Montag, 20. Dezember 2010

Neocon Antipathy Towards Paleo-conservatives and Libertarians

I am struck by the rift between conservatives of different persuasions concerning the War on Terror. Paleoconservatives such as this writer are labeled "lunatic," "liberal," and as an "extreme Ron Paul type" by merely questioning what constitutes winning the War on Terror. On a so-called conservative social network site I rhetorically asked, "Does winning the war mean that the CIA can profit from increased opium production in Afghanistan to fund its covert operations?" Does winning the war mean that profits can be made from oil pumped from Iraq to Israel, where it is shipped to China for refinement and distribution? After being sarcastically asked "to take my meds" I was told that my credible sources "were irrelevant to the discussion" and I was given "a free ride to participate." I was amazed at the mean-spirited attitude of the so-called "board member" and the site's founder that I was convinced that the majority of the participants were neoconservatives, given their warmongering and lack of regard to George Washington's non-interventionist foreign policy. I stated that for the war to be constitutional it must be declared, but to these neoconservatives they did not care about such requirements. I wrote to the "board member" and told him that I did not think that the war was in the best interests of Americans, and that we should follow an American-First foreign policy in keeping with George Washington's non-interventionist stand. Before I knew it I was suspended from the site, which I saw as a badge of honor. Respect for the United States Constitution is sorely needed in rational political discourse- and it needs to be defended against neoconservatives who do not care about the "Supreme Law of the Land". Their "Supreme Law of the Land" is their political self-interests- and it is based on their skewed view of the world that war against Iran is the answer. The "War on Terror" is an unconstitutional war because it was never declared- period. People tell me that Congress "authorized" the war. Authorized? Where does it say "authorize" in the constitution with respect to the war powers of Congress? I love America- and I do not want to see her die a painful economic death of perpetual wars abroad and loss of businesses and jobs at home. Yes, we are at war even though it is based on de facto legality. And even though I do not agree with the war I support it because I love America enough to defend her. I gave my oath to defend her because I am an American Soldier. So when I am accused by some armchair neocon warrior of not caring about the security of my country I think about the treason these neocons harbor in their hearts against our country when they push America to fight a reckless global war against Iran, which would include Russia and China to our detriment and potential destruction. I think it is time for lovers of freedom in America to fight the neocons politically, including some Tea Party winners that will push us into another war for the benefit of the banks, the multinationals, and, yes, Israel.             

Freitag, 26. November 2010

The Hypocrisy of Christian Zionism

How could a Christian claim to be a believer in Christ, and at the same time fervently support a foreign government that makes it illegal to proselytize people to the Christian faith? How could a Christian embrace kinship with Zionist Jews whose faith denigrates non-Jews as sub-human in their revered Talmud? It is a remarkable feat of brainwashing that these questions, let alone the facts derived from them, are excluded from discussion in the mainstream media, which is, interestingly, heavily influenced by Zionist Jews as well documented by many critics. Brainwashing takes the form in this case as deliberate attempts to exclude inconvenient facts that bring to question the inconsistency of supporting the Israeli state and holding to ones Christian faith. The facts are readily available on the Internet as one may well suspect since the mainstream newspapers, radio, and television are virtually bereft of points of view critical of Zionism, which advocates the establishment, continuation, and expansion of a Jewish homeland in not only Palestine but though out the Middle East. Once the facts are acknowledged as substantive one cannot but be marveled by the sheer scope of deception and brainwashing that is perpetrated by the Zionist movement. Deceived Christians hold as God-ordained claims of land in the Middle East by the Zionists, regardless of the fact that Jewish terrorists such as the Stern Gang massacred innocent guests at the King David Hotel in 1946 to hasten the expulsion of the British government in Palestine, leading to the establishment of the Israeli state. It would be safe to say that these deceived Christians may not know such historical facts, and sadly even when they are objectively presented to them they will probably still hold unswerving support for the Israeli state as an article of faith. Reported carnage of innocent Palestinian children by the Israeli military will not faze these deceived Christians from supporting the source of such atrocities which is the Israeli government, thereby qualifying them with the oxymoronic label of Christian Zionists.
            Christian Zionism is a heretical set of beliefs with regard to the Christian faith, and subversive with regard the United States Constitution. Supporting a foreign regime that habitually commits human rights violations against its Arab citizens conveys an inexcusable hypocrisy to ones Christian faith. Christ taught us the “Golden Rule” of treating others, as we would want to be treated. As a Christian would you want a foreign government to provide financial aid to a regime that persecutes you?  Would it be more Christ-like to rebuke fellow Christians that unconditionally stand by a regime that persecutes their Arab citizens? It is mind-boggling to observe the practice of unabashed promotion of the pro-Israeli view by Christians who claim that it is God’s will for Arabs to be displaced from their homes for the sake of protecting Israel. The cycle of violence is best broken by the stronger party, and especially by the one that initiated the cycle of violence. The Jewish state fits the description of such a party. Prior to the establishment of the Jewish state Arabs and Jews lived in relative harmony. People commonly treated each other with respect as time was given for them to be familiar with each other on day-to-day bases. Cultural differences were acknowledged between Arabs and Jews, as both parties did not impose their respective ways upon each other. In a word people went about their business, and the society in Palestine was for the most part stable. The stability ended when the Zionists arranged with the British to broker the provision of a Jewish homeland in exchange for Zionists active involvement to propagandize a noninterventionist American public to ally with the British against Germany during the First World War. The Balfour Declaration of 1917 was the result of such an arrangement, which served as the legal basis for the eventual establishment of the Jewish homeland. Even though the Balfour Declaration of 1917 assured that the legal rights of the Arab Palestinians will be protected the historical end result was the exact opposite of what was expressed in the document. The “Golden Rule” between Jews and Arabs has been violated perpetually ever since the Zionist Jews treated the Palestinian Arabs as second-class citizens, thereby making a mockery of the Balfour Declaration, which was a most needed source of legality for establishing a Jewish homeland in the first place. Furthermore, the blatant favoritism expressed by the United States government in continually providing the majority of foreign aid to Israel is contrary to Christ’s teaching against favoritism. Foreign aid is unconstitutional as it violates the property rights of American people since they are forced, by way of compulsory compliance to the federal income tax code, to pay for the benefit of a foreign regime that is exploiting our nation in ways contrary to our legitimate interests. The United States Constitution was established by our Founding Fathers to protect our property rights. To violate property rights in this case is institutionalized theft- and theft, no matter if it is qualified as institutional, is still theft. And theft, as we all know, goes against God’s commandment of stealing. And what Christian in their right mind would advocate stealing? Christian Zionists, knowingly or not, advocate stealing as long as they continue to support foreign aid to Israel. Violating the “Golden Rule”, favoritism, and supporting theft are un-Christian, and cannot be practiced without hypocrisy.
Christian Zionists, by carrying out such actions described above, are acting hypocritically and are in need of rebuke from fellow Christians such as this writer. I for one would rather be rebuked for un-Christian acts than to be left alone to act in ways contrary to Christ. It is noteworthy to remind the reader that President Kennedy had an even-handed approach to foreign policy towards Israel and its Arab neighbors. In other words, he did not play favorites in his foreign policy. Kennedy was against arming Israel with nuclear weapons, and the same approach applied to the Arab nations as well. The Prime Minister of Israel at the time, Ben Gurion, hated Kennedy for not siding with Israel. The writer Michael Collins Piper convincingly stated in his book, Final Judgment, that Mossad, the intelligence agency of the Israeli government, was involved in Kennedy’s assassination. Just as the course of the Vietnam War took a more aggressive direction after Kennedy’s assassination the United States government began to favor Israel over the Arab nations to a point of arming this militaristic regime with weapons of mass destruction- in flagrant violation of Kennedy’s more prudent even-handed approach. Today the neoconservative branch of the mainstream news media speak of the “nuclear standoff” between the United States and Iran so as to conjure up imagery of warheads pointing at our direction from this Islamic country, while Israel is the only nation in the Middle East that possesses such warheads as it still refuses to be a signatory of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. What balance of power exists in this volatile region of the world when a singular nation has the capability to strike Europe with nuclear warheads as belligerently boasted by one Zionist pundit in Israel? Even though Iran is playing the “politics of prestige” with the nuclear card it would, nevertheless, serve as a balance against Israeli hegemony in the Middle East. Israel will think twice about striking Iran with nuclear warheads, and Iran as the leading Islamic nation would do likewise, lest it foolishly wants to take a chance with its own existence. Apostle Paul taught his fellow Christians to mind their own business. Only if the same wisdom applied in today’s world where nations, just as individuals, could live in peace by minding their own business and respecting their sovereignty as nations. What better time than now for Christians to mind their own business as not only Christians but as Americans by putting their own nation first before that of a foreign power.

Copyright 2007, Paul M. Lovett           

Samstag, 20. November 2010

Welcome Visitors

I hope that the title of my blog, sovereignty4us, leaves you with a sense of how I view the role that We the People play in the world of politics. For many politics has to do with the election of public officials and the policies they advocate, which enpowers government to enforce the decisions they want us to follow. Politics, according to this general view, is power to control- but for our own good or ill depending on ones perspective. However, the role that We the People play according to the sovereignty4us blog is that We the People control goverrnment. Just as you would not expect your neighbor to demand a fee for doing nothing for you We the People should not expect government to tax us for something that We the People do not want. For example, if paying taxes to benefit a favored group does not benefit We the People, and it is something that We the People do not want, then what right does that group have to receive such a benefit? Could it be the right granted by We the People through our tacit consent? In otherwords, could our silence be construed by our political leaders as a green light for them to impose their oxymoronic agenda of benevolent tyranny over us, as though we were of the maturity of toddlers who do not know any better for our own well being? Granted, a unsupervised toddler could place his little hands on a hot plate- but do we really need this kind of caretaking from our government? Are we toddlers? Perhaps some of us are toddlers when it comes to not being equipped, emotionally and mentally-even spiritually- with the ability to take responsibility in a system of ordered liberty bequethed to us by our American ancestors. Here at sovereignty4us blog the ability to take responsibility in a system of ordered liberty is something worth nurturing in the world of politics that We the People, like it or not, live our daily lives in.