulf, as well as our eagerness to assist in building a new Afghan government under UN authority, should be apparent to us all.

"Stewart Eizenstat, (U.S.) Undersecretary of Economics, Business, and Agricultural Affairs for the previous administration, succinctly stated U.S. policy for Afghanistan, testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations 'Trade' Subcommittee on October 13, 1997:
"(One of) 'Five main foreign policy interests in the Caspian region (is) continued support for U.S. companies' (and) 'the least progress has been made in Afghanistan, where gas and oil pipeline proposals designed to carry central Asian energy to world markets have been delayed indefinitely pending establishment of a broad-based multi-ethnic government.'
"This was a rather blunt acknowledgement of our intentions.
"There are quite a few unintended consequences that might occur if our worldwide commitment to fighting terrorism is unrestrained.
"Russia's interests in the Afghan region are much more intense than Putin would have us believe, and Russia's active involvement in a spreading regional conflict should be expected.

"An alliance between Iraq and Iran against the U.S. is a more likely possibility now than ever before. Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri is optimistically working on bringing the two nations together in a military alliance. His hope is that this would be activated if we attacked Iraq. The two nations have already exchanged prisoners of war as a step in that direction. "U.S. military planners are making preparations for our troops to stay in Central Asia for a long time. A long time could mean, 50 years! We have been in Korea for that long, and have been in Japan and Europe even longer, but the time will come when we will wear out our welcome and have to leave these areas. The Vietnam War met with more resistance, and we left relatively quickly in humiliating defeat. ... "
Why look for more of these kinds of problems when it does not serve our interests?

Jeopardizing our security violates the spirit of our Constitution and inevitably costs us more than we can afford. "Our permanent air bases built in Saudi Arabia are totally unessential to our security, contributed to the turmoil in the Middle East, and they continue to do so. "We're building a giant new air base in Kyrgyzstan, a country once part of the Soviet Union and close to Russia. China, also a neighbor, with whom we eagerly seek a close relationship as a trading partner, will not ignore our military buildup in this region.

"Islamic fundamentalists may overthrow the current government of Saudi Arabia -- a fear that drives her to co-operate openly with the terrorists while flaunting her relationship with the United States. The Wall Street Journal has editorialized that the solution ought to be our forcibly seizing the Saudi Arabian oil fields and replacing the current government with an even more pro-Western government. All along I thought we condemned regimes that took over their neighbors' oil fields!

"The editorial, unbelievably explicit, concluded by saying: 'Finally, we must be prepared to seize the Saudi oil fields and administer them for the greater good.' The greater good? I just wonder whose greater good? "If the jingoism of the Wall Street Journal prevails, and the warmongers in the Congress and the administration carry the day, we can assume with certainty that these efforts being made will precipitate an uncontrollable breakout of hostilities in the region that could lead to World War III. ...

"Already the presence of our troops in the Muslim holy land of Saudi Arabia has inflamed the hatred (that) drove the terrorists to carry out their tragic acts of 9-11. Pursuing such an aggressive policy would only further undermine our ability to defend the American people and will compound the economic problems we face. "Something, anything, regardless of its effectiveness, had to be done ... But a never-ending commitment to end all terrorism in the world, whether it is related to the attack on September llth or not, is neither a legitimate nor wise policy.

"HJ RES 64 gives the President authority to pursue only those guilty of the attack on us -- not every terrorist in the entire world. Let there be no doubt: for every terrorist identified, others will see only a freedom fighter. ... "If we concentrate on searching for all terrorists throughout the world and bombing dozens of countries, but forget to deal with the important contributing factors that drove those who killed our fellow citizens, we will only make ourselves more vulnerable to new attacks.

"How can we forever fail to address the provocative nature of U.S. taxpayer money being used to suppress and kill Palestinians and ignore the affront to the Islamic people that our military presence on their holy land of Saudi Arabia causes -- not to mention the persistent 12 years of bombing Iraq? "I'm fearful that an unlimited worldwide war against all terrorism will distract from the serious consideration that must be given to our policy of foreign interventionism, driven by the powerful commercial interests and a desire to promote world government. This is done while ignoring our principal responsibility of protecting national security and liberty here at home.

"There is a serious problem with a policy that has allowed a successful attack on our homeland. It cannot be written off as a result of irrational yet efficient evildoers who are merely jealous of our success and despise our freedoms. "We've had enemies throughout our history, but never before have we suffered such an attack that has made us feel so vulnerable. The cause of this crisis is much more profound and requires looking inwardly as well as outwardly at our own policies as well as those of others.

"The Founders of this country were precise in their beliefs regarding foreign policy. Our Constitution reflects these beliefs, and all of our early presidents endorsed these views. It was not until the 20th Century that our nation went off to far away places looking for dragons to slay. ... "There's no historic precedent that such a policy can be continued forever. All empires and great nations throughout history have ended when they stretched their commitments overseas too far and abused their financial system at home. The over-commitment of a country's military forces when forced with budgetary constraints can only lead to a lower standard of living for its citizens. That has already started to happen here in the United States. Who today is confident the government and our private retirement systems are sound and the benefits guaranteed? ... "I am certain that national security and defense of our own cities can never be adequately provided unless we reconsider our policy of foreign interventionism. ..."

COMMENT: It's encouraging to see a U.S. Congressman of Ron Paul's prominence and status taking a non-partisan, common-sense position on American foreign policy, especially since he's a member of President Bush's Republican administration. His considered view seems to be that real and lasting peace and security cannot be attained by way of bombs and slaughter, and that the only reasonable and sound approach is for the U.S. to begin by asking itself: Where have we gone wrong? What have we done to former friends and Third World peoples, that some of them have become our enemies? That, from the beginning, has been our view, too. It involves re-examination of foreign relations and policy. It involves humility and genuine charity. It involves prayer and reconciliation. But that way, and only that way, lies real peace and security.

Enterprise Section

For Bush, Israel's the 51st state
The Toronto Sun, July 4th, under the above caption published the following article by its columnist Salim Mansur. London, Ont.

In analyzing a major policy statement, such as the one U.S. President George Bush made about his peaceful vision for the Middle East on the eve of the G8 summit last week, an analyst examines its content and context. There was very little content in President Bush's speech, no detail of what is envisaged and how to get there beyond vague demands for Palestinian democracy, a change in Palestinian leadership (meaning Yasser Arafat) and homilies about Israel ending its occupation of Palestinian lands. Hence, only context is relevant here. So let us attempt to understand President Bush's statement on settling the Israeli-Palestinian conflict which has bedevilled 10 American presidents since Harry Truman. John Ibbitson, The Globe and Mail's correspondent in Washington, reported the day after Bush's speech that his national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, "held a conference call with 30 of the United States' most senior Jewish leaders. They were ecstatic.
" Ibbitson's reporting is neither a surprise, nor news. He only confirmed what has been for a long time an axiom of American politics as it relates to the subject of Israel. Michael Kramer, a columnist for Time, wrote some time ago, "Israel is to (American) foreign policy as entitlement programs are to domestic affairs." Only the naive and the innocent, as Mark Twain might have said, remain unaware that for American presidents and members of Congress dealing with matters pertaining to Israel is about the same as responding to concerns of constituents in California or Rhode Island.

The norm of such behaviour was set by Harry Truman as his administration struggled with the question of Palestine and Zionist demands to establish a Jewish state. The literature on this matter is considerable and indisputable. I refer readers to the detailed account of the subject presented in the book Truman and Israel by Michael J. Cohen, a historian at Bar-Ilan University, Israel. Dewey and Truman The year was 1948 and 16 years of the Democratic party controlling the U.S. presidency was in jeopardy. Truman's popular support was on a slide, and just about everyone expected the Republican candidate, New York Governor Thomas E. Dewey, to win the presidency. Truman's re-election was one of the great upset victories of the last century in American politics. And the concerns of Jewish Americans over Israel helped to make the difference between winning and losing. Cohen reports an exchange between Truman and John A. Kennedy, a longtime friend of the President.
Kennedy asked Truman, on noticing a group of Jewish Americans waiting to meet with the President, whether he was intending to recognize Israel. Truman replied, "Well, how many Arabs are there as regular voters in the United States?" The same political calculus has gone into what President George Bush made known about his vision, of "two states, living side by side in peace and security." His judicially determined presidential victory in Florida recount hangs in balance, and the Jewish voters in such swing states as Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan can make the difference for him. Then there is Florida. The President's brother, Jeb Bush, is the governor, and he needs help in this year's mid-term election.

Republican control
The election will also decide whether Republicans can regain a majority in the Senate, and maintain control of the House of Representatives. In the meantime, we witness the spectacle of the American version of the Taliban, in pinstripe suits within the boardrooms of corporate America, doing their wrecking. Someone has to take the fall for all those small-time investors who have lost their savings. The big political question looming ahead is will the stain on corporate America fatally damage this president, who has been riding high in the opinion polls since Sept. 11?

President Bush's "vision" speech on the Middle East was a just feint in his domestic campaign to remain ahead of the Democrats. The making of peace and justice in the Middle East is as much evident in President Bush's statement as the scruples of auditing were in the accounting firm of Arthur Andersen examining the financial records of the now-bankrupt Enron corporation.

(End of Mr. Mansur's article)

Mr. Mansur makes two salient points respecting Western politics in general, and especially the United States:
1) It's difficult at times to tell whether Washington controls the Israeli government, or the Israelis control Washington; and
2) The moral depths to which our political leaders will stoop and the risks to which they'll expose their own citizenry in their lust to gain and retain pomp and power, at times is almost frightening.
How sad. But how true.

Further notes respecting our 'war on terrorism' Some of the following items seem to confirm some of the risks and dangers inherent in U.S. President Bush's aggressively belligerent foreign policy:

The National Post, May 20, 2002, published a front-page report captioned "New Attack a 'Certainty': Cheney." Here are excerpts:
"WASHINGTON - A sharp rise in intelligence intercepts similar to the spike before Sept. 11 suggest al-Qaeda is planning another major terrorist assault on the United States, the Bush administration confirmed yesterday. "Dick Cheney said a renewed terrorist effort was 'a certainty' and that there had been a significant increase in alarming intelligence 'chatter' being picked up by U.S. agents. " 'The prospect of another attack against the United States is very, very real,' the Vice-President said on NBC's Meet the Press, calling it 'not a matter of if, but when.' "The increased activity mirrors what happened in the months leading to the devastating suicide-hijack attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. The FBI warned on the weekend of a possible plot by al-Qaeda to detonate bombs in U S. apartment buildings, but otherwise the intercepted messages are so general they have left the administration and counter-terrorism officials uncertain about the timing, location or method of the next terrorist attack.

These 'warnings' from the U.S. Vice-President are obviously designed to absolve Washington of incredibly lax U.S. security leading up to the 9/11 tragedy, to condition Americans for the coming moves of aggression by the Bush administration while forecasting obscenely evil attacks by enemy terrorists in order to retain support for its interventionist foreign policy and future actions.

The very next day, May 21, the National Post's front-page headline read, "Suicide Bombers in U.S. 'Inevitable.' " A few excerpts from its report by Michael Friscolanti:
"It is only a matter of time before militant suicide bombers strapped with deadly explosives start walking into crowded U.S. buildings and blowing themselves up, the director of the FBI warned yesterday. " 'I think we will see that in the future, I think it's inevitable,' Robert Mueller said in Virginia yesterday. 'I wish I could be more optimistic.' "His grim advisory came after a weekend full of similar warnings from top U.S. officials, who are cautioning Americans to be prepared for another terrorist strike -- including a possible attack by the type of walk-in suicide bombers who have plagued the Middle East over the past 18 months. " 'There will be another terrorist attack,' said Mr. Mueller, who would not speculate on a date or time. 'We will not be able to stop it. It's something we all live with.'

"Neither the RCMP nor the Canadian Security Intelligence Service would comment yesterday on the likelihood of a suicide bomber striking here, but some experts said the chances are extremely slim. "Reid Morden, a former CSIS director, said terrorist organizations operating in Canada would likely avoid attacking local targets because the groups quietly benefit from lax Canadian laws. " 'If you're raising money (for a terrorist organization), this is the place to do it,' he said. 'You put all that in jeopardy by walking into a supermarket with a suicide bomb. We know that there is substantial terrorist presence in Canada, and I think that (terrorists) are going to be very reluctant to take away the one place where they have, in some ways, been left to themselves.' (Emphasis added)

"Glenn Stannard, the president of the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police, said it would be wrong to completely dismiss the possibility of a suicide bomber striking in Canada. " 'If it's something that is going to go to the United States, it's something that we're going to have to concern ourselves with in Canada,' said Mr. Stannard, the chief of police in Windsor, Ont. 'To close an eye to it and say, "Just because we're in Canada, it's not going to happen here," would be a pretty silly thing to do.' " U.S. FBI chief Robert Mueller, in this press item, is merely backing up Vice-President Cheney, who in turn has to back up the President's pro-war policy. However, unless U.S. policy is changed, Mr. Mueller's warnings may well be accurate and true. The statements by Reid Morden, a former CSIS director, is perhaps the most damning indictment yet reported respecting the weakened and obsolete condition of our security and defence forces, which has developed under recent federal governments. What he's implying is that Canada, because of its soft, open-door immigration policy these past years, and its condoning of foreign subversion and fund-raising, is actually considered more helpful than hurtful to the forces of international terrorism today! Almost incredible, indeed. Yet, Mr. Morden, with his background experience at our highest security level, should be in a position to know the reality of our present situation.

Should any confirmation of Reid Morden's assessment be deemed necessary, it's found in a recent Globe and Mail report captioned "Forces turn recruits away." Here are a few opening excerpts: "BY DANIEL LEBLANC, OTTAWA

"Even though the Canadian Forces spend millions every year to attract new members, hundreds of would-be soldiers were turned back this summer because the Forces could not afford to train them. "In the Toronto area alone, the military had planned to take in 300 reservists. But lacking resources and instructors because of limited funds and deployment of personnel around the globe, it accepted just 130. The problem spans the country. "Critics say the small number of new recruits in 2002 is further proof that the Canadian military, which recently deployed hundreds of soldiers in Afghanistan and at the Group of Eight summit, is stretched to the limit. "By refusing a large number of young Canadians who envision a career in the Forces, they say, the military is also creating long-term problems for itself: Today's newcomers would train new soldiers in years to come. " 'It's a double whammy,' said Captain Tim Lourie of the Canadian Brigade Group in Toronto. " 'Those people who were potential leaders down the road,' he said, 'we'll have a smaller pool to select from, and the impact there on our training may cause us some problems.' …"

The fact is the government is spending about $7-million a year in advertising for new recruits, then has to reject many of them for lack of funding to train them. At the same time, our Prime Minister is pledging more and more funds for totalitarian regimes in Africa. A case in point is Zimbabwe: once the breadbasket of southern Africa, today under Communist dictator Mugabe who has driven productive white farmers off the land the black African population is starving; recipient of many tens of millions of dollars in aid and loans from Canada (with debts forgiven), now clamping total dictatorship on population. And all the time we were pouring Canadian funds into support of this revolutionary Marxist-led country, our own governments were neglecting our own security and defence forces!

Heavy collateral damage

Another aspect of this 'war against terrorism.' Especially relevant to the U.S. forces in Afghanistan, is the heavy and widespread killing of Afghan civilians. A few examples that have been reported in our press:

The Globe and Mail, July 2, carried a front page headline, "U.S. accused of bombing Afghan wedding in error." Two short excerpts:
"U.S. warplanes bombed a village in Afghanistan yesterday, killing dozens of civilians who were apparently attending a wedding party and evoking memories of the U.S. blunder that left four Canadian soldiers dead and eight others wounded in April. "Details remained sketchy last night, but Afghan officials and witnesses said the bombs hit the village of Kakarak, in the mountains northeast of Kandahar, in the early morning hours. Estimates of the dead ranged from 20 to 120, making it one of the deadliest military errors since the U.S.-led war began in the country last year.

The same July 2nd Globe and Mail, in another report, listed the following accidental military killings by U.S. forces in Afghanistan so far this past year: "Dec. 21 - U.S. bombs hit a 40-vehicle convoy of Afghan tribal elders on a road in the mountains of the eastern province of Paktia, killing as many as 65, according to some reports. …
"Jan. 23 - In a raid on two suspected enemy compounds in Hazar Qadam, U.S. troops kill 16 people and capture 27, none of whom turn out to have been al-Qaeda or Taliban members. The 27 were later released.
"April 16 - A U.S. pilot mistakenly bombs Canadian troops who were conducting a live-fire night-time exercise, killing four soldiers and wounding eight. ...
"May 18 - Eleven people are killed by U.S. bombing in the village of Balkhiel, near the Pakistani border. U.S. officials insist their aircraft came under attack, but the Afghans said they were firing into the air to celebrate a wedding.
"May 31 - U.S. troops kill three of their Afghan allies in the eastern city of Gardez during a firefight that breaks out when both sides move in separately on a compound of Taliban and al-Qaeda leaders.
"July 1 - Dozens are reported killed by a U.S. bomb in the village of Kakarak. For the second time in six weeks, gunshots from a wedding celebration are apparently mistaken for hostile fire."

We quite understand that U.S. personnel are not as much to blame for these sad mishaps as the nature of this type of warfare itself -- using tanks and rockets and bombs ... in seeking at most a few thousand amongst tens of millions. Indeed, it's savage, beastly type of warfare, in which the majority of casualties seem to be innocent victims rather than the enemies sought. That is why the major powers today must find a better way.

Americans warned of Afghan uprising

The Toronto Sun, July 6, under the above caption, carried the following report.
"KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) -- The governor of the province where a U.S. airstrike reportedly killed scores of people warned yesterday Afghans will rise up against Americans if more civilians are killed. " 'If Americans don't stop killing civilians, there will be jihad (holy war) against them in my province,' Jan Mohammed Khan, governor of Uruzgan province, said in a telephone interview. "Khan's province includes the village of Kakarak, where Afghans said 25 members of a family celebrating an impending marriage were killed in a U.S. air attack Monday. "In all, 44 Afghans were killed and 120 injured in raids Monday on Kakarak and four other villages, Afghan officials said. U.S. officials say an anti-aircraft gun had fired on U.S. planes from the compound where the partygoers died. "President George W. Bush telephoned Afghan President Hamid Karzai yesterday to express sympathy for the victims' families."

Yes, indeed, President Bush, re-examine your past and present foreign policy.
Because there must be a better way -- before it's too late.