| Question Everything!Everything!! |
Welcome to Truth, FREEDOM OR ANARCHY,Campaign of Conscience. , is an alternative media and news site that is dedicated to the truth, true journalism and the truth movement. The articles, ideas, quotes, books and movies are here to let everyone know the truth about our universe. The truth will set us free, it will enlighten, inspire, awaken and unite us. Armed with the truth united we stand, for peace, freedom, health and happiness for all
Question Everything!
MEN OF PEACE
"I don't know how to save the world. I don't have the answers or The Answer. I hold no secret knowledge as to how to fix the mistakes of generations past and present. I only know that without compassion and respect for all Earth's inhabitants, none of us will survive - nor will we deserve to." Leonard Peltier
Friday, October 31, 2014
I will leave it up to you to come to your own conclusion
JFK’s Speech On Secret Societies
John F. Kennedy gave this speech to the American Newspaper Publishers Association on 27th April 1961, two and a half years before his assassination (November 22, 1963).
He details his thoughts on secret societies and what seems to be a call to action. Some believe that he is referring to secret societies being established within the US government and to others it is a cryptic message about an overseas communist threat.
I will leave it up to you to come to your own conclusion as to what this speech is about, but it is apparent that he is well aware that secret societies exist and are attempting to infiltrate society. In his own words he finds the situation “repugnant”
Below are some quotes from the event, followed by a video that broadcasts the essence of his speech. Lastly, the entire speech has been transcribed for people who wish to read everything he had to say on that day.
* “The very word “secrecy” is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings”
* “Today no war has been declared — and however fierce the struggle may be, it may never be declared in the traditional fashion. Our way of life is under attack”
* “We are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence — on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day”
* “It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations”
Full Speech
Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen:
I appreciate very much your generous invitation to be here tonight.
You bear heavy responsibilities these days and an article I read some time ago reminded me of how particularly heavily the burdens of present day events bear upon your profession.
You may remember that in 1851 the New York Herald Tribune under the sponsorship and publishing of Horace Greeley, employed as its London correspondent an obscure journalist by the name of Karl Marx.
We are told that foreign correspondent Marx, stone broke, and with a family ill and undernourished, constantly appealed to Greeley and managing editor Charles Dana for an increase in his munificent salary of $5 per installment, a salary which he and Engels ungratefully labeled as the “lousiest petty bourgeois cheating.”
But when all his financial appeals were refused, Marx looked around for other means of livelihood and fame, eventually terminating his relationship with the Tribune and devoting his talents full time to the cause that would bequeath the world the seeds of Leninism, Stalinism, revolution and the cold war.
If only this capitalistic New York newspaper had treated him more kindly; if only Marx had remained a foreign correspondent, history might have been different. And I hope all publishers will bear this lesson in mind the next time they receive a poverty-stricken appeal for a small increase in the expense account from an obscure newspaper man.
I have selected as the title of my remarks tonight “The President and the Press.” Some may suggest that this would be more naturally worded “The President Versus the Press.” But those are not my sentiments tonight.
It is true, however, that when a well-known diplomat from another country demanded recently that our State Department repudiate certain newspaper attacks on his colleague it was unnecessary for us to reply that this Administration was not responsible for the press, for the press had already made it clear that it was not responsible for this Administration.
Nevertheless, my purpose here tonight is not to deliver the usual assault on the so-called one party press. On the contrary, in recent months I have rarely heard any complaints about political bias in the press except from a few Republicans. Nor is it my purpose tonight to discuss or defend the televising of Presidential press conferences. I think it is highly beneficial to have some 20,000,000 Americans regularly sit in on these conferences to observe, if I may say so, the incisive, the intelligent and the courteous qualities displayed by your Washington correspondents.
Nor, finally, are these remarks intended to examine the proper degree of privacy which the press should allow to any President and his family.
If in the last few months your White House reporters and photographers have been attending church services with regularity, that has surely done them no harm.On the other hand, I realize that your staff and wire service photographers may be complaining that they do not enjoy the same green privileges at the local golf courses that they once did.
It is true that my predecessor did not object as I do to pictures of one’s golfing skill in action. But neither on the other hand did he ever bean a Secret Service man.
My topic tonight is a more sober one of concern to publishers as well as editors.
I want to talk about our common responsibilities in the face of a common danger. The events of recent weeks may have helped to illuminate that challenge for some; but the dimensions of its threat have loomed large on the horizon for many years. Whatever our hopes may be for the future–for reducing this threat or living with it–there is no escaping either the gravity or the totality of its challenge to our survival and to our security–a challenge that confronts us in unaccustomed ways in every sphere of human activity.
This deadly challenge imposes upon our society two requirements of direct concern both to the press and to the President–two requirements that may seem almost contradictory in tone, but which must be reconciled and fulfilled if we are to meet this national peril. I refer, first, to the need for a far greater public information; and, second, to the need for far greater official secrecy.
The very word “secrecy” is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.
But I do ask every publisher, every editor, and every newsman in the nation to reexamine his own standards, and to recognize the nature of our country’s peril. In time of war, the government and the press have customarily joined in an effort based largely on self-discipline, to prevent unauthorized disclosures to the enemy. In time of “clear and present danger,” the courts have held that even the privileged rights of the First Amendment must yield to the public’s need for national security.
Today no war has been declared–and however fierce the struggle may be, it may never be declared in the traditional fashion. Our way of life is under attack. Those who make themselves our enemy are advancing around the globe. The survival of our friends is in danger. And yet no war has been declared, no borders have been crossed by marching troops, no missiles have been fired.
If the press is awaiting a declaration of war before it imposes the self-discipline of combat conditions, then I can only say that no war ever posed a greater threat to our security. If you are awaiting a finding of “clear and present danger,” then I can only say that the danger has never been more clear and its presence has never been more imminent.
It requires a change in outlook, a change in tactics, a change in missions–by the government, by the people, by every businessman or labor leader, and by every newspaper. For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence–on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.
Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match.Nevertheless, every democracy recognizes the necessary restraints of national security–and the question remains whether those restraints need to be more strictly observed if we are to oppose this kind of attack as well as outright invasion.
For the facts of the matter are that this nation’s foes have openly boasted of acquiring through our newspapers information they would otherwise hire agents to acquire through theft, bribery or espionage; that details of this nation’s covert preparations to counter the enemy’s covert operations have been available to every newspaper reader, friend and foe alike; that the size, the strength, the location and the nature of our forces and weapons, and our plans and strategy for their use, have all been pinpointed in the press and other news media to a degree sufficient to satisfy any foreign power; and that, in at least in one case, the publication of details concerning a secret mechanism whereby satellites were followed required its alteration at the expense of considerable time and money.
The newspapers which printed these stories were loyal, patriotic, responsible and well-meaning. Had we been engaged in open warfare, they undoubtedly would not have published such items. But in the absence of open warfare, they recognized only the tests of journalism and not the tests of national security. And my question tonight is whether additional tests should not now be adopted.
The question is for you alone to answer. No public official should answer it for you. No governmental plan should impose its restraints against your will. But I would be failing in my duty to the nation, in considering all of the responsibilities that we now bear and all of the means at hand to meet those responsibilities, if I did not commend this problem to your attention, and urge its thoughtful consideration.
On many earlier occasions, I have said–and your newspapers have constantly said–that these are times that appeal to every citizen’s sense of sacrifice and self-discipline. They call out to every citizen to weigh his rights and comforts against his obligations to the common good. I cannot now believe that those citizens who serve in the newspaper business consider themselves exempt from that appeal.
I have no intention of establishing a new Office of War Information to govern the flow of news. I am not suggesting any new forms of censorship or any new types of security classifications. I have no easy answer to the dilemma that I have posed, and would not seek to impose it if I had one. But I am asking the members of the newspaper profession and the industry in this country to reexamine their own responsibilities, to consider the degree and the nature of the present danger, and to heed the duty of self-restraint which that danger imposes upon us all.
Every newspaper now asks itself, with respect to every story: “Is it news?” All I suggest is that you add the question: “Is it in the interest of the national security?” And I hope that every group in America–unions and businessmen and public officials at every level– will ask the same question of their endeavors, and subject their actions to the same exacting tests.
And should the press of America consider and recommend the voluntary assumption of specific new steps or machinery, I can assure you that we will cooperate whole-heartedly with those recommendations.
Perhaps there will be no recommendations. Perhaps there is no answer to the dilemma faced by a free and open society in a cold and secret war. In times of peace, any discussion of this subject, and any action that results, are both painful and without precedent. But this is a time of peace and peril which knows no precedent in history.
It is the unprecedented nature of this challenge that also gives rise to your second obligation–an obligation which I share. And that is our obligation to inform and alert the American people–to make certain that they possess all the facts that they need, and understand them as well–the perils, the prospects, the purposes of our program and the choices that we face.
No President should fear public scrutiny of his program. For from that scrutiny comes understanding; and from that understanding comes support or opposition. And both are necessary. I am not asking your newspapers to support the Administration, but I am asking your help in the tremendous task of informing and alerting the American people. For I have complete confidence in the response and dedication of our citizens whenever they are fully informed.
I not only could not stifle controversy among your readers–I welcome it. This Administration intends to be candid about its errors; for as a wise man once said: “An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it.” We intend to accept full responsibility for our errors; and we expect you to point them out when we miss them.
Without debate, without criticism, no Administration and no country can succeed–and no republic can survive. That is why the Athenian lawmaker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. And that is why our press was protected by the First Amendment– the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution- -not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and the sentimental, not to simply “give the public what it wants”–but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold, educate and sometimes even anger public opinion.
This means greater coverage and analysis of international news–for it is no longer far away and foreign but close at hand and local. It means greater attention to improved understanding of the news as well as improved transmission. And it means, finally, that government at all levels, must meet its obligation to provide you with the fullest possible information outside the narrowest limits of national security–and we intend to do it.
It was early in the Seventeenth Century that Francis Bacon remarked on three recent inventions already transforming the world: the compass, gunpowder and the printing press. Now the links between the nations first forged by the compass have made us all citizens of the world, the hopes and threats of one becoming the hopes and threats of us all. In that one world’s efforts to live together, the evolution of gunpowder to its ultimate limit has warned mankind of the terrible consequences of failure.
And so it is to the printing press–to the recorder of man’s deeds, the keeper of his conscience, the courier of his news–that we look for strength and assistance, confident that with your help man will be what he was born to be: free and independent.
John F. Kennedy gave this speech to the American Newspaper Publishers Association on 27th April 1961, two and a half years before his assassination (November 22, 1963).
He details his thoughts on secret societies and what seems to be a call to action. Some believe that he is referring to secret societies being established within the US government and to others it is a cryptic message about an overseas communist threat.
I will leave it up to you to come to your own conclusion as to what this speech is about, but it is apparent that he is well aware that secret societies exist and are attempting to infiltrate society. In his own words he finds the situation “repugnant”
Below are some quotes from the event, followed by a video that broadcasts the essence of his speech. Lastly, the entire speech has been transcribed for people who wish to read everything he had to say on that day.
* “The very word “secrecy” is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings”
* “Today no war has been declared — and however fierce the struggle may be, it may never be declared in the traditional fashion. Our way of life is under attack”
* “We are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence — on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day”
* “It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations”
Full Speech
Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen:
I appreciate very much your generous invitation to be here tonight.
You bear heavy responsibilities these days and an article I read some time ago reminded me of how particularly heavily the burdens of present day events bear upon your profession.
You may remember that in 1851 the New York Herald Tribune under the sponsorship and publishing of Horace Greeley, employed as its London correspondent an obscure journalist by the name of Karl Marx.
We are told that foreign correspondent Marx, stone broke, and with a family ill and undernourished, constantly appealed to Greeley and managing editor Charles Dana for an increase in his munificent salary of $5 per installment, a salary which he and Engels ungratefully labeled as the “lousiest petty bourgeois cheating.”
But when all his financial appeals were refused, Marx looked around for other means of livelihood and fame, eventually terminating his relationship with the Tribune and devoting his talents full time to the cause that would bequeath the world the seeds of Leninism, Stalinism, revolution and the cold war.
If only this capitalistic New York newspaper had treated him more kindly; if only Marx had remained a foreign correspondent, history might have been different. And I hope all publishers will bear this lesson in mind the next time they receive a poverty-stricken appeal for a small increase in the expense account from an obscure newspaper man.
I have selected as the title of my remarks tonight “The President and the Press.” Some may suggest that this would be more naturally worded “The President Versus the Press.” But those are not my sentiments tonight.
It is true, however, that when a well-known diplomat from another country demanded recently that our State Department repudiate certain newspaper attacks on his colleague it was unnecessary for us to reply that this Administration was not responsible for the press, for the press had already made it clear that it was not responsible for this Administration.
Nevertheless, my purpose here tonight is not to deliver the usual assault on the so-called one party press. On the contrary, in recent months I have rarely heard any complaints about political bias in the press except from a few Republicans. Nor is it my purpose tonight to discuss or defend the televising of Presidential press conferences. I think it is highly beneficial to have some 20,000,000 Americans regularly sit in on these conferences to observe, if I may say so, the incisive, the intelligent and the courteous qualities displayed by your Washington correspondents.
Nor, finally, are these remarks intended to examine the proper degree of privacy which the press should allow to any President and his family.
If in the last few months your White House reporters and photographers have been attending church services with regularity, that has surely done them no harm.On the other hand, I realize that your staff and wire service photographers may be complaining that they do not enjoy the same green privileges at the local golf courses that they once did.
It is true that my predecessor did not object as I do to pictures of one’s golfing skill in action. But neither on the other hand did he ever bean a Secret Service man.
My topic tonight is a more sober one of concern to publishers as well as editors.
I want to talk about our common responsibilities in the face of a common danger. The events of recent weeks may have helped to illuminate that challenge for some; but the dimensions of its threat have loomed large on the horizon for many years. Whatever our hopes may be for the future–for reducing this threat or living with it–there is no escaping either the gravity or the totality of its challenge to our survival and to our security–a challenge that confronts us in unaccustomed ways in every sphere of human activity.
This deadly challenge imposes upon our society two requirements of direct concern both to the press and to the President–two requirements that may seem almost contradictory in tone, but which must be reconciled and fulfilled if we are to meet this national peril. I refer, first, to the need for a far greater public information; and, second, to the need for far greater official secrecy.
The very word “secrecy” is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.
But I do ask every publisher, every editor, and every newsman in the nation to reexamine his own standards, and to recognize the nature of our country’s peril. In time of war, the government and the press have customarily joined in an effort based largely on self-discipline, to prevent unauthorized disclosures to the enemy. In time of “clear and present danger,” the courts have held that even the privileged rights of the First Amendment must yield to the public’s need for national security.
Today no war has been declared–and however fierce the struggle may be, it may never be declared in the traditional fashion. Our way of life is under attack. Those who make themselves our enemy are advancing around the globe. The survival of our friends is in danger. And yet no war has been declared, no borders have been crossed by marching troops, no missiles have been fired.
If the press is awaiting a declaration of war before it imposes the self-discipline of combat conditions, then I can only say that no war ever posed a greater threat to our security. If you are awaiting a finding of “clear and present danger,” then I can only say that the danger has never been more clear and its presence has never been more imminent.
It requires a change in outlook, a change in tactics, a change in missions–by the government, by the people, by every businessman or labor leader, and by every newspaper. For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence–on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.
Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match.Nevertheless, every democracy recognizes the necessary restraints of national security–and the question remains whether those restraints need to be more strictly observed if we are to oppose this kind of attack as well as outright invasion.
For the facts of the matter are that this nation’s foes have openly boasted of acquiring through our newspapers information they would otherwise hire agents to acquire through theft, bribery or espionage; that details of this nation’s covert preparations to counter the enemy’s covert operations have been available to every newspaper reader, friend and foe alike; that the size, the strength, the location and the nature of our forces and weapons, and our plans and strategy for their use, have all been pinpointed in the press and other news media to a degree sufficient to satisfy any foreign power; and that, in at least in one case, the publication of details concerning a secret mechanism whereby satellites were followed required its alteration at the expense of considerable time and money.
The newspapers which printed these stories were loyal, patriotic, responsible and well-meaning. Had we been engaged in open warfare, they undoubtedly would not have published such items. But in the absence of open warfare, they recognized only the tests of journalism and not the tests of national security. And my question tonight is whether additional tests should not now be adopted.
The question is for you alone to answer. No public official should answer it for you. No governmental plan should impose its restraints against your will. But I would be failing in my duty to the nation, in considering all of the responsibilities that we now bear and all of the means at hand to meet those responsibilities, if I did not commend this problem to your attention, and urge its thoughtful consideration.
On many earlier occasions, I have said–and your newspapers have constantly said–that these are times that appeal to every citizen’s sense of sacrifice and self-discipline. They call out to every citizen to weigh his rights and comforts against his obligations to the common good. I cannot now believe that those citizens who serve in the newspaper business consider themselves exempt from that appeal.
I have no intention of establishing a new Office of War Information to govern the flow of news. I am not suggesting any new forms of censorship or any new types of security classifications. I have no easy answer to the dilemma that I have posed, and would not seek to impose it if I had one. But I am asking the members of the newspaper profession and the industry in this country to reexamine their own responsibilities, to consider the degree and the nature of the present danger, and to heed the duty of self-restraint which that danger imposes upon us all.
Every newspaper now asks itself, with respect to every story: “Is it news?” All I suggest is that you add the question: “Is it in the interest of the national security?” And I hope that every group in America–unions and businessmen and public officials at every level– will ask the same question of their endeavors, and subject their actions to the same exacting tests.
And should the press of America consider and recommend the voluntary assumption of specific new steps or machinery, I can assure you that we will cooperate whole-heartedly with those recommendations.
Perhaps there will be no recommendations. Perhaps there is no answer to the dilemma faced by a free and open society in a cold and secret war. In times of peace, any discussion of this subject, and any action that results, are both painful and without precedent. But this is a time of peace and peril which knows no precedent in history.
It is the unprecedented nature of this challenge that also gives rise to your second obligation–an obligation which I share. And that is our obligation to inform and alert the American people–to make certain that they possess all the facts that they need, and understand them as well–the perils, the prospects, the purposes of our program and the choices that we face.
No President should fear public scrutiny of his program. For from that scrutiny comes understanding; and from that understanding comes support or opposition. And both are necessary. I am not asking your newspapers to support the Administration, but I am asking your help in the tremendous task of informing and alerting the American people. For I have complete confidence in the response and dedication of our citizens whenever they are fully informed.
I not only could not stifle controversy among your readers–I welcome it. This Administration intends to be candid about its errors; for as a wise man once said: “An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it.” We intend to accept full responsibility for our errors; and we expect you to point them out when we miss them.
Without debate, without criticism, no Administration and no country can succeed–and no republic can survive. That is why the Athenian lawmaker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. And that is why our press was protected by the First Amendment– the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution- -not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and the sentimental, not to simply “give the public what it wants”–but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold, educate and sometimes even anger public opinion.
This means greater coverage and analysis of international news–for it is no longer far away and foreign but close at hand and local. It means greater attention to improved understanding of the news as well as improved transmission. And it means, finally, that government at all levels, must meet its obligation to provide you with the fullest possible information outside the narrowest limits of national security–and we intend to do it.
It was early in the Seventeenth Century that Francis Bacon remarked on three recent inventions already transforming the world: the compass, gunpowder and the printing press. Now the links between the nations first forged by the compass have made us all citizens of the world, the hopes and threats of one becoming the hopes and threats of us all. In that one world’s efforts to live together, the evolution of gunpowder to its ultimate limit has warned mankind of the terrible consequences of failure.
And so it is to the printing press–to the recorder of man’s deeds, the keeper of his conscience, the courier of his news–that we look for strength and assistance, confident that with your help man will be what he was born to be: free and independent.
Ballots or Bullets: Democracy and World Power
Ballots or Bullets: Democracy and World Power
The principal reason why Washington engages in military wars, sanctions and clandestine operations to secure power abroad is because its chosen clients cannot and do not win free and open elections.
A brief survey of recent election outcomes testify to the electoral unattractiveness of Washington backed clients. The majority of democratic electorates rejects candidates and parties which back the US global agenda: neo-liberal economic policies; a highly militarized foreign policy; Israeli colonization and annexation of Palestine; the concentration of wealth in the financial sector; the military escalation against China and Russia. While the US policy attempts to re-impose the pillage and dominance of the 1990’s via recycled client regimes the democratic electorates want to move on toward less bellicose, more inclusive governments, which restore labor and welfare rights.
The US seeks to impose the unipolar world, of the Bush Sr. and Clinton era, failing to recognize the vast changes in the world economy, including the rise of China and Russia as world powers, the emergence of the BRIC and other regional organizations and above all the growth of popular democratic consciousness.
Failing to convince electorates by reason or manipulation, Washington has opted to intervene by force, and to finance organizations to subvert the democratic electoral process. The frequent resort to bullets and economic coercion when ballots fail to produce the “appropriate outcome testifies to the profoundly reactionary nature of US foreign policy.Reactionary in the double sense of ends and means. Progmatically, the imperial centered socio-economic policies deepen inequalities and depress living standards. The means to achieve power,the instruments of policy,include wars, intervention, covert operations, are more akin to extremists, quasi-fascist, far right regimes.
Free Elections and the Rejection of US Clients
US backed electoral parties and candidates have suffered defeats throughout most of the world, despite generous financial backing and international mass media propaganda campaigns. What is striking about the negative voting outcomes is the fact that the vast majority of adversaries are neither anti-capitalist nor ‘socialist’. What is equally striking is that all of the US clients are rightist or far-rightist parties and leaders. In other words the polarization is usually between center-left and rightist parties; the choice is between reform or reaction, between an independent or satellite foreign policy.
Washington and Latin America: Masters of Defeats
Over the past decade, Washington has backed losing neo-liberal candidates throughout Latin America and then sought to subvert the democratic outcome.
Bolivia
Since 2005, Evo Morales the center left leader favoring social reforms and an independent foreign policy has won three Presidential elections against Washington backed rightist parties, each time by a greater margin. In 2008, he ousted the US ambassador for intervening, expelled the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) in 2008, USAID in 2013 and the Military Mission after foiling an aborted coup in Santa Cruz.
Venezuela
The United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) and its predecessor have won every Presidential and Congressional election (over a dozen) except one over the past 15 years despite US multi-million dollar funding of neo-liberal opposition parties. Unable to defeat the Chavez led radical-reform government, Washington backed a violent coup (2002), a boss’s lockout (2002/3), and decade’s long paramilitary attacks of pro-democracy leaders and activists.
Ecuador
The US has opposed the center-left government of President Correa for ousting it from the military base in Manta, renegotiating and repudiating some of its foreign debt and backing regional pacts which exclude the US. As a result Washington backed an abortive police led coup in 2010 that was quickly defeated.
Honduras
During democratically elected President Manual Zelaya’s tenure in office, a center-left President, Honduras sought to pursue closer relations with Venezuela in order to receive greater economic aid and to shed its reputation as a US dominated “banana republic”. Washington unable to defeat him at the ballot box, responded by supporting a military coup (2009) which ousted Zelaya and returned Honduras to the US fold. Since the coup Honduras has experienced more killings of popular leaders-200- than any country in Latin America.
Brazil
The center-left Workers Party has won four straight elections against US backed neo-liberal candidates beginning in 2002 and continuing through the 2014 elections. The US propaganda machine, including NSA’s spying on President Rousseff and the strategic state petrol company, Petrobras, and the international financial press went all out to discredit the reformist center-left government. To no avail! The voters preferred an ‘inclusive’ social liberal regime pursuing an independent foreign policy to an opposition embedded in the discredited socially regressive neo-liberal politics of the Cardoso regime (1994-2002). In the run-up to the 2014 elections Brazilian and US financial speculators attempted to strike fear in the electorate by betting against the currency (real) and driving the stock market into a precipitous fall. To no avail. Rousseff won with 52% of the vote.
Argentina
In Argentina a massive popular revolt overthrew the US backed neo-liberal regime of De la Rua in 2001 .Subsequently, the electorate elected the center-left Kirchner government over the rightist, US backed Menem candidacy in 2003. Kirchner pursued a reformist agenda imposing a moratorium on the debt and combining high economic growth with large scale social expenditures and an independent foreign policy. US opposition escalated with the election of his wife Cristina Fernandez. Financial elites, Wall Street, the US judiciary and Treasury intervened to destabilize the government, after failing to defeat Fernandez’s re-election. Extra-parliamentary financial pressures were matched by political and economic support for rightist politicians in preparation for the 2015 elections.
Earlier, in 1976, the US backed the military coup and political terror that led to the murder of 30,000 activists and militants. In 2014 the US backed a “financial coup” as a federal judge sided with vulture funds, sowing financial terror in international markets against a democratically elected government.
Paraguay
President Fernando Lugo was a moderate former Bishop who pursued a watered-down center-left agenda.Nevertheless, he raised issues that conflicted with Washington’s extremist agenda, including Paraguay’s membership in regional organizations that excluded the US (MERCOSUR).He appealed to the landless rural workers and he retained ties to other Latin American center-left regimes. He was deposed by Congress in 2012 in a highly dubious ‘institutional coup’, quickly supported by the White House and replaced by a straight-line neo-liberal, Federico Franco with tight links to Washington and hostile to Venezuela.
Globalizing US Threats to Democracy
US subversion of democracy when center-left political formations compete for power is not confined to Latin America – it has gone ‘global’.
Ukraine
The most egregious example is the Ukraine, where the US spent over $6 billion in over a decade and a half. Washington financed, organized, and promoted pro NATO shock troops to seize power against an elected regime (President Yevtushenko) which tried to balance ties between the West and Russia. In February 2014, an armed uprising and mob action led to the overthrow of the elected government and the imposition of a puppet regime totally beholden to the US. The violent putschists met resistance from a large swathe of pro-democracy activists in the Eastern region. The Kiev junta led by oligarch Petro Poroshenko dispatched air and ground troops to repress the popular resistance with the unanimous backing of the US and EU. When the rightist regime in Kiev moved to impose its rule over the Crimea and to break its military base treaty with Russia, the Crimean citizens voted, by a large margin (85%), to separate and merge with Russia.
In both the Ukraine and Crimea, US policy was directed toward imposing by force, the subordination of democracy to NATO’s drive to encircle Russia and undermine its democratically elected government.
Russia
Following the election of Vladimir Putin to the Presidency, the US organized and financed a large number of opposition “think tanks”,and NGO’s, to destabilize the government. Large scale demonstrations by well-funded NGO’s were given wide play by all the Western mass media.
Failing to secure an electoral majority and after suffering electoral defeats in the executive and legislative elections, Washington and the EU, using the pretext of Russian “intervention” in the Ukraine, launched a full scale economic war on Russia. Economic sanctions were enforced in the hopes of provoking economic collapse and a popular upheaval. Nothing of the sort occurred. Putin gained greater popularity and stature in Russia and consolidated its ties with China and the other BRIC countries.
In sum in the Ukraine, Crimea and Russia, facing independent elected governments, Washington resorted to a mob uprising, military encirclement and an escalation of economic sanctions.
Iran
Iran has periodic elections in which pro and anti-western parties compete. Iran has drawn the wrath of Washington because of its support for Palestinian liberation from the Israeli yoke; its opposition to the Gulf absolutist states; and its ties to Syria, Lebanon (Hezbollah) and post- Saddam Hussain Iraq. As a result, the US has imposed economic sanctions to cripple its economy and finances and has funded pro-Western neo-liberal opposition NGO’s and political factions. Unable to defeat the Islamist power elite electorally, it chooses to destabilize via sanctions in order to disrupt its economy and assassinations of scientists and cyber warfare.
Egypt
Washington backed the Hosni Mubarak dictatorship for over three decades. Following the popular uprising in 2011, which overthrew the regime, Washington retained and strengthened its ties to the Mubarak police, military and intelligence apparatus. While promoting an alliance between the military and the newly elected President Mohammed Morsi, Washington funded NGO’s, who acted to subvert the government through mass demonstrations. The military, under the leadership of US client General Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, seized power, outlawed the Moslem Brotherhood and abolished democratic freedoms.
Washington quickly renewed military and economic aid to the Sisi dictatorship and stregthened its ties with the authoritarian regime. In line with US and Israeli policy, General Sisi tightened the blockade of Gaza, allied with Saudi Arabia and the Gulf despots, strengthened its ties with the IMF and implemented a regressive neo-liberal program by eliminating fuel and food subsidies and lowering taxes on big business. The US backed coup and restoration of dictatorship was the only way Washington could secure a loyal client relationship in North Africa.
Libya
The US and NATO and Gulf allies launched a war (2011) against the independent, nationalist Libyan government, as the only way to oust the popular, welfare government of Colonel Gadhafi. Unable to defeat him via internal subversion, unable to destabilize the economy, Washington and its NATO partners launched hundreds of bombing missions accompanied by arms transfers to local Islamic satraps, tribal, clan and other violent authoritarian groups. The subsequent ‘electoral process” lacking the most basic political guarantees, fraught by corruption, violence and chaos, led to several competing power centers. Washington’s decision to undermine democratic procedures led to a violent Hobbesian world, replacing a popular welfare regime with chaos and terrorism.
Palestine
Washington has pursued a policy of backing Israeli seizures and colonization of Palestinian territory, savage bombings and the mass destruction of Gaza. Israel determined to destroy the democratically elected Hamas government has received unconditional US backing. The Israeli colonial regime has imposed racist, armed colonies throughout the West Bank, financed by the US government, private investors and US Zionist donors. Faced with the choice between a democratically elected nationalist regime, Hamas, and a brutal militarist regime, Israel, US policymakers have never failed to back Israel in its quest to destroy the Palestinian mini-state.
Lebanon
The US, along with Saudi Arabia and Israel, has opposed the freely elected Hezbollah led coalition government formed in 2011. The US backed the Israeli invasion in 2006, which was defeated by the Hezbollah militias. Washington backed the rightwing Hariri led coalition (2008 – 2011) which was marginalized in 2011. It sought to destabilize the society by backing Sunni extremists especially in Northern Lebanon. Lacking popular electoral support to convert Lebanon into a US client state, Washington relies on Israeli military incursions and Syrian based terrorists to destabilize Lebanon’s democratically elected government.
Syria
Syria’s Bashar Assad regime has been the target of US, EU, Saudi and Israeli enmity because of its support for Palestine, its ties with Iraq, Iran, Russia and Hezbollah. Its opposition to the Gulf despotism and its refusal to become a US client state (like Jordan and Egypt) has been another source of NATO hostility. Under pressure from its internal democratic opposition and its external allies, Russia and Iran , the Bashar Assad regime convoked a conference of non-violent opposition parties, leaders and groups to find an electoral solution to the ongoing conflict. Washington and its NATO allies rejected a democratic electoral road to reconciliation. They and their Turkish and Gulf allies financed and armed thousands of Islamic extremists who invaded the country. Over a million refugees and 200,000 dead Syrians were a direct result of Washington’s decision to pursue “regime change” via armed conflict.
China
China has become the world’s largest economy. It has become a leading investment and trading country in the world. It has replaced the US and the EU in Asian, African and Latin American markets. Faced with peaceful economic competition and offers of mutually beneficial free trade agreements, Washington has chosen to pursue a policy of military encirclement, internal destabilization and Pan Pacific integration agreements that excludes China. The US has expanded military deployments and bases in Japan, Australia and the Philippines. It has heightened naval and air force surveillance just beyond China’s limits. It has fanned rival maritime claims of China’s neighbors, encroaching on vital Chinese waterways.
The US has supported violent Uighur separatists, Tibetan terrorists and protests in Hong Kong in order to fragment and discredit China’s rule over its sovereign territory. Fomenting separation via violent means results in harsh repression, which in turn can alienate a domestic constituency and provide grist for the Western media mills. The key to the US countering China’s economic ascent is political: fomenting domestic divisions and weakening central authority. The democratization which Chinese citizens favor has little resonance with US financed ‘democracy’ charades in Hong Kong or separatist violence in the provinces.
Washington’s effort to exclude China from major trade and investment agreements in Asia and elsewhere has been a laughable failure. The principle US “partners”, Japan and Australia are heavily dependent on the Chinese market. Washington’s (free trade) allies in Latin America, name Colombia, Peru, Chile and Mexico are eager to increase trade with China. India and Russia are signing off on multi-billion dollar trade and investment deals with China! Washington’s policy of economic exclusion miscarried in the first month!
In sum, Washington’s decision to pursue confrontation over conciliation and partnership; military encirclement over co-operation; exclusion over inclusion, goes counter to a democratic foreign policy designed to promote democracy in China and elsewhere. An authoritarian choice in pursuit of unachievable Asian supremacy is not a virtue; it is a sign of weakness and decay.
Conclusion
In our global survey of US policy toward democracy, center-left governments and free elections we find overwhelming evidence of systematic US hostility and opposition. The political essence of the “war on terrorism” is Washington’s world-wide long-term pernicious assault on independent governments, especially center-left democratic regimes engaged in serious efforts to reduce poverty and inequality.
Washington’s methods of choice range from financing rightist political parties via USAID and NGO’s, to supporting violent military coups; from backing street mobs engaged in destabilization campaigns to air and ground invasions. Washington’s animus to democratic processes is not confined to any region, religious, ethnic or racial group. The US has bombed black Africans in Libya; organized coups in Latin America against Indians and Christians in Bolivia; supported wars against Muslims in Iraq, Palestine and Syria; financed neo-fascist “battalions”and armed assaults against Orthodox Christians in the Eastern Ukraine; denounced atheists in China and Russia.
Washington subsidizes and backs elections only when neo-liberal client regimes win. It consistently destabilizes center-left governments which oppose US imperial policies.
None of the targets of US aggression are strictly speaking anti-capitalist. Bolivia, Ecuador, Brazil, Argentina are capitalist regimes which attempt to regulate, tax and reduce disparities of wealth via moderate welfare reforms.
Throughout the world ,Washington always supports extremist political groups engaged in violent and unconstitutional activity that have victimized democratic leaders and supporters. The coup regime in Honduras has murdered hundreds of rank and file democratic activists, farm workers,and poor peasants.
The US armed Islamic jihadist and ex-pat allies in Libya have fallen out with their NATO mentors and are at war among themselves, engaging in mutual bloodletting.
Throughout the Middle East, South Asia, North Africa, Central America and the Caucuses wherever US intervention has taken place, extreme right-wing groups have served, at least for a time, as Washington and Brussels principal allies.
Pro EU-NATO allies in the Ukraine include a strong contingent of neo-Nazis, paramilitary thugs and “mainstream” military forces given to bombing civilian neighborhoods with cluster bombs.
In Venezuela, Washington bankrolls terrorist paramilitary forces and political extremists who murdered a socialist congressional leader and dozens of leftists.
In Mexico the US has advised, finances and backs rightist regimes whose military, paramilitary and narco-terrorist forces recently murdered and burned alive 43 teachers’ college students and are deeply implicated in the killing of 100,000 “other” Mexicans, in less than a decade.
Over the past eleven years the US has pumped over $6 billion dollars in military aid to Colombia, funding its seven military bases and several thousand special operations forces and doubling the size of the Colombian military. As a result thousands of civil society and human rights activists, journalists, trade union leaders and peasants, have been murdered. Over 3 million small land -holders have been dispossessed.
The mass media cover-up the US option for right wing extremism by describing ruling mass murderers as “center-right regimes” or as “moderates”: linguistic perversions and grotesque euphemisms, are as bizarre as the barbarous activities, perpetrated by the White House.
In the drive for world power, no crime is left undone; no democracy that opposes it is tolerated. Countries as small and marginal as Honduran or Somalia or as great and powerful as Russia and China cannot escape the wrath and covert destabilization efforts of the White House.
The quest for world domination is driven by the subjective belief in the “triumph of the will”. Global supremacy depends entirely on force and violence: ravaging country after country, from carpet bombing of Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya to proxy wars in Somalia, Yemen, Ukraine to mass killings in Colombia, Mexico and Syria.
Yet there are limits to the spread of the “killing fields”. Democratic processes are defended by robust citizens’ movements in Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia. The spread of imperial backed terrorist seizures of power are stymied by emergence of global powers, China in in the Far East and Russia in Crimea and eastern Ukraine have taken bold steps to limit US imperial expansion.
In the United Nations, the President of the United States and his delegate Samantha Powers rant and rave, in a fit of pure insanity, against Russia as “the greatest world terrorist state” for resisting military encirclement and the violent annexation of the Ukraine.
Extremism, authoritarianism and political insanity know no frontiers. The massive growth of the secret political police, the National Security Agency, the shredding of constitutional guarantees, the conversion of electoral processes into elite controlled multi-billion dollar charades, the growing impunity of police involved in civilian murders, speaks to an emerging totalitarian police – state inside the US as a counterpart to the violent pursuit of world power.
Citizens’ movements, consequential center-left parties and governments, organized workers, in Latin America, Asia and Europe have demonstrated that authoritarian extremist proxies of Washington can be defeated. That disastrous neo-liberal policies can be reverted. That welfare states, reductions in poverty, unemployment and inequalities can be legislated despite imperial efforts to the contrary.
The vast majority of the Americans, here and now, are strongly opposed to Wall Street, big business and the financial sector. The Presidency and the Congress are despised by three quarters of the American public. Overseas wars are rejected. The US public, for its own reasons and interests, shares with the pro-democracy movement’s world-wide, a common enmity toward Washington’s quest for world power. Here and now in the United States of America we must learn and build our own powerful democratic political instruments.
We must through the force of reason contain and defeat “the reason of force”: the political insanity that informs Washington’s ‘will to power’. We must degrade the empire to rebuild the republic. We must turn from intervening against democracy abroad to building a democratic welfare republic at home.
James Petras
The principal reason why Washington engages in military wars, sanctions and clandestine operations to secure power abroad is because its chosen clients cannot and do not win free and open elections.
A brief survey of recent election outcomes testify to the electoral unattractiveness of Washington backed clients. The majority of democratic electorates rejects candidates and parties which back the US global agenda: neo-liberal economic policies; a highly militarized foreign policy; Israeli colonization and annexation of Palestine; the concentration of wealth in the financial sector; the military escalation against China and Russia. While the US policy attempts to re-impose the pillage and dominance of the 1990’s via recycled client regimes the democratic electorates want to move on toward less bellicose, more inclusive governments, which restore labor and welfare rights.
The US seeks to impose the unipolar world, of the Bush Sr. and Clinton era, failing to recognize the vast changes in the world economy, including the rise of China and Russia as world powers, the emergence of the BRIC and other regional organizations and above all the growth of popular democratic consciousness.
Failing to convince electorates by reason or manipulation, Washington has opted to intervene by force, and to finance organizations to subvert the democratic electoral process. The frequent resort to bullets and economic coercion when ballots fail to produce the “appropriate outcome testifies to the profoundly reactionary nature of US foreign policy.Reactionary in the double sense of ends and means. Progmatically, the imperial centered socio-economic policies deepen inequalities and depress living standards. The means to achieve power,the instruments of policy,include wars, intervention, covert operations, are more akin to extremists, quasi-fascist, far right regimes.
Free Elections and the Rejection of US Clients
US backed electoral parties and candidates have suffered defeats throughout most of the world, despite generous financial backing and international mass media propaganda campaigns. What is striking about the negative voting outcomes is the fact that the vast majority of adversaries are neither anti-capitalist nor ‘socialist’. What is equally striking is that all of the US clients are rightist or far-rightist parties and leaders. In other words the polarization is usually between center-left and rightist parties; the choice is between reform or reaction, between an independent or satellite foreign policy.
Washington and Latin America: Masters of Defeats
Over the past decade, Washington has backed losing neo-liberal candidates throughout Latin America and then sought to subvert the democratic outcome.
Bolivia
Since 2005, Evo Morales the center left leader favoring social reforms and an independent foreign policy has won three Presidential elections against Washington backed rightist parties, each time by a greater margin. In 2008, he ousted the US ambassador for intervening, expelled the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) in 2008, USAID in 2013 and the Military Mission after foiling an aborted coup in Santa Cruz.
Venezuela
The United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) and its predecessor have won every Presidential and Congressional election (over a dozen) except one over the past 15 years despite US multi-million dollar funding of neo-liberal opposition parties. Unable to defeat the Chavez led radical-reform government, Washington backed a violent coup (2002), a boss’s lockout (2002/3), and decade’s long paramilitary attacks of pro-democracy leaders and activists.
Ecuador
The US has opposed the center-left government of President Correa for ousting it from the military base in Manta, renegotiating and repudiating some of its foreign debt and backing regional pacts which exclude the US. As a result Washington backed an abortive police led coup in 2010 that was quickly defeated.
Honduras
During democratically elected President Manual Zelaya’s tenure in office, a center-left President, Honduras sought to pursue closer relations with Venezuela in order to receive greater economic aid and to shed its reputation as a US dominated “banana republic”. Washington unable to defeat him at the ballot box, responded by supporting a military coup (2009) which ousted Zelaya and returned Honduras to the US fold. Since the coup Honduras has experienced more killings of popular leaders-200- than any country in Latin America.
Brazil
The center-left Workers Party has won four straight elections against US backed neo-liberal candidates beginning in 2002 and continuing through the 2014 elections. The US propaganda machine, including NSA’s spying on President Rousseff and the strategic state petrol company, Petrobras, and the international financial press went all out to discredit the reformist center-left government. To no avail! The voters preferred an ‘inclusive’ social liberal regime pursuing an independent foreign policy to an opposition embedded in the discredited socially regressive neo-liberal politics of the Cardoso regime (1994-2002). In the run-up to the 2014 elections Brazilian and US financial speculators attempted to strike fear in the electorate by betting against the currency (real) and driving the stock market into a precipitous fall. To no avail. Rousseff won with 52% of the vote.
Argentina
In Argentina a massive popular revolt overthrew the US backed neo-liberal regime of De la Rua in 2001 .Subsequently, the electorate elected the center-left Kirchner government over the rightist, US backed Menem candidacy in 2003. Kirchner pursued a reformist agenda imposing a moratorium on the debt and combining high economic growth with large scale social expenditures and an independent foreign policy. US opposition escalated with the election of his wife Cristina Fernandez. Financial elites, Wall Street, the US judiciary and Treasury intervened to destabilize the government, after failing to defeat Fernandez’s re-election. Extra-parliamentary financial pressures were matched by political and economic support for rightist politicians in preparation for the 2015 elections.
Earlier, in 1976, the US backed the military coup and political terror that led to the murder of 30,000 activists and militants. In 2014 the US backed a “financial coup” as a federal judge sided with vulture funds, sowing financial terror in international markets against a democratically elected government.
Paraguay
President Fernando Lugo was a moderate former Bishop who pursued a watered-down center-left agenda.Nevertheless, he raised issues that conflicted with Washington’s extremist agenda, including Paraguay’s membership in regional organizations that excluded the US (MERCOSUR).He appealed to the landless rural workers and he retained ties to other Latin American center-left regimes. He was deposed by Congress in 2012 in a highly dubious ‘institutional coup’, quickly supported by the White House and replaced by a straight-line neo-liberal, Federico Franco with tight links to Washington and hostile to Venezuela.
Globalizing US Threats to Democracy
US subversion of democracy when center-left political formations compete for power is not confined to Latin America – it has gone ‘global’.
Ukraine
The most egregious example is the Ukraine, where the US spent over $6 billion in over a decade and a half. Washington financed, organized, and promoted pro NATO shock troops to seize power against an elected regime (President Yevtushenko) which tried to balance ties between the West and Russia. In February 2014, an armed uprising and mob action led to the overthrow of the elected government and the imposition of a puppet regime totally beholden to the US. The violent putschists met resistance from a large swathe of pro-democracy activists in the Eastern region. The Kiev junta led by oligarch Petro Poroshenko dispatched air and ground troops to repress the popular resistance with the unanimous backing of the US and EU. When the rightist regime in Kiev moved to impose its rule over the Crimea and to break its military base treaty with Russia, the Crimean citizens voted, by a large margin (85%), to separate and merge with Russia.
In both the Ukraine and Crimea, US policy was directed toward imposing by force, the subordination of democracy to NATO’s drive to encircle Russia and undermine its democratically elected government.
Russia
Following the election of Vladimir Putin to the Presidency, the US organized and financed a large number of opposition “think tanks”,and NGO’s, to destabilize the government. Large scale demonstrations by well-funded NGO’s were given wide play by all the Western mass media.
Failing to secure an electoral majority and after suffering electoral defeats in the executive and legislative elections, Washington and the EU, using the pretext of Russian “intervention” in the Ukraine, launched a full scale economic war on Russia. Economic sanctions were enforced in the hopes of provoking economic collapse and a popular upheaval. Nothing of the sort occurred. Putin gained greater popularity and stature in Russia and consolidated its ties with China and the other BRIC countries.
In sum in the Ukraine, Crimea and Russia, facing independent elected governments, Washington resorted to a mob uprising, military encirclement and an escalation of economic sanctions.
Iran
Iran has periodic elections in which pro and anti-western parties compete. Iran has drawn the wrath of Washington because of its support for Palestinian liberation from the Israeli yoke; its opposition to the Gulf absolutist states; and its ties to Syria, Lebanon (Hezbollah) and post- Saddam Hussain Iraq. As a result, the US has imposed economic sanctions to cripple its economy and finances and has funded pro-Western neo-liberal opposition NGO’s and political factions. Unable to defeat the Islamist power elite electorally, it chooses to destabilize via sanctions in order to disrupt its economy and assassinations of scientists and cyber warfare.
Egypt
Washington backed the Hosni Mubarak dictatorship for over three decades. Following the popular uprising in 2011, which overthrew the regime, Washington retained and strengthened its ties to the Mubarak police, military and intelligence apparatus. While promoting an alliance between the military and the newly elected President Mohammed Morsi, Washington funded NGO’s, who acted to subvert the government through mass demonstrations. The military, under the leadership of US client General Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, seized power, outlawed the Moslem Brotherhood and abolished democratic freedoms.
Washington quickly renewed military and economic aid to the Sisi dictatorship and stregthened its ties with the authoritarian regime. In line with US and Israeli policy, General Sisi tightened the blockade of Gaza, allied with Saudi Arabia and the Gulf despots, strengthened its ties with the IMF and implemented a regressive neo-liberal program by eliminating fuel and food subsidies and lowering taxes on big business. The US backed coup and restoration of dictatorship was the only way Washington could secure a loyal client relationship in North Africa.
Libya
The US and NATO and Gulf allies launched a war (2011) against the independent, nationalist Libyan government, as the only way to oust the popular, welfare government of Colonel Gadhafi. Unable to defeat him via internal subversion, unable to destabilize the economy, Washington and its NATO partners launched hundreds of bombing missions accompanied by arms transfers to local Islamic satraps, tribal, clan and other violent authoritarian groups. The subsequent ‘electoral process” lacking the most basic political guarantees, fraught by corruption, violence and chaos, led to several competing power centers. Washington’s decision to undermine democratic procedures led to a violent Hobbesian world, replacing a popular welfare regime with chaos and terrorism.
Palestine
Washington has pursued a policy of backing Israeli seizures and colonization of Palestinian territory, savage bombings and the mass destruction of Gaza. Israel determined to destroy the democratically elected Hamas government has received unconditional US backing. The Israeli colonial regime has imposed racist, armed colonies throughout the West Bank, financed by the US government, private investors and US Zionist donors. Faced with the choice between a democratically elected nationalist regime, Hamas, and a brutal militarist regime, Israel, US policymakers have never failed to back Israel in its quest to destroy the Palestinian mini-state.
Lebanon
The US, along with Saudi Arabia and Israel, has opposed the freely elected Hezbollah led coalition government formed in 2011. The US backed the Israeli invasion in 2006, which was defeated by the Hezbollah militias. Washington backed the rightwing Hariri led coalition (2008 – 2011) which was marginalized in 2011. It sought to destabilize the society by backing Sunni extremists especially in Northern Lebanon. Lacking popular electoral support to convert Lebanon into a US client state, Washington relies on Israeli military incursions and Syrian based terrorists to destabilize Lebanon’s democratically elected government.
Syria
Syria’s Bashar Assad regime has been the target of US, EU, Saudi and Israeli enmity because of its support for Palestine, its ties with Iraq, Iran, Russia and Hezbollah. Its opposition to the Gulf despotism and its refusal to become a US client state (like Jordan and Egypt) has been another source of NATO hostility. Under pressure from its internal democratic opposition and its external allies, Russia and Iran , the Bashar Assad regime convoked a conference of non-violent opposition parties, leaders and groups to find an electoral solution to the ongoing conflict. Washington and its NATO allies rejected a democratic electoral road to reconciliation. They and their Turkish and Gulf allies financed and armed thousands of Islamic extremists who invaded the country. Over a million refugees and 200,000 dead Syrians were a direct result of Washington’s decision to pursue “regime change” via armed conflict.
China
China has become the world’s largest economy. It has become a leading investment and trading country in the world. It has replaced the US and the EU in Asian, African and Latin American markets. Faced with peaceful economic competition and offers of mutually beneficial free trade agreements, Washington has chosen to pursue a policy of military encirclement, internal destabilization and Pan Pacific integration agreements that excludes China. The US has expanded military deployments and bases in Japan, Australia and the Philippines. It has heightened naval and air force surveillance just beyond China’s limits. It has fanned rival maritime claims of China’s neighbors, encroaching on vital Chinese waterways.
The US has supported violent Uighur separatists, Tibetan terrorists and protests in Hong Kong in order to fragment and discredit China’s rule over its sovereign territory. Fomenting separation via violent means results in harsh repression, which in turn can alienate a domestic constituency and provide grist for the Western media mills. The key to the US countering China’s economic ascent is political: fomenting domestic divisions and weakening central authority. The democratization which Chinese citizens favor has little resonance with US financed ‘democracy’ charades in Hong Kong or separatist violence in the provinces.
Washington’s effort to exclude China from major trade and investment agreements in Asia and elsewhere has been a laughable failure. The principle US “partners”, Japan and Australia are heavily dependent on the Chinese market. Washington’s (free trade) allies in Latin America, name Colombia, Peru, Chile and Mexico are eager to increase trade with China. India and Russia are signing off on multi-billion dollar trade and investment deals with China! Washington’s policy of economic exclusion miscarried in the first month!
In sum, Washington’s decision to pursue confrontation over conciliation and partnership; military encirclement over co-operation; exclusion over inclusion, goes counter to a democratic foreign policy designed to promote democracy in China and elsewhere. An authoritarian choice in pursuit of unachievable Asian supremacy is not a virtue; it is a sign of weakness and decay.
Conclusion
In our global survey of US policy toward democracy, center-left governments and free elections we find overwhelming evidence of systematic US hostility and opposition. The political essence of the “war on terrorism” is Washington’s world-wide long-term pernicious assault on independent governments, especially center-left democratic regimes engaged in serious efforts to reduce poverty and inequality.
Washington’s methods of choice range from financing rightist political parties via USAID and NGO’s, to supporting violent military coups; from backing street mobs engaged in destabilization campaigns to air and ground invasions. Washington’s animus to democratic processes is not confined to any region, religious, ethnic or racial group. The US has bombed black Africans in Libya; organized coups in Latin America against Indians and Christians in Bolivia; supported wars against Muslims in Iraq, Palestine and Syria; financed neo-fascist “battalions”and armed assaults against Orthodox Christians in the Eastern Ukraine; denounced atheists in China and Russia.
Washington subsidizes and backs elections only when neo-liberal client regimes win. It consistently destabilizes center-left governments which oppose US imperial policies.
None of the targets of US aggression are strictly speaking anti-capitalist. Bolivia, Ecuador, Brazil, Argentina are capitalist regimes which attempt to regulate, tax and reduce disparities of wealth via moderate welfare reforms.
Throughout the world ,Washington always supports extremist political groups engaged in violent and unconstitutional activity that have victimized democratic leaders and supporters. The coup regime in Honduras has murdered hundreds of rank and file democratic activists, farm workers,and poor peasants.
The US armed Islamic jihadist and ex-pat allies in Libya have fallen out with their NATO mentors and are at war among themselves, engaging in mutual bloodletting.
Throughout the Middle East, South Asia, North Africa, Central America and the Caucuses wherever US intervention has taken place, extreme right-wing groups have served, at least for a time, as Washington and Brussels principal allies.
Pro EU-NATO allies in the Ukraine include a strong contingent of neo-Nazis, paramilitary thugs and “mainstream” military forces given to bombing civilian neighborhoods with cluster bombs.
In Venezuela, Washington bankrolls terrorist paramilitary forces and political extremists who murdered a socialist congressional leader and dozens of leftists.
In Mexico the US has advised, finances and backs rightist regimes whose military, paramilitary and narco-terrorist forces recently murdered and burned alive 43 teachers’ college students and are deeply implicated in the killing of 100,000 “other” Mexicans, in less than a decade.
Over the past eleven years the US has pumped over $6 billion dollars in military aid to Colombia, funding its seven military bases and several thousand special operations forces and doubling the size of the Colombian military. As a result thousands of civil society and human rights activists, journalists, trade union leaders and peasants, have been murdered. Over 3 million small land -holders have been dispossessed.
The mass media cover-up the US option for right wing extremism by describing ruling mass murderers as “center-right regimes” or as “moderates”: linguistic perversions and grotesque euphemisms, are as bizarre as the barbarous activities, perpetrated by the White House.
In the drive for world power, no crime is left undone; no democracy that opposes it is tolerated. Countries as small and marginal as Honduran or Somalia or as great and powerful as Russia and China cannot escape the wrath and covert destabilization efforts of the White House.
The quest for world domination is driven by the subjective belief in the “triumph of the will”. Global supremacy depends entirely on force and violence: ravaging country after country, from carpet bombing of Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya to proxy wars in Somalia, Yemen, Ukraine to mass killings in Colombia, Mexico and Syria.
Yet there are limits to the spread of the “killing fields”. Democratic processes are defended by robust citizens’ movements in Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia. The spread of imperial backed terrorist seizures of power are stymied by emergence of global powers, China in in the Far East and Russia in Crimea and eastern Ukraine have taken bold steps to limit US imperial expansion.
In the United Nations, the President of the United States and his delegate Samantha Powers rant and rave, in a fit of pure insanity, against Russia as “the greatest world terrorist state” for resisting military encirclement and the violent annexation of the Ukraine.
Extremism, authoritarianism and political insanity know no frontiers. The massive growth of the secret political police, the National Security Agency, the shredding of constitutional guarantees, the conversion of electoral processes into elite controlled multi-billion dollar charades, the growing impunity of police involved in civilian murders, speaks to an emerging totalitarian police – state inside the US as a counterpart to the violent pursuit of world power.
Citizens’ movements, consequential center-left parties and governments, organized workers, in Latin America, Asia and Europe have demonstrated that authoritarian extremist proxies of Washington can be defeated. That disastrous neo-liberal policies can be reverted. That welfare states, reductions in poverty, unemployment and inequalities can be legislated despite imperial efforts to the contrary.
The vast majority of the Americans, here and now, are strongly opposed to Wall Street, big business and the financial sector. The Presidency and the Congress are despised by three quarters of the American public. Overseas wars are rejected. The US public, for its own reasons and interests, shares with the pro-democracy movement’s world-wide, a common enmity toward Washington’s quest for world power. Here and now in the United States of America we must learn and build our own powerful democratic political instruments.
We must through the force of reason contain and defeat “the reason of force”: the political insanity that informs Washington’s ‘will to power’. We must degrade the empire to rebuild the republic. We must turn from intervening against democracy abroad to building a democratic welfare republic at home.
James Petras
America's Rogue Agenda
America's Rogue Agenda
Cold-blooded ruthlessness defines US policy. Giving pure evil new meaning. Tyrannical. Merciless. Brutal. Barbaric. Lawless. Stopping at nothing to achieve imperial aims.
Instituting homeland police state state rule. Spurning fundamental rule of law of law principles. Mocking human and civil rights. Making democracy pure fantasy.
Sponsoring state terrorism. Intimidating, threatening, and otherwise pressuring other nations to comply with its will. Obey or else is policy.
Waging war on humanity. Targeting all sovereign independent states for regime change. Wanting pro-Western stooge governance replacing them.
Wanting control of world resources. Wanting ordinary people exploited as serfs. Waging wars without mercy to achieve aims.
Lunatics in America run things. Neocon fanatics. Demanding unipolar/New World Order dominance.
Targeting Russia to eliminate a rival power. Risking world peace in the process.
Russian MP Roman Roman Khudyakov wants Obama stripped of his Nobel Peace Prize. Blood on his hands demands it.
Waging one dirty war after another. Without mercy. Lawlessly. Ruthlessly.
"More and more international experts are calling Obama's presidency dark times," said Khudyakov.
"The reason for that is the brutal policy that he is conducting all over the world, like Napoleon or Hitler had done before."
"But I want to warn Obama so that he pays more attention to history and understands that he can end up like Hitler."
He wants Obama's prize given to Putin. He's a deserving recipient. He's polar opposite his US counterpart.
"He stopped the war in Iran, in Syria and he is still saving a lot of people from major bloodshed," said Khudyakov.
"He is a vivid example of a politician who preserves peace and love in the world."
In 2013, the International Academy of Spiritual Unity and Cooperation Among Nations of the World (IASUCANW) nominated him for this year's award.
Its President Georgiy Trapeznikov said "he proved his adherence to the cause of peace."
"We know very well what peacemaking role our president played in conflict regions, especially Beslan and South Ossetia."
He's very much involved in resolving Syria's conflict peacefully. Ukrainian crisis conditions.
Putin's press secretary Dmitry Pekov said:
"The primary criterion for the president is satisfaction from a job well done." He seeks no special recognition or awards.
At the time, State Duma MP Iosif Kobzon said Putin deserves next year's prize. He's polar opposite Obama.
America's president "initiated and approved…aggressive actions in Iraq and Afghanistan," said Kobzon. Against Libya.
"Now he is preparing for an invasion into Syria. He bears this title nevertheless."
"Our president, who tries to stop the bloodshed and who tries to help the conflict situation with political dialogue, is in my view more worthy of this high title."
Last summer, Liberal Democratic Party of Russia (LDPR) leader Vladimir Zhirinovsky said Obama wasn't worthy of Nobel honors.
Awarding him the Peace Prize did "huge damage," he said. It's time to correct things.
In March, Russian upper house Federal Council Senator Lyudmila Bokova asked Nobel Committee members to annul Obama's award.
In November 2013, Officers of Russian Mothers made the same request. So have activists worldwide. Awarding peace prizes to war-makers is longstanding Nobel practice.
They deplore peace. They represent wealth, power and privilege. They believe war is peace. It shows in their annual selections.
Obama gives rogue governance new meaning. According to Sergey Lavrov, he "send(s) emissaries all over the world (to) persuad(e) everybody to be against us."
He wants Russia marginalized, weakened, isolated, and contained. En route to eliminating its sovereign independence altogether. "A democratic world" runs counter to its objectives.
At the same time, they "persuade(d) practically no one except for the EU and some of its closest allies outside NATO and the European Union."
"I cannot agree that everybody is against us, that everybody is trying to steer clear of us, that we have no partners with whom we can develop a constructive and decent agenda."
"The geographic scope of international contacts in Russia and outside it is a confirmation of that. And not just the geographic scope, but the content of the agreements we conclude.”
Washington uses the Ukrainian crisis it created to isolate Russia from Europe, said Lavrov.
"These efforts have been stepped up lately, including through attempts to impose American liquefied gas supplies upon Europe at prices that cannot compete with Russian gas prices."
"There are undoubtedly economic interests behind this. But geopolitical calculations are playing a big and even key role."
"The fact that that EU countries, not even the major or leading ones, are beginning to openly say that the policy of sanctions leads nowhere and is counterproductive speaks volumes."
"It is Europe that produced the thinkers who said that economics determines politics, but the EU is declaring the opposite of that now."
"It is ready to sacrifice the economy for the sake of politics. This is an extreme degree of ideologisation."
"This cannot last long and one can already hear reasonable voices in the European Union which have noted an absolutely paradoxical situation where the EU instructed the Committee of Permanent Representatives in Brussels to prepare new sanctions on the very same day the peace agreement was signed in Minsk; on the very day things got off the ground, primarily owing to the initiative put forth by Russian President Vladimir Putin."
Lavrov barely stopped short calling America the world's greatest evil force. Operating lawlessly. Threatening world peace.
In contrast, Russia "consistently" supports international law, he said. "We have never deviated from this policy just an inch."
"We have urged compliance with the achieved agreements and creation of new instruments facilitating proper response to the modern challenges."
"Let us not forget that the US National Security Doctrine adopted in 2010 states very clearly that the US respects international law but reserves the right to resort to any action to protect its interests, including the use of force without the UN authorisation," said Lavrov.
Rogue states operate this way. None match America's ruthlessness. It does whatever it damn pleases. Anywhere for any reason or none at all.
Putin is polar opposite. In mid-October, he addressed the Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) summit. He spokesman Dmitry Peskov said:
"He emphasized that the format of regional cooperation is the sole alternative to negative trends and the desire of some countries to determine the destiny of other states and whole regions on their own."
Eurasian conflicts bode ill, Putin stressed. They risk "collapse of whole regions and deplorable consequences for a whole number of countries."
It's up to responsible ones to reverse things. Prioritizing peace and stability is a good way to start. So is rejecting war-making for any reason besides self-defense.
Russophobia threatens world peace. It's headquartered in Washington.
Former Russian Prime Minister Yevgeny Primakov said US-led sanctions and other anti-Russian policies constitute "color revolution" aggression.
Their aim "is to weaken Russia, corner us, put into practice the idea of a 'color revolution' in our country."
Imposing them without Security Council authorization contradicts what Primakov calls "global processes." Economic and political ones.
Creating real threats to world security. Doing it recklessly without just cause.
Russia won't accept "a course for self-isolation," said Primakov.
"Those who don’t turn a blind eye to that see that the overwhelming majority of the Russian population support the head of state and do not accept threats addressed to Putin, whose policy is justly assessed as one serving Russia’s interests and at the same time not slamming the door for cooperation with all countries, including the US and the EU, to neutralize real threats and challenges to the international community."
It bears repeating. Obama represents rogue governance. He threatens world peace.
Putin is polar opposite. Paul Craig Roberts calls him the world's moral leader for good reason.
Cold-blooded ruthlessness defines US policy. Giving pure evil new meaning. Tyrannical. Merciless. Brutal. Barbaric. Lawless. Stopping at nothing to achieve imperial aims.
Instituting homeland police state state rule. Spurning fundamental rule of law of law principles. Mocking human and civil rights. Making democracy pure fantasy.
Sponsoring state terrorism. Intimidating, threatening, and otherwise pressuring other nations to comply with its will. Obey or else is policy.
Waging war on humanity. Targeting all sovereign independent states for regime change. Wanting pro-Western stooge governance replacing them.
Wanting control of world resources. Wanting ordinary people exploited as serfs. Waging wars without mercy to achieve aims.
Lunatics in America run things. Neocon fanatics. Demanding unipolar/New World Order dominance.
Targeting Russia to eliminate a rival power. Risking world peace in the process.
Russian MP Roman Roman Khudyakov wants Obama stripped of his Nobel Peace Prize. Blood on his hands demands it.
Waging one dirty war after another. Without mercy. Lawlessly. Ruthlessly.
"More and more international experts are calling Obama's presidency dark times," said Khudyakov.
"The reason for that is the brutal policy that he is conducting all over the world, like Napoleon or Hitler had done before."
"But I want to warn Obama so that he pays more attention to history and understands that he can end up like Hitler."
He wants Obama's prize given to Putin. He's a deserving recipient. He's polar opposite his US counterpart.
"He stopped the war in Iran, in Syria and he is still saving a lot of people from major bloodshed," said Khudyakov.
"He is a vivid example of a politician who preserves peace and love in the world."
In 2013, the International Academy of Spiritual Unity and Cooperation Among Nations of the World (IASUCANW) nominated him for this year's award.
Its President Georgiy Trapeznikov said "he proved his adherence to the cause of peace."
"We know very well what peacemaking role our president played in conflict regions, especially Beslan and South Ossetia."
He's very much involved in resolving Syria's conflict peacefully. Ukrainian crisis conditions.
Putin's press secretary Dmitry Pekov said:
"The primary criterion for the president is satisfaction from a job well done." He seeks no special recognition or awards.
At the time, State Duma MP Iosif Kobzon said Putin deserves next year's prize. He's polar opposite Obama.
America's president "initiated and approved…aggressive actions in Iraq and Afghanistan," said Kobzon. Against Libya.
"Now he is preparing for an invasion into Syria. He bears this title nevertheless."
"Our president, who tries to stop the bloodshed and who tries to help the conflict situation with political dialogue, is in my view more worthy of this high title."
Last summer, Liberal Democratic Party of Russia (LDPR) leader Vladimir Zhirinovsky said Obama wasn't worthy of Nobel honors.
Awarding him the Peace Prize did "huge damage," he said. It's time to correct things.
In March, Russian upper house Federal Council Senator Lyudmila Bokova asked Nobel Committee members to annul Obama's award.
In November 2013, Officers of Russian Mothers made the same request. So have activists worldwide. Awarding peace prizes to war-makers is longstanding Nobel practice.
They deplore peace. They represent wealth, power and privilege. They believe war is peace. It shows in their annual selections.
Obama gives rogue governance new meaning. According to Sergey Lavrov, he "send(s) emissaries all over the world (to) persuad(e) everybody to be against us."
He wants Russia marginalized, weakened, isolated, and contained. En route to eliminating its sovereign independence altogether. "A democratic world" runs counter to its objectives.
At the same time, they "persuade(d) practically no one except for the EU and some of its closest allies outside NATO and the European Union."
"I cannot agree that everybody is against us, that everybody is trying to steer clear of us, that we have no partners with whom we can develop a constructive and decent agenda."
"The geographic scope of international contacts in Russia and outside it is a confirmation of that. And not just the geographic scope, but the content of the agreements we conclude.”
Washington uses the Ukrainian crisis it created to isolate Russia from Europe, said Lavrov.
"These efforts have been stepped up lately, including through attempts to impose American liquefied gas supplies upon Europe at prices that cannot compete with Russian gas prices."
"There are undoubtedly economic interests behind this. But geopolitical calculations are playing a big and even key role."
"The fact that that EU countries, not even the major or leading ones, are beginning to openly say that the policy of sanctions leads nowhere and is counterproductive speaks volumes."
"It is Europe that produced the thinkers who said that economics determines politics, but the EU is declaring the opposite of that now."
"It is ready to sacrifice the economy for the sake of politics. This is an extreme degree of ideologisation."
"This cannot last long and one can already hear reasonable voices in the European Union which have noted an absolutely paradoxical situation where the EU instructed the Committee of Permanent Representatives in Brussels to prepare new sanctions on the very same day the peace agreement was signed in Minsk; on the very day things got off the ground, primarily owing to the initiative put forth by Russian President Vladimir Putin."
Lavrov barely stopped short calling America the world's greatest evil force. Operating lawlessly. Threatening world peace.
In contrast, Russia "consistently" supports international law, he said. "We have never deviated from this policy just an inch."
"We have urged compliance with the achieved agreements and creation of new instruments facilitating proper response to the modern challenges."
"Let us not forget that the US National Security Doctrine adopted in 2010 states very clearly that the US respects international law but reserves the right to resort to any action to protect its interests, including the use of force without the UN authorisation," said Lavrov.
Rogue states operate this way. None match America's ruthlessness. It does whatever it damn pleases. Anywhere for any reason or none at all.
Putin is polar opposite. In mid-October, he addressed the Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) summit. He spokesman Dmitry Peskov said:
"He emphasized that the format of regional cooperation is the sole alternative to negative trends and the desire of some countries to determine the destiny of other states and whole regions on their own."
Eurasian conflicts bode ill, Putin stressed. They risk "collapse of whole regions and deplorable consequences for a whole number of countries."
It's up to responsible ones to reverse things. Prioritizing peace and stability is a good way to start. So is rejecting war-making for any reason besides self-defense.
Russophobia threatens world peace. It's headquartered in Washington.
Former Russian Prime Minister Yevgeny Primakov said US-led sanctions and other anti-Russian policies constitute "color revolution" aggression.
Their aim "is to weaken Russia, corner us, put into practice the idea of a 'color revolution' in our country."
Imposing them without Security Council authorization contradicts what Primakov calls "global processes." Economic and political ones.
Creating real threats to world security. Doing it recklessly without just cause.
Russia won't accept "a course for self-isolation," said Primakov.
"Those who don’t turn a blind eye to that see that the overwhelming majority of the Russian population support the head of state and do not accept threats addressed to Putin, whose policy is justly assessed as one serving Russia’s interests and at the same time not slamming the door for cooperation with all countries, including the US and the EU, to neutralize real threats and challenges to the international community."
It bears repeating. Obama represents rogue governance. He threatens world peace.
Putin is polar opposite. Paul Craig Roberts calls him the world's moral leader for good reason.
UK: Child Sex Exploitation Now the ‘Norm’
UK: Child Sex Exploitation Now the ‘Norm’
The UK’s Guardian reported Wednesday that “sexual exploitation of vulnerable children has become the social norm in some parts of Greater Manchester,” and the denial and obfuscation about what is really causing this problem is thicker than ever.
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/oct/30/child-sexual-exploitation-norm-greater-manchester-ann-coffey-report?CMP=twt_gu
In the very same sentence in which it broke this terrible news, the Guardian stated that this phenomenon is “fuelled by explicit music videos and quasi-pornographic selfies, an MP has warned.” The MP in question, former social worker Ann Coffey, has issued a report on the sexual exploitation of children in Britain that she said would “make painful reading for those who hoped that Rochdale was an isolated case.”
It was in Rochdale that a group of Muslims were involved in a large-scale sex trafficking ring involving young non-Muslim girls. Coffey is right: there is already abundant evidence that it was not an isolated case, as 1,400 British non-Muslim children were gang-raped and brutalized by Muslims in the British city of Rotherham alone, and there are numerous other documented cases in Britain of Muslim sex trafficking and rape gangs, of which the victims were non-Muslim girls.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9239126/Rochdale-grooming-trial-gang-convicted-for-sex-trafficking.html
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/08/uk-1400-non-muslim-children-exploited-by-muslim-rape-gangs-authorities-did-nothing-for-fear-of-being-thought-as-racist
Why has this been happening, and on such a massive scale? According to the Guardian, it’s all because social workers and others in positions of authority just don’t like troubled young people: “Coffey said police, social workers, prosecutors and juries are often inherently (albeit unconsciously) prejudiced against vulnerable teenagers – perhaps explaining why, out of 13,000 reported cases of major sexual offences against under-16s in the past six years in Greater Manchester, there have been only 1,000 convictions.”
Social workers, prosecutors, and juries are inherently prejudiced against vulnerable teenagers? With that, Coffey could win the prize for the most preposterous evasion offered this year to try to exonerate Islamic doctrine from responsibility for the evils done by those who act upon that doctrine – although she will, as in every year, face stiff competition.
In reality, social workers are not prejudiced against vulnerable teenagers; they’ve dedicated their lives to aiding people such as vulnerable teenagers. No, what social workers, in the U.S. as well as in Britain, are prejudiced against is being called “racist.” In Rotherham, British officials “described their nervousness about identifying the ethnic origins of perpetrators for fear of being thought as racist; others remembered clear direction from their managers not to do so.”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/08/uk-1400-non-muslim-children-exploited-by-muslim-rape-gangs-authorities-did-nothing-for-fear-of-being-thought-as-racist
And what were the ethnic origins of those perpetrators? Wednesday’s Guardian report doesn’t mention it (which in itself is telling), but 75%, and probably more (since it is so politically unacceptable to report such things) of these rape and sexual exploitation gangs are “Asian,” which is British Newspeak for “Muslim.” Despite the continuing horror of these revelations, the British continue to take all this with equanimity, for to resist it would be “racist” and “Islamophobic.”
http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/west-midlands-police-report-reveals-7948902
If Ann Coffey and others who are horrified at these rape gangs and the exploitation of children really want to stop this practice, sooner or later they are going to have to stop kidding themselves and their supporters, and confront the politically correct elites who hurl such charges at anyone who ventures any criticism of Islam and Muslims. For the unpleasant truth is that these rape gangs have become “the norm” in all too many cities in Britain because Muslims are taking seriously material from the Qur’an and Sunnah that justifies those practices.
According to Islamic law, Muslim men can take “captives of the right hand” (Qur’an 4:3, 4:24, 33:50). The Qur’an says: “O Prophet! Lo! We have made lawful unto thee thy wives unto whom thou hast paid their dowries, and those whom thy right hand possesseth of those whom Allah hath given thee as spoils of war” (33:50). 4:3 and 4:24 extend this privilege to Muslim men in general, as does this passage. “Certainly will the believers have succeeded: They who are during their prayer humbly submissive, and they who turn away from ill speech, and they who are observant of zakah, and they who guard their private parts except from their wives or those their right hands possess, for indeed, they will not be blamed” (Qur’an 23:1-6).
The rape of captive women is also sanctioned in Islamic tradition:
Abu Sirma said to Abu Sa’id al Khadri (Allah he pleased with him): 0 Abu Sa’id, did you hear Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) mentioning al-’azl? He said: Yes, and added: We went out with Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) on the expedition to the Bi’l-Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing ‘azl (Withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid conception). But we said: We are doing an act whereas Allah’s Messenger is amongst us; why not ask him? So we asked Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him), and he said: It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born. (Muslim 3371)
The twentieth-century Qur’an commentator Maulana Bulandshahri explains the wisdom of this practice, and longs for the good old days when Muslims took sex slaves (days that appear now to have returned):
During Jihad (religion war), many men and women become war captives. The Amirul Mu’minin [leader of the believers, or caliph -- an office now vacant] has the choice of distributing them amongst the Mujahidin [warriors of jihad], in which event they will become the property of these Mujahidin. This enslavement is the penalty for disbelief (kufr).
He goes on to explain that this is not ancient history:
None of the injunctions pertaining to slavery have been abrogated in the Shari’ah. The reason that the Muslims of today do not have slaves is because they do not engage in Jihad (religion war). Their wars are fought by the instruction of the disbelievers (kuffar) and are halted by the same felons. The Muslim [sic] have been shackled by such treaties of the disbelievers (kuffar) whereby they cannot enslave anyone in the event of a war. Muslims have been denied a great boon whereby every home could have had a slave. May Allah grant the Muslims the ability to escape the tentacles of the enemy, remain steadfast upon the Din (religion) and engage in Jihad (religion war) according to the injunctions of Shari’ah. Amen!
This is by no means an eccentric or unorthodox view in Islam. The Egyptian Sheikh Abu-Ishaq al-Huwayni declared in May 2011 that “we are in the era of jihad,” and that as they waged jihad warfare against infidels, Muslims would take slaves. He clarified what he meant in a subsequent interview:
http://www.translatingjihad.com/2011/05/egyptian-shaykh-jihad-is-solution-to.html
http://www.translatingjihad.com/2011/06/video-shaykh-al-huwayni-when-i-want-sex.html
…Jihad is only between Muslims and infidels. Spoils, slaves, and prisoners are only to be taken in war between Muslims and infidels. Muslims in the past conquered, invaded, and took over countries. This is agreed to by all scholars–there is no disagreement on this from any of them, from the smallest to the largest, on the issue of taking spoils and prisoners. The prisoners and spoils are distributed among the fighters, which includes men, women, children, wealth, and so on.
When a slave market is erected, which is a market in which are sold slaves and sex-slaves, which are called in the Qur’an by the name milk al-yamin, “that which your right hands possess” [Qur’an 4:24]. This is a verse from the Qur’an which is still in force, and has not been abrogated. The milk al-yamin are the sex-slaves. You go to the market, look at the sex-slave, and buy her. She becomes like your wife, (but) she doesn’t need a (marriage) contract or a divorce like a free woman, nor does she need a wali. All scholars agree on this point–there is no disagreement from any of them. [...] When I want a sex slave, I just go to the market and choose the woman I like and purchase her.
Right around the same time, on May 25, 2011, a female Kuwaiti activist and politician, Salwa al-Mutairi, also spoke out in favor of the Islamic practice of sexual slavery of non-Muslim women, emphasizing that the practice accorded with Islamic law and the parameters of Islamic morality.
http://www.translatingjihad.com/2011/06/video-kuwaiti-activist-i-hope-that.html
…A merchant told me that he would like to have a sex slave. He said he would not be negligent with her, and that Islam permitted this sort of thing. He was speaking the truth. I brought up (this man’s) situation to the muftis in Mecca. I told them that I had a question, since they were men who specialized in what was halal, and what was good, and who loved women. I said, “What is the law of sex slaves?”
The mufti said, “With the law of sex slaves, there must be a Muslim nation at war with a Christian nation, or a nation which is not of the religion, not of the religion of Islam. And there must be prisoners of war.”
“Is this forbidden by Islam?” I asked.
“Absolutely not. Sex slaves are not forbidden by Islam. On the contrary, sex slaves are under a different law than the free woman. The free woman must be completely covered except for her face and hands. But the sex slave can be naked from the waist up. She differs a lot from the free woman. While the free woman requires a marriage contract, the sex slave does not–she only needs to be purchased by her husband, and that’s it. Therefore the sex slave is different than the free woman.”
While the savage exploitation of girls and young women is an unfortunately cross-cultural phenomenon, only in Islamic law does it carry anything approaching divine sanction. Here is yet another human rights scandal occasioned by Islamic law that the international human rights community and the mainstream media cravenly ignore. And even when the devastation that this practice has caused is staring them in the face, British officials tell themselves and the public that it’s all because social workers don’t like teenagers.
As Britain descends into madness, we can only hope its demise will serve as a cautionary tale for other countries in the West.
*
Part I:
Part II:
Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch and author of the New York Times bestsellers The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) and The Truth About Muhammad. His latest book, Arab Winter Comes to America: The Truth About the War We're In,
The UK’s Guardian reported Wednesday that “sexual exploitation of vulnerable children has become the social norm in some parts of Greater Manchester,” and the denial and obfuscation about what is really causing this problem is thicker than ever.
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/oct/30/child-sexual-exploitation-norm-greater-manchester-ann-coffey-report?CMP=twt_gu
In the very same sentence in which it broke this terrible news, the Guardian stated that this phenomenon is “fuelled by explicit music videos and quasi-pornographic selfies, an MP has warned.” The MP in question, former social worker Ann Coffey, has issued a report on the sexual exploitation of children in Britain that she said would “make painful reading for those who hoped that Rochdale was an isolated case.”
It was in Rochdale that a group of Muslims were involved in a large-scale sex trafficking ring involving young non-Muslim girls. Coffey is right: there is already abundant evidence that it was not an isolated case, as 1,400 British non-Muslim children were gang-raped and brutalized by Muslims in the British city of Rotherham alone, and there are numerous other documented cases in Britain of Muslim sex trafficking and rape gangs, of which the victims were non-Muslim girls.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9239126/Rochdale-grooming-trial-gang-convicted-for-sex-trafficking.html
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/08/uk-1400-non-muslim-children-exploited-by-muslim-rape-gangs-authorities-did-nothing-for-fear-of-being-thought-as-racist
Why has this been happening, and on such a massive scale? According to the Guardian, it’s all because social workers and others in positions of authority just don’t like troubled young people: “Coffey said police, social workers, prosecutors and juries are often inherently (albeit unconsciously) prejudiced against vulnerable teenagers – perhaps explaining why, out of 13,000 reported cases of major sexual offences against under-16s in the past six years in Greater Manchester, there have been only 1,000 convictions.”
Social workers, prosecutors, and juries are inherently prejudiced against vulnerable teenagers? With that, Coffey could win the prize for the most preposterous evasion offered this year to try to exonerate Islamic doctrine from responsibility for the evils done by those who act upon that doctrine – although she will, as in every year, face stiff competition.
In reality, social workers are not prejudiced against vulnerable teenagers; they’ve dedicated their lives to aiding people such as vulnerable teenagers. No, what social workers, in the U.S. as well as in Britain, are prejudiced against is being called “racist.” In Rotherham, British officials “described their nervousness about identifying the ethnic origins of perpetrators for fear of being thought as racist; others remembered clear direction from their managers not to do so.”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/08/uk-1400-non-muslim-children-exploited-by-muslim-rape-gangs-authorities-did-nothing-for-fear-of-being-thought-as-racist
And what were the ethnic origins of those perpetrators? Wednesday’s Guardian report doesn’t mention it (which in itself is telling), but 75%, and probably more (since it is so politically unacceptable to report such things) of these rape and sexual exploitation gangs are “Asian,” which is British Newspeak for “Muslim.” Despite the continuing horror of these revelations, the British continue to take all this with equanimity, for to resist it would be “racist” and “Islamophobic.”
http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/west-midlands-police-report-reveals-7948902
If Ann Coffey and others who are horrified at these rape gangs and the exploitation of children really want to stop this practice, sooner or later they are going to have to stop kidding themselves and their supporters, and confront the politically correct elites who hurl such charges at anyone who ventures any criticism of Islam and Muslims. For the unpleasant truth is that these rape gangs have become “the norm” in all too many cities in Britain because Muslims are taking seriously material from the Qur’an and Sunnah that justifies those practices.
According to Islamic law, Muslim men can take “captives of the right hand” (Qur’an 4:3, 4:24, 33:50). The Qur’an says: “O Prophet! Lo! We have made lawful unto thee thy wives unto whom thou hast paid their dowries, and those whom thy right hand possesseth of those whom Allah hath given thee as spoils of war” (33:50). 4:3 and 4:24 extend this privilege to Muslim men in general, as does this passage. “Certainly will the believers have succeeded: They who are during their prayer humbly submissive, and they who turn away from ill speech, and they who are observant of zakah, and they who guard their private parts except from their wives or those their right hands possess, for indeed, they will not be blamed” (Qur’an 23:1-6).
The rape of captive women is also sanctioned in Islamic tradition:
Abu Sirma said to Abu Sa’id al Khadri (Allah he pleased with him): 0 Abu Sa’id, did you hear Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) mentioning al-’azl? He said: Yes, and added: We went out with Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) on the expedition to the Bi’l-Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing ‘azl (Withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid conception). But we said: We are doing an act whereas Allah’s Messenger is amongst us; why not ask him? So we asked Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him), and he said: It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born. (Muslim 3371)
The twentieth-century Qur’an commentator Maulana Bulandshahri explains the wisdom of this practice, and longs for the good old days when Muslims took sex slaves (days that appear now to have returned):
During Jihad (religion war), many men and women become war captives. The Amirul Mu’minin [leader of the believers, or caliph -- an office now vacant] has the choice of distributing them amongst the Mujahidin [warriors of jihad], in which event they will become the property of these Mujahidin. This enslavement is the penalty for disbelief (kufr).
He goes on to explain that this is not ancient history:
None of the injunctions pertaining to slavery have been abrogated in the Shari’ah. The reason that the Muslims of today do not have slaves is because they do not engage in Jihad (religion war). Their wars are fought by the instruction of the disbelievers (kuffar) and are halted by the same felons. The Muslim [sic] have been shackled by such treaties of the disbelievers (kuffar) whereby they cannot enslave anyone in the event of a war. Muslims have been denied a great boon whereby every home could have had a slave. May Allah grant the Muslims the ability to escape the tentacles of the enemy, remain steadfast upon the Din (religion) and engage in Jihad (religion war) according to the injunctions of Shari’ah. Amen!
This is by no means an eccentric or unorthodox view in Islam. The Egyptian Sheikh Abu-Ishaq al-Huwayni declared in May 2011 that “we are in the era of jihad,” and that as they waged jihad warfare against infidels, Muslims would take slaves. He clarified what he meant in a subsequent interview:
http://www.translatingjihad.com/2011/05/egyptian-shaykh-jihad-is-solution-to.html
http://www.translatingjihad.com/2011/06/video-shaykh-al-huwayni-when-i-want-sex.html
…Jihad is only between Muslims and infidels. Spoils, slaves, and prisoners are only to be taken in war between Muslims and infidels. Muslims in the past conquered, invaded, and took over countries. This is agreed to by all scholars–there is no disagreement on this from any of them, from the smallest to the largest, on the issue of taking spoils and prisoners. The prisoners and spoils are distributed among the fighters, which includes men, women, children, wealth, and so on.
When a slave market is erected, which is a market in which are sold slaves and sex-slaves, which are called in the Qur’an by the name milk al-yamin, “that which your right hands possess” [Qur’an 4:24]. This is a verse from the Qur’an which is still in force, and has not been abrogated. The milk al-yamin are the sex-slaves. You go to the market, look at the sex-slave, and buy her. She becomes like your wife, (but) she doesn’t need a (marriage) contract or a divorce like a free woman, nor does she need a wali. All scholars agree on this point–there is no disagreement from any of them. [...] When I want a sex slave, I just go to the market and choose the woman I like and purchase her.
Right around the same time, on May 25, 2011, a female Kuwaiti activist and politician, Salwa al-Mutairi, also spoke out in favor of the Islamic practice of sexual slavery of non-Muslim women, emphasizing that the practice accorded with Islamic law and the parameters of Islamic morality.
http://www.translatingjihad.com/2011/06/video-kuwaiti-activist-i-hope-that.html
…A merchant told me that he would like to have a sex slave. He said he would not be negligent with her, and that Islam permitted this sort of thing. He was speaking the truth. I brought up (this man’s) situation to the muftis in Mecca. I told them that I had a question, since they were men who specialized in what was halal, and what was good, and who loved women. I said, “What is the law of sex slaves?”
The mufti said, “With the law of sex slaves, there must be a Muslim nation at war with a Christian nation, or a nation which is not of the religion, not of the religion of Islam. And there must be prisoners of war.”
“Is this forbidden by Islam?” I asked.
“Absolutely not. Sex slaves are not forbidden by Islam. On the contrary, sex slaves are under a different law than the free woman. The free woman must be completely covered except for her face and hands. But the sex slave can be naked from the waist up. She differs a lot from the free woman. While the free woman requires a marriage contract, the sex slave does not–she only needs to be purchased by her husband, and that’s it. Therefore the sex slave is different than the free woman.”
While the savage exploitation of girls and young women is an unfortunately cross-cultural phenomenon, only in Islamic law does it carry anything approaching divine sanction. Here is yet another human rights scandal occasioned by Islamic law that the international human rights community and the mainstream media cravenly ignore. And even when the devastation that this practice has caused is staring them in the face, British officials tell themselves and the public that it’s all because social workers don’t like teenagers.
As Britain descends into madness, we can only hope its demise will serve as a cautionary tale for other countries in the West.
*
Part I:
Part II:
Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch and author of the New York Times bestsellers The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) and The Truth About Muhammad. His latest book, Arab Winter Comes to America: The Truth About the War We're In,
25-Year Deep Cover Agent Exposes Never Before Heard Daddy Bush Secrets
25-Year Deep Cover Agent Exposes Never Before Heard Daddy Bush Secrets
-
Gene “Chip” Tatum was a Vietnam Special Forces Air Combat Controller Defense Intelligence Asset, and US Army special operations pilot flying classified missions during the US invasion of Grenada, Tatum was also involved in the Nixon Administrations relations with China, NASA’s Apollo Program, the Iran Contra Affair, and several other classified intelligence operations dating through through 1992.
A 25-year CIA deep-cover agent and a member of the ultra-secret Pegasus “hit” team” working directly for the sitting President.
Please friend me on Facebook if you are a Truth Warrior! I’m urging all truth warriors to go to Facebook and LIKE the “VT Truth Warriors” page – huge stories breaking there and we are taking ACTION! Also get Glenn’s free ebook “How to Spread 1,000 Times More Truth” using simple tips. Visit his Youtube channel also for VeteransToday Radio and much more! We are being lied to by our fake news and the lies are increasing every day. We have no more time to waste!http://www.facebook.com/glenn.canady
https://www.facebook.com/VeteransTodayTruthWarriors
http://www.project.nsearch.com/profiles/blogs/how-anybody-can-spread-10-times-more-truth
https://www.youtube.com/user/glennleecanady
It is important that we come together and sift through the lies so that we can get to the facts. It is my opinion that this man is one of the few currently telling us the truth. He has had many assassination attempts done on him as have many of the boys at Veterans Today.
Here is a copy of Chip Tatum’s CIPA Briefing + Tatum’s book, Nixon’s Darkest Secret:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/97308844/Chip-Tatum-s-CIPA-Briefing
+
http://www.scribd.com/doc/97309750/Nixon-s-Darkest-Secret
Here are some breaking articles coming out of Veterans Today, the world’s leading news source.
US deliberately refused to rebuild Iraq’s military: Analyst
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/10/29/us-deliberately-refused-to-rebuild-iraqs-military-analyst/
During the ten years of occupying Iraq, the US deliberately refused to rebuild Iraqi military capabilities, an analyst tells Press TV.
13,703 People Now Infected With Ebola!
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/10/30/13703-people-now-infected-with-ebola/
WORLD NEWS - The World Health Organization (WHO) confirmed Wednesday that 13,703 people have been infected with the Ebola virus since the epidemic began in March.
-
Gene “Chip” Tatum was a Vietnam Special Forces Air Combat Controller Defense Intelligence Asset, and US Army special operations pilot flying classified missions during the US invasion of Grenada, Tatum was also involved in the Nixon Administrations relations with China, NASA’s Apollo Program, the Iran Contra Affair, and several other classified intelligence operations dating through through 1992.
A 25-year CIA deep-cover agent and a member of the ultra-secret Pegasus “hit” team” working directly for the sitting President.
Please friend me on Facebook if you are a Truth Warrior! I’m urging all truth warriors to go to Facebook and LIKE the “VT Truth Warriors” page – huge stories breaking there and we are taking ACTION! Also get Glenn’s free ebook “How to Spread 1,000 Times More Truth” using simple tips. Visit his Youtube channel also for VeteransToday Radio and much more! We are being lied to by our fake news and the lies are increasing every day. We have no more time to waste!http://www.facebook.com/glenn.canady
https://www.facebook.com/VeteransTodayTruthWarriors
http://www.project.nsearch.com/profiles/blogs/how-anybody-can-spread-10-times-more-truth
https://www.youtube.com/user/glennleecanady
It is important that we come together and sift through the lies so that we can get to the facts. It is my opinion that this man is one of the few currently telling us the truth. He has had many assassination attempts done on him as have many of the boys at Veterans Today.
Here is a copy of Chip Tatum’s CIPA Briefing + Tatum’s book, Nixon’s Darkest Secret:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/97308844/Chip-Tatum-s-CIPA-Briefing
+
http://www.scribd.com/doc/97309750/Nixon-s-Darkest-Secret
Here are some breaking articles coming out of Veterans Today, the world’s leading news source.
US deliberately refused to rebuild Iraq’s military: Analyst
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/10/29/us-deliberately-refused-to-rebuild-iraqs-military-analyst/
During the ten years of occupying Iraq, the US deliberately refused to rebuild Iraqi military capabilities, an analyst tells Press TV.
13,703 People Now Infected With Ebola!
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/10/30/13703-people-now-infected-with-ebola/
WORLD NEWS - The World Health Organization (WHO) confirmed Wednesday that 13,703 people have been infected with the Ebola virus since the epidemic began in March.
This Elite Agenda is Now Wreaking Havoc Globally on Churches, Politics, Families and More
The Nightmare Scenario has Broke Loose! This Elite Agenda is Now Wreaking Havoc Globally on Churches, Politics, Families and More. The Lies That You are Told by Media Have Been Busted Wide Open and Trust me It’s Not What You Think…
“The high office of the President has been used to foment a plot to destroy America’s freedom and before I leave office, I must inform the citizen of this plight.” JFK
Right before his death John F. Kennedy tried to warn the people of America about the highly secretive group known as the Illuminati but sadly he never got the chance because his assassination followed shortly there after…
In truth this group has had their tentacles in almost every aspect of our lives in some way shape or form and they sit in the highest levels of governments secretly implementing their plans of mass human slaughter while the world watches the mainstream media report lies and lives their lives under the normalcy bias.
Their campaign to eliminate “useless eaters” (that’s you and I) on behalf of the planet’s “privileged ruling elite” is now taking a more ravenous toll as global population levels rise.
It is no secret, then, that the elite want millions dead, and no longer do they hid it, no, it’s out in the open and they are proud of their stance and any numb-nut who denies it, well, they can just rest in their stupidity…..
The Truth is We Have Already Been Warned….
“It was not my intention to doubt that, the Doctrines of the Illuminati, and principles of Jacobinism had not spread in the United States. On the contrary, no one is more truly satisfied of this fact than I am. The idea that I meant to convey, was, that I did not believe that the Lodges of Free Masons in this Country had, as Societies, endeavored to propagate the diabolical tenets of the first, or pernicious principles of the latter (if they are susceptible of separation). That Individuals of them may… actually had a separation [sic] of the People from their Government in view, is too evident to be questioned.” – George Washington, from a letter that he wrote on October 24, 1798, which can be found in the Library of Congress.
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mgw:@field%28DOCID+@lit%28gw360395%29%29
“I sincerely believe, with you, that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies.” —Thomas Jefferson in a letter written to John Taylor on May 28, 1816
“A power has risen up in the government greater than the people themselves, consisting of many and various powerful interests, combined in one mass, and held together by the cohesive power of the vast surplus in banks.” – John C. Calhoun, Vice President and U.S. Senator, from a speech given on May 27, 1836
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_C._Calhoun
“Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people. To destroy this invisible government, to befoul the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day.”— Theodore Roosevelt, in his Autobiography, 1913 (Appendix B)
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/3335?msg=welcome_stranger
“A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is privately concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men… [W]e have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated, governments in the civilized world—no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and the duress of small groups of dominant men.” – Woodrow Wilson, The New Freedom, 1913
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/14811/14811-h/14811-h.htm
“The real menace of our Republic is the invisible government, which like a giant octopus sprawls its slimy legs over our cities, states and nation… The little coterie of powerful international bankers virtually run the United States government for their own selfish purposes. They practically control both parties, … and control the majority of the newspapers and magazines in this country. They use the columns of these papers to club into submission or drive out of office public officials who refuse to do the bidding of the powerful corrupt cliques which compose the invisible government. It operates under cover of a self-created screen [and] seizes our executive officers, legislative bodies, schools, courts, newspapers and every agency created for the public protection.” – New York City Mayor John F. Hylan, New York Times
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Francis_Hylan
“Mr. Chairman, we have in this country one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve Banks. The Federal Reserve Board, a Government board, has cheated the Government of the United States and the people of the United States out of enough money to pay the national debt…Mr. Chairman, when the Federal Reserve act was passed, the people of the United States did not perceive that a world system was being set up here… and that this country was to supply financial power to an international superstate — a superstate controlled by international bankers and international industrialists acting together to enslave the world for their own pleasure.” – Congressman Louis T. McFadden, House of Representatives Speech, 1932
http://www.afn.org/~govern/mcfadden_speech_1932.html
“The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the large centers has owned the government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson.” — Franklin Delano Roosevelt in a letter to Colonel Edward M House
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Franklin_D._Roosevelt
“Today the path to total dictatorship in the U.S. can be laid by strictly legal means… We have a well-organized political-action group in this country, determined to destroy our Constitution and establish a one-party state… It operates secretly, silently, continuously to transform our Government… This ruthless power-seeking elite is a disease of our century… This group…is answerable neither to the President, the Congress, nor the courts. It is practically irremovable.” –Senator William Jenner, 1954 speech
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_E._Jenner
“The very word “secrecy” is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings… Our way of life is under attack. Those who make themselves our enemy are advancing around the globe… no war ever posed a greater threat to our security. If you are awaiting a finding of “clear and present danger,” then I can only say that the danger has never been more clear and its presence has never been more imminent… For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence–on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations. Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed.” — John F Kennedy
http://wakeup-world.com/2011/05/20/jfks-speech-on-secret-societies/
“The Rockefellers and their allies have, for at least fifty years, been carefully following a plan to use their economic power to gain political control of first America, and then the rest of the world. Do I mean conspiracy? Yes, I do. I am convinced there is such a plot, international in scope, generations old in planning, and incredibly evil in intent.” Congressman Larry P. McDonald, from the introduction to a book titled The Rockefeller File.
http://www.whale.to/b/allen_b.html
“There exists a shadowy government with its own Air Force, its own Navy, its own fundraising mechanism, and the ability to pursue its own ideas of national interest, free from all checks and balances, and free from the law itself.” – Daniel K. Inouye, US Senator from Hawaii
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Inouye
The 20 Goals of the Illuminati….
1. To establish a One World Government/New World Order with a unified church and monetary system under their direction. Many organizations have formed leading us to become globally minded and more likely to accept a form of dictatorship. Here are a few examples of such globally minded organizations:
The World Trade Organization, according to Encyclopedia Britannica is an international organization established to supervise and liberalize world trade. In other words it monitors and enforces rules governing global trade.http://www.wto.org/
The United Nations, according to Wikipedia, is an international organization whose stated aims are to facilitate cooperation in international law, international security, economic development, social progress, human rights and achieving world peace. The UN currently has 192 member states.
http://www.un.org/en/
The World Bank, according to the World Bank website, “It is a vital source that offers financial and technical assistance to developing countries around the world. They are not a bank in the common sense. They are made up of two unique development institutions owned by 185 member countries—the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) and the International Development Association (IDA). Each institution plays a different but collaborative role to advance the vision of an inclusive and sustainable globalization.”
http://www.worldbank.org/
The World Church Council – The WCC brings together 349 churches, denominations and church fellowships in more than 110 countries and territories throughout the world, representing over 560 million Christians and including most of the world’s Orthodox churches, scores of Anglican, Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist and Reformed churches, as well as many United and Independent churches. It is a community of churches on the way to visible unity in one faith and one eucharistic fellowship, expressed in worship and in common life in Christ. It seeks to advance towards this unity…(Think One World Religion)http://www.oikoumene.org/en
2. To bring about the utter obliteration of all national identity and national pride, which was a primary consideration if the concept of a One World Government was to work. This is why the IRS is targeting the “Tea Party” patriots.
3. To engineer and bring about the destruction of religion, and more specifically the Christian Religion. Their sole purpose is to bring about a world religion, be it the Vatican, Islam, or New Age. That part is unknown.
4. To establish the ability to control every person through means of mind control and what Zbignew Brzezinski called techonotronics, which would create human-like robots and a system of terror.
“The high office of the President has been used to foment a plot to destroy America’s freedom and before I leave office, I must inform the citizen of this plight.” JFK
Right before his death John F. Kennedy tried to warn the people of America about the highly secretive group known as the Illuminati but sadly he never got the chance because his assassination followed shortly there after…
In truth this group has had their tentacles in almost every aspect of our lives in some way shape or form and they sit in the highest levels of governments secretly implementing their plans of mass human slaughter while the world watches the mainstream media report lies and lives their lives under the normalcy bias.
Their campaign to eliminate “useless eaters” (that’s you and I) on behalf of the planet’s “privileged ruling elite” is now taking a more ravenous toll as global population levels rise.
It is no secret, then, that the elite want millions dead, and no longer do they hid it, no, it’s out in the open and they are proud of their stance and any numb-nut who denies it, well, they can just rest in their stupidity…..
The Truth is We Have Already Been Warned….
“It was not my intention to doubt that, the Doctrines of the Illuminati, and principles of Jacobinism had not spread in the United States. On the contrary, no one is more truly satisfied of this fact than I am. The idea that I meant to convey, was, that I did not believe that the Lodges of Free Masons in this Country had, as Societies, endeavored to propagate the diabolical tenets of the first, or pernicious principles of the latter (if they are susceptible of separation). That Individuals of them may… actually had a separation [sic] of the People from their Government in view, is too evident to be questioned.” – George Washington, from a letter that he wrote on October 24, 1798, which can be found in the Library of Congress.
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mgw:@field%28DOCID+@lit%28gw360395%29%29
“I sincerely believe, with you, that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies.” —Thomas Jefferson in a letter written to John Taylor on May 28, 1816
“A power has risen up in the government greater than the people themselves, consisting of many and various powerful interests, combined in one mass, and held together by the cohesive power of the vast surplus in banks.” – John C. Calhoun, Vice President and U.S. Senator, from a speech given on May 27, 1836http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_C._Calhoun
“Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people. To destroy this invisible government, to befoul the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day.”— Theodore Roosevelt, in his Autobiography, 1913 (Appendix B)
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/3335?msg=welcome_stranger
“A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is privately concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men… [W]e have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated, governments in the civilized world—no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and the duress of small groups of dominant men.” – Woodrow Wilson, The New Freedom, 1913http://www.gutenberg.org/files/14811/14811-h/14811-h.htm
“The real menace of our Republic is the invisible government, which like a giant octopus sprawls its slimy legs over our cities, states and nation… The little coterie of powerful international bankers virtually run the United States government for their own selfish purposes. They practically control both parties, … and control the majority of the newspapers and magazines in this country. They use the columns of these papers to club into submission or drive out of office public officials who refuse to do the bidding of the powerful corrupt cliques which compose the invisible government. It operates under cover of a self-created screen [and] seizes our executive officers, legislative bodies, schools, courts, newspapers and every agency created for the public protection.” – New York City Mayor John F. Hylan, New York Times
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Francis_Hylan
“Mr. Chairman, we have in this country one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve Banks. The Federal Reserve Board, a Government board, has cheated the Government of the United States and the people of the United States out of enough money to pay the national debt…Mr. Chairman, when the Federal Reserve act was passed, the people of the United States did not perceive that a world system was being set up here… and that this country was to supply financial power to an international superstate — a superstate controlled by international bankers and international industrialists acting together to enslave the world for their own pleasure.” – Congressman Louis T. McFadden, House of Representatives Speech, 1932
http://www.afn.org/~govern/mcfadden_speech_1932.html
“The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the large centers has owned the government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson.” — Franklin Delano Roosevelt in a letter to Colonel Edward M Househttp://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Franklin_D._Roosevelt
“Today the path to total dictatorship in the U.S. can be laid by strictly legal means… We have a well-organized political-action group in this country, determined to destroy our Constitution and establish a one-party state… It operates secretly, silently, continuously to transform our Government… This ruthless power-seeking elite is a disease of our century… This group…is answerable neither to the President, the Congress, nor the courts. It is practically irremovable.” –Senator William Jenner, 1954 speechhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_E._Jenner
“The very word “secrecy” is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings… Our way of life is under attack. Those who make themselves our enemy are advancing around the globe… no war ever posed a greater threat to our security. If you are awaiting a finding of “clear and present danger,” then I can only say that the danger has never been more clear and its presence has never been more imminent… For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence–on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations. Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed.” — John F Kennedyhttp://wakeup-world.com/2011/05/20/jfks-speech-on-secret-societies/
“The Rockefellers and their allies have, for at least fifty years, been carefully following a plan to use their economic power to gain political control of first America, and then the rest of the world. Do I mean conspiracy? Yes, I do. I am convinced there is such a plot, international in scope, generations old in planning, and incredibly evil in intent.” Congressman Larry P. McDonald, from the introduction to a book titled The Rockefeller File.
http://www.whale.to/b/allen_b.html
“There exists a shadowy government with its own Air Force, its own Navy, its own fundraising mechanism, and the ability to pursue its own ideas of national interest, free from all checks and balances, and free from the law itself.” – Daniel K. Inouye, US Senator from Hawaiihttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Inouye
The 20 Goals of the Illuminati….
1. To establish a One World Government/New World Order with a unified church and monetary system under their direction. Many organizations have formed leading us to become globally minded and more likely to accept a form of dictatorship. Here are a few examples of such globally minded organizations:
The World Trade Organization, according to Encyclopedia Britannica is an international organization established to supervise and liberalize world trade. In other words it monitors and enforces rules governing global trade.http://www.wto.org/
The United Nations, according to Wikipedia, is an international organization whose stated aims are to facilitate cooperation in international law, international security, economic development, social progress, human rights and achieving world peace. The UN currently has 192 member states.
http://www.un.org/en/
The World Bank, according to the World Bank website, “It is a vital source that offers financial and technical assistance to developing countries around the world. They are not a bank in the common sense. They are made up of two unique development institutions owned by 185 member countries—the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) and the International Development Association (IDA). Each institution plays a different but collaborative role to advance the vision of an inclusive and sustainable globalization.”
http://www.worldbank.org/
The World Church Council – The WCC brings together 349 churches, denominations and church fellowships in more than 110 countries and territories throughout the world, representing over 560 million Christians and including most of the world’s Orthodox churches, scores of Anglican, Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist and Reformed churches, as well as many United and Independent churches. It is a community of churches on the way to visible unity in one faith and one eucharistic fellowship, expressed in worship and in common life in Christ. It seeks to advance towards this unity…(Think One World Religion)http://www.oikoumene.org/en
2. To bring about the utter obliteration of all national identity and national pride, which was a primary consideration if the concept of a One World Government was to work. This is why the IRS is targeting the “Tea Party” patriots.
3. To engineer and bring about the destruction of religion, and more specifically the Christian Religion. Their sole purpose is to bring about a world religion, be it the Vatican, Islam, or New Age. That part is unknown.
4. To establish the ability to control every person through means of mind control and what Zbignew Brzezinski called techonotronics, which would create human-like robots and a system of terror.
Challenge: The Road to Bondage
Challenge: The Road to Bondage
Apathy toward indecent, uncivil, and immoral behavior has been the undoing of many a nation throughout history. Nations who replace a relationship with God for secular idols are quickly filled with individuals who are apathetic about how they treat others, and ultimately become nations marred by selfishness and greed. And as Rome proved many years ago, a nation composed of selfish, greedy, immoral individuals cannot stand. History shows us that no enemy was able to defeat ancient Rome; Rome fell from within when it became morally bankrupt. Common decency, civility, and morality are intertwined, and the future of our society depends on them.
Consider the words of Professor Alexander Tyler, an eighteenth-century historian and economist who wrote the following in his central work, The Cycle of Democracy, in 1778:
*The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through this sequence:
From bondage to spiritual faith,
From spiritual faith to great courage,
From courage to liberty,
From liberty to abundance,
From abundance to complacency,
From complacency to apathy,
From apathy to dependence,
From dependence back into bondage*
That cyclical pattern of redemption and corruption even marked the history of God’s chosen people. Throughout the Old Testament, the Israelites repeatedly turned away from God’s way to pursue their own desires. God, through Moses, rescued them from slavery in Egypt, parted the Red Sea to save them from Pharaoh’s armies, and led them through the wilderness by pillars of fire and cloud. Right after all of those miracles, while Moses was on Mount Sinai speaking face to face with God, the Israelites constructed an idol and decided to worship it rather than the Living God they had been following, and that quickly led them into all other kinds of wild behavior.
In Exodus 32, it says, “The Lord told Moses, ‘Quick! Go down the mountain! Your people you brought from the land of Egypt have corrupted themselves. How quickly they have turned away from the way I commanded them to live!’” (Exodus 32: 7-8).
Moses went back down the mountain to bring the Israelites to repentance and beg God to forgive them. They did repent of their wickedness, and paid a steep price for their sin. Just like the Israelites, we as Americans so easily forget our history. Ours is an apathetic society, to say the least. If our children are to have a future of freedom, it’s going to be up to us to start restoring the very basis of a civil society: love of God and man.
The Hope: Faith in God
Our home church’s mission is “To love God and people above all else.” It was Jesus who said that these are the two greatest commandments.
These two basic principles, if modeled consistently by adults and taught faithfully to our nation’s children, would immediately restore American civility and greatly impact the world. But the popular culture teaches adults and children to do neither.
It’s no longer acceptable to invoke the name of God in a school setting or to pray for His guidance and blessings. And the price of this secularization of the culture has been a loss of civility and decency.
Brad Bright, author of God is the Issue, explains how America has lost its moral consensus in the school setting and the culture at large: “We Americans pretend that God is irrelevant to education, but then we act shocked when our children behave as if there really is no God. If we want children to behave as though God exists, we must teach them that he does. If they do not believe it, they will not act like it. It is that simple.” Brad continues, “Morality is merely a fairy tale unless a rational God exists. Teaching values apart from God is like explaining how a light bulb works without ever mentioning electricity, or talking about how the automobile runs but never referring to the internal combustion engine. Talking about values and morality is meaningless if divorced from their source. If there is no God, we are simply arguing about conflicting preferences, not right and wrong, not good and evil. Right and wrong cease to exist the moment God is removed from the equation.”
The most important issues to consider in each of our lives are: In what do I believe? In whom do I put my trust? Everything springs from the answers to those questions. What we view as indecent; what we deem acceptable; how we treat other people; how we raise children. The list is endless.
No, you don’t have to embark on a crusade to save the whole country. But by making the decision to instill in your own family basic principles of faith, morality, decency and civility, you will also be protecting your family from the apathy and selfishness that threaten our nation’s very existence.
Romans 12:9-13 is a beautiful guideline for right living. It says:
“Let love be genuine. Abhor what is evil; hold fast to what is good. Love one another with brotherly affection. Outdo one another in showing honor. Do not be slothful in zeal, be fervent in spirit, serve the Lord. Rejoice in hope, be patient in tribulation, be constant in prayer. Contribute to the needs of the saints and seek to show hospitality.”
Though it sounds good, if we are honest with ourselves, it is a tall order. That kind of living is simply impossible apart from God working in our lives through faith.
The famous hymn, Come, Thou Fount, says, “Prone to wander, Lord I feel it. Prone to leave the God I love.” The author, Robert Robinson, knew on a personal level the same truth that the Israelites learned as a nation: It is so easy to get distracted. We are inclined to depart from the road of faith. And when we do, the road we follow leads us to the dark corners of ourselves where selfishness infects our hearts and destroys our relationships with God and others.
May our daily prayer echo Robinson’s plea expressed in that beautiful hymn:
“O to grace how great a debtor
daily I’m constrained to be!
Let Thy goodness, like a fetter,
bind my wandering heart to Thee.”
By Rebecca Hagelin
Apathy toward indecent, uncivil, and immoral behavior has been the undoing of many a nation throughout history. Nations who replace a relationship with God for secular idols are quickly filled with individuals who are apathetic about how they treat others, and ultimately become nations marred by selfishness and greed. And as Rome proved many years ago, a nation composed of selfish, greedy, immoral individuals cannot stand. History shows us that no enemy was able to defeat ancient Rome; Rome fell from within when it became morally bankrupt. Common decency, civility, and morality are intertwined, and the future of our society depends on them.
Consider the words of Professor Alexander Tyler, an eighteenth-century historian and economist who wrote the following in his central work, The Cycle of Democracy, in 1778:
*The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through this sequence:
From bondage to spiritual faith,
From spiritual faith to great courage,
From courage to liberty,
From liberty to abundance,
From abundance to complacency,
From complacency to apathy,
From apathy to dependence,
From dependence back into bondage*
That cyclical pattern of redemption and corruption even marked the history of God’s chosen people. Throughout the Old Testament, the Israelites repeatedly turned away from God’s way to pursue their own desires. God, through Moses, rescued them from slavery in Egypt, parted the Red Sea to save them from Pharaoh’s armies, and led them through the wilderness by pillars of fire and cloud. Right after all of those miracles, while Moses was on Mount Sinai speaking face to face with God, the Israelites constructed an idol and decided to worship it rather than the Living God they had been following, and that quickly led them into all other kinds of wild behavior.
In Exodus 32, it says, “The Lord told Moses, ‘Quick! Go down the mountain! Your people you brought from the land of Egypt have corrupted themselves. How quickly they have turned away from the way I commanded them to live!’” (Exodus 32: 7-8).
Moses went back down the mountain to bring the Israelites to repentance and beg God to forgive them. They did repent of their wickedness, and paid a steep price for their sin. Just like the Israelites, we as Americans so easily forget our history. Ours is an apathetic society, to say the least. If our children are to have a future of freedom, it’s going to be up to us to start restoring the very basis of a civil society: love of God and man.
The Hope: Faith in God
Our home church’s mission is “To love God and people above all else.” It was Jesus who said that these are the two greatest commandments.
These two basic principles, if modeled consistently by adults and taught faithfully to our nation’s children, would immediately restore American civility and greatly impact the world. But the popular culture teaches adults and children to do neither.
It’s no longer acceptable to invoke the name of God in a school setting or to pray for His guidance and blessings. And the price of this secularization of the culture has been a loss of civility and decency.
Brad Bright, author of God is the Issue, explains how America has lost its moral consensus in the school setting and the culture at large: “We Americans pretend that God is irrelevant to education, but then we act shocked when our children behave as if there really is no God. If we want children to behave as though God exists, we must teach them that he does. If they do not believe it, they will not act like it. It is that simple.” Brad continues, “Morality is merely a fairy tale unless a rational God exists. Teaching values apart from God is like explaining how a light bulb works without ever mentioning electricity, or talking about how the automobile runs but never referring to the internal combustion engine. Talking about values and morality is meaningless if divorced from their source. If there is no God, we are simply arguing about conflicting preferences, not right and wrong, not good and evil. Right and wrong cease to exist the moment God is removed from the equation.”
The most important issues to consider in each of our lives are: In what do I believe? In whom do I put my trust? Everything springs from the answers to those questions. What we view as indecent; what we deem acceptable; how we treat other people; how we raise children. The list is endless.
No, you don’t have to embark on a crusade to save the whole country. But by making the decision to instill in your own family basic principles of faith, morality, decency and civility, you will also be protecting your family from the apathy and selfishness that threaten our nation’s very existence.
Romans 12:9-13 is a beautiful guideline for right living. It says:
“Let love be genuine. Abhor what is evil; hold fast to what is good. Love one another with brotherly affection. Outdo one another in showing honor. Do not be slothful in zeal, be fervent in spirit, serve the Lord. Rejoice in hope, be patient in tribulation, be constant in prayer. Contribute to the needs of the saints and seek to show hospitality.”
Though it sounds good, if we are honest with ourselves, it is a tall order. That kind of living is simply impossible apart from God working in our lives through faith.
The famous hymn, Come, Thou Fount, says, “Prone to wander, Lord I feel it. Prone to leave the God I love.” The author, Robert Robinson, knew on a personal level the same truth that the Israelites learned as a nation: It is so easy to get distracted. We are inclined to depart from the road of faith. And when we do, the road we follow leads us to the dark corners of ourselves where selfishness infects our hearts and destroys our relationships with God and others.May our daily prayer echo Robinson’s plea expressed in that beautiful hymn:
“O to grace how great a debtor
daily I’m constrained to be!
Let Thy goodness, like a fetter,
bind my wandering heart to Thee.”
By Rebecca Hagelin
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
