"History is philosophy teaching by example." (Lord Bolingbroke)

New Email Address:

Friday, June 23, 2006

For the cognitively blind

It is time once more for another treatment for the cognitively blind. You know, there's psychogenic blindness, ocular blindness, and cortical blindness. The worst and most wide-spread is cognitive blindness.

Cognitive blindness refers to that huge gaggle of people who either will not see or will not allow themselves to see the facts of reality. Some will tell themselves that what they see cannot be true, but most will tell themselves that they will not allow themselves to see what they do not want to be true.

Reality, nevertheless, marches on. Overnight, seven ne'erdowells were arrested in the most inappropriately named "Liberty City" section of Miami, Florida. (If there ever was a place to insert the tube to give the earth an enema, Liberty City would be it.)

Why? The are a terror cell. They are made of the homegrown and a few Haitian imports. Among other targets, they wanted to take down the Sears Tower in Chicago and precipitate a state of total war within America.

Although they swore allegiance to Al Qaeda, they are not Al Qaeda.

They are, however, converts to ISLAM. Now watch the cognitively blind head for their blinders and eye patches not to see Islam as THE COMMON DENOMINATOR in all of this so-called "terror."

It is not some adjectivized Islam, such as "radical" Islam. No siree, it is just plain Islam, just as it has been all along. Islam unites all these ne'erdowells worldwide, from all flavors of culture.

So, for today, here is the treatment for the cognitively blind. Repeat:

It is Islam, stupid.
It is Islam, stupid.
It is Islam, stupid.


NEW FOR JUNE 2006 ON OUR WEBSITE, 6TH COLUMN AGAINST JIHAD (see website for hot links)

ANNOUNCEMENTS: We have many changes afoot, and more to come:

We are moving our blog, Sixth Column, to its new host with its new address, effective 1 July 2006.

The old site of Sixth Column will remain solely for the archives, until we can successfully export them to the new URL.

The new site of Sixth Column will have a new email address.

The website, 6th Column Against Jihad, is changing its email address to 6thCAJ@6thColumnAgainstJihad.Com.

We have established another blog for the topics not really "on topic" for this website and Sixth Column: The New Enlightenment.

New division pages both for Noteworthy and Hatred of the Angels.

Folding Commentary pages into the Noteworthy folder page.

Further additions are under development but are not ready for publicizing.


o From George Mason, Getting Into Their Minds III: How Does Islam Do It?, an
astonishingly perceptive article by Laurent Murawiec, Deterring Those Who Are Already Dead?

o From Jane Scully, Hatred of the Angels, Chapter 6: The Emir of Rome.

o From Jacob Thomas, The Constants and Conditions of “Gulf” Islam and Muslims Questioning Islam.

o From Flemming Rose (courtesy Der Spiegel), Why I Published the Muhammad Cartoons.

o From the Halls of Montezuma to the Halls of Shame, U.S. Marines Build Shrine to Islam.

o Humor on They Said It, What if Other Religions Had Muslim Values?

o Another fabulous article about a Founding Father from David McCullough, A Man Worth Knowing.

o Unique analyses of current events on our ongoing blog, SIXTH COLUMN, and topics not covered usually on Sixth Column and 6th Column Against Jihad now on The New Enlghtenment blog.


From George Mason, How Does Islam Do It (I)? The Basics.

From Jason Pappas of Liberty and Culture, Two Methods of Attack, on Commentary

From Jane Scully, Hatred of the Angels, Chapter 5, Two Souls . (An original novel about
Eurabia, of tomorrow)

From Always on Watch blog, Islam and the Criminal Mind

New from D.C. Watson, Review of and Chapter from his new book, TRUTH IS NOT BIGOTRY: Sometimes it just hurts

New Archives, on site and off site

New Links on Recommended page


And, as always, outstanding daily analyses on Sixth Column

Thursday, June 22, 2006

The Meaning of the "Tipping Point" in Iraq

Only the comatose could not know about the seizure, torture, mutilations and deaths of the two American soldiers recently in the Sunni Triangle of Iraq. Every effort made by our military to gather intelligence from the indigenous population of the seizure area has been met by stony silence. Conversely, most Americans--not the pansy Left--want blood and action to avenge our soldiers, while the vicious bad guys watch to see if we are going to stand up for ourselves. So far, the Bush administration, including the DoD, have done nothing and said only the equivalent of "Tsk, tsk, what a shame."

What Al-Qaeda did to our soldiers brought the entire Bush expedition in Iraq to its MOST CRITICAL POINT.

What we do at this point, or opportunity, will determine our ENTIRE FUTURE in Iraq and the Middle East. Call this point what you will, but the name "tipping point" names it superbly.

More of the usual from Bush et al, a la "just war theory," and we may as well come home now. We will have lost and guaranteed fighting Islam and its jihad on the streets of America. (And, no, Bill O'Reilly, this is not "theoretical.")

We will be perceived--correctly--as a toothless, senescent, and weak tiger, easily defeated, just by persistence. This type of response will guarantee that we will bleed much more money and squander many more troops through maiming and death to no good end. Once again, we will have committed national suicide on the altar of righteous, self-sacrificial service to others. While such sacrifice makes far too many Americans glow in inner warmth, it handcuffs our fighting and national security because it keeps us from pursuing our own highly appropriate and proper national self-interest. We might as well throw our personnel and money into Uday's infamous people shredder.

If we punish the holy hell out of these Sunnis, we will be able to pull off a win--despite Bush, DoD, State Department, and all of the "just war theory" stuffed generals. We should have already begun meting out severe and unremitting punishment to take away their will to fight and support the fighting.

Iraq has come down to this tipping point. It has come down to one final roll of the dice, thanks to all the bungling since March 2003. Iran and North Korea are watching, as is the rest of Islamia.

If we are to fight, we must fight to win decisively and quickly through total war. That is what a truly "just war" means.

Iraq rides now fully on the near term behavior of G. W. Bush and his ilk.

Wednesday, June 21, 2006

They Gouged Out Their Eyes. . .

The tortured bodies of two of our soldiers were found in Iraq days after they were set up and kidnapped. Many speculate that they were beheaded, and Bill O'Reilly said that their eyes had been gouged out. While DNA studies are always done on the bodies of military people killed in battle, there has been further speculation that the degree of mutilation that they suffered was so great that DNA tests were required to be sure of their identity. Unless their fingers were cut off too, making fingerprinting impossible, and unless their teeth were removed, it is quite probable that identification was made through prints or dental records even if their appearance was otherwise severely altered by their captors.

Many of us imagine that the MSM are merely trying to "protect our sensibilities" by failing to report on the details of such incidents.

What is happening is, in fact, is an attempt by the Politcally Correct crowd to hide from us those details so that we don't get so angry that we will demand justice for the murderers.

After all, if we became angry enough, we might even recall that these "people" were never signatories to any of the Geneva Conventions. We might further remember that we have never officially declared war against Islam, "the enemy who must not be named."

Does this mean that we have to descend to their contemptably primitive level of thought and behavior? Of course not; but neither does it mean that we have to wear gloves so as not to sully their War Manual while handing them out in our retention centers.

"Fair" and "just" are not the same as "stupid."

Some Forward Progress Re: Illegal Aliens

Common sense is beginning to assert itself here and there; who knows - if we can get someone like Tom Tancredo into the Oval Office by 2008, maybe we can even stop the sacrifice of the United States on the altar of the North American Union!

Here's a little good news:

House Immigration Reform Caucus Now 101 Members Strong

Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) announced Friday that the House Immigration Reform Caucus (IRC), which he chairs, is now more than 100 Members strong. When Rep. Brian Bilbray (R-CA) was sworn into office last week, he immediately re-joined the caucus and he was joined by Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-OH), Rep. John Campbell (R-CA), Rep. Sam Johnson (R-TX), Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-KY) and Rep. Charlie Bass (R-NH).

Rep. Tancredo stated, "As the IRC has grown, so has the illegal immigration issue in Americans' consciousness. When I started the Caucus in 1999, we had few friends and allies in Congress. Today, the IRC is one of the largest and most active caucuses in the House. Our size and the force of our arguments dictate that we have a seat at the table."

If one of these House Members represents you, call their office to thank them for standing with 100 other Members of the House who want our borders secured and to end illegal immigration!

Tuesday, June 20, 2006

At Last! A Congressman Is Taking Notice of the North American Union!

Just as he did with the scandalous agreement arrived at behind closed doors, out of sight of the Congress and the people of the United States, whereby contracts for the managment of several major port facilities would have been quietly handed over to the Islamic state of Dubai, President Bush is now quietly trying to sneak past us measures that would effectively destroy the sovereignty of the United States.

This time, he is racing to complete the creation of the North American Union, a single political-economic-military fusion of Mexico, Canada, and the United States. Passports would no longer be needed, the currencies of each country would be replaced by the "Amero," US institutions would be reborn as a single North American Union banking system, a single court/justice system, a single military system, a single executive system, a single customs office, and a single North American Union parliamentary group.

Fortunately, at least one Congressman, Tom Tancredo (R-CO) is paying attention. Here's what he's trying to do for us:

congress senate illegal Immigration Laws

Demands full disclosure of White House work with Mexico, Canada!

Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., is demanding the Bush administration fully disclose the activities of an office implementing a trilateral agreement with Mexico and Canada that apparently could lead to a North American union, despite having no authorization from Congress.

Topics: Baylor, CFR, Council on Foreign Relations, Building a North American Community, illegal immigration, open borders, American Republic.

As WND reported, the White House has established working groups, under the North American Free Trade Agreement office in the Department of Commerce, to implement the Security and Prosperity Partnership, or SPP, signed by President Bush, Mexican President Vicente Fox and then-Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin in Waco, Texas, on March 23, 2005. The groups, however, have no authorization from Congress and have not disclosed the results of their work despite two years of massive effort within the executive branches of the U.S., Mexico and Canada.

Tancredo wants to know the membership of the SPP groups along with their various trilateral "memoranda of understanding" and "other agreements" reached with counterparts in Mexico and Canada. Tancredo's decision has been endorsed by Jim Gilchrist, founder of the Minuteman Project. "It's time the Bush administration to come clean," Gilchrist told WND. "If President Bush's agenda is to establish a new North American union government to supersede the sovereignty of the United States, then the president has an obligation to tell this to the American people directly. The American public has a right to know."

Geri Word, who heads the SPP office, told WND the work had not been disclosed because, "We did not want to get the contact people of the working groups distracted by calls from the public." WND can find no specific congressional legislation authorizing the SPP working groups nor any congressional committees taking charge of oversight. Many SPP working groups appear to be working toward achieving specific objectives as defined by a May 2005 Council on Foreign Relations task force report, which presented a blueprint for expanding the SPP agreement into a North American union that would merge the U.S., Canada and Mexico into a new governmental form.

A New 9/11 Memorial


I just came back from visiting a site that is proposing a project that may interest many of you. "D" is recruiting 2996 volunteers, each of whom would create a tribute to one of the victims of the 9/11 attack; these will be posted as a memorial on September 11, 2006.

I have copied information from the site, and invite you to visit it too:

Tuesday, June 6th, 2006, 5:26 pm


Edited 6/17/06:

The project has progressed quite a bit from the time of this post.For up to date information on 2,996 visit the 2,996 blog.

Original post follows:

2,996 is an effort to bring together 2,996 bloggers in a massive memorial to the victims of 9/11.
On September 11, 2006, the 5th anniversary of the attacks, 2,996 bloggers will each post a memorial to one victim. We will remember the innocent victims of that day–we will not remember the murderers.

I’ve set up a page devoted to this tracking this effort: And over the next week or two, I’ll be adding news and a participants list to the page to give everyone a place to go for information about 2,996.

How can you join? Leave a comment, here or at the original post, and I’ll assign you a person killed on 9/11. Then all you need to do is post a tribute to that person on September 11, 2006.
I still need a good bit of helpI need graphics…specifically:

1. A graphic or button to drop into sidebars.
2. A banner.
3. Something tasteful for the 2,996 page.

But most of all I need publicity. Right now I have about 50 volunteers. That’s a little bit less that 2% of the total needed. Luckily there are still 97 days until 9/11 so there is still time to get more bloggers to join.

Thanks. I thank those who submitted suggestions for names for this project. I went with a suggestion from Jeni because I felt it had a great impact.

I also am thankful to those of you who have helped out by posting about this initiative on your own blogs.

This is still a long way from happening, but I hope I/we can pull it off. I think it would be an inspiring way to remember so much of what was important about 2,996 unique individuals.

Please Read and Act: The Amnesty Bill

A friend who just got this email forwarded a copy to me. It speaks for itself, and IT IS VERY IMPORTANT TO US ALL.

Breaking news on the Senate amnesty bill----

House leadership just announced that they will not succumb to pressure from the Senate to fast-track the amnesty bill. Instead House Speaker Hastert says the House will conduct "field hearings" on the amnesty bill. Hastert said, "I'm not putting any timeline on this thing, but I think we need this thing done right."

This is great news. House leaders are saying that we must secure the borders first and are resisting the Senate rush to amnesty.

Go to Grassfire's home page for the latest:

+ + Immediate action needed--Call House Leaders!

I expect House leaders will come under intense pressure and we must let them know that we support their decision to have field hearings and delay the Senate amnesty push.

I am asking you to make a few phone calls right now to let House leaders know you support their decision.


1. I am a Grassfire team member.

2. I STRONGLY SUPPORT the House leadership's
decision to delay the Senate amnesty bill and hold
"field hearings."

3. I support the House bill and oppose the Senate amnesty


Speaker Hastert: 202-225-0600
Majority Leader Boehner: 202-225-4000
Majority Whip Blunt: 202-225-1097
Deputy Whip Cantor: 202-225-2815

Your Congressman:
Switchboard: 202-224-3121
Or, look up your congressman here:

Best to call during business hours.

+ + Forward this to your friends

Please spread the word to your personal network. Encourage your friends to call these leaders and to sign our petition by going here:

Again, this is great news and the DIRECT RESULT OF YOUR GRASSROOTS EFFORTS! But our job just got even more important!

Thanks for the stand you are taking!

Steve Elliott, President Alliance

+ + + + + Alliance is a non-profit 501(c)4 issues advocacy
organization dedicated to equipping our 1.5 million-strong network
of grassroots conservatives with the tools that give you a real
impact on the key issues of our day. Gifts to are not
tax deductible.

+ + Comments? Questions?

We have included the information about for completeness. We were unaware of the organization until now. However, Grassfire is not the point--this immigration bill is! We have to make sure that it gets done right. Please put your shoulder to this wheel.

Sunday, June 18, 2006

The Utter Dysfunction of the United Nations

The following was posted as a comment to our moving-to-a-new-address announcement. As a comment, it may be missed, even though it is big. It offers too much to risk being missed, so we are making it a full blog.

The statement indicates that it was written by "...a concerned group of current and former UN employees," and at the end of this statement is person and address to contact. It urges action today on our parts to contact our representatives and senators, not to "reform" the UN, were that possible, but to: "Ask your Senators and Congressman to create a NEW organization that can lead the world well into the 21st Century."

Read it and pass it along. We despise the United Nations because we see it for the evil that it is. Let's starve it of funds, kick it out of the USA, end our membership. IF we join some new conglomerate of nations, let us capitalize on the horrible errors in principle and in fact involved with the UN.

It will take five minutes to read this and another five minutes to take action, proposed below. Please don’t ignore this, and please send it to friends and family. Your action could literally change the world.

Recently Mark Malloch Brown, deputy Secretary General of the United Nations, said that "Middle America" did not know how the US is constructively engaged with the UN because of UN detractors and too much unchecked UN-bashing and stereotyping over too many years. Friends, the UN deserves to be bashed and bashed hard.

Please allow us to give you a glimpse into how the United Nations is run:

Hirings and promotions routinely violate UN rules (and are illegal under most national laws) and revolve around patronage and whom one knows rather than professional qualifications. Poorly performing managers are simply moved into different management slots while others are placed in senior positions solely because of their nationality, or because of favors owed to them by their supervisors or colleagues.

Salaries for UN employees are free of taxes and come with six weeks vacation, 11 holidays, 10 sick days that are often used as vacation, plus 4 weeks of “home leave”, rental and housing grants to supplement an already generous salary (we all make an average of $7,000-$10,000 a month tax free), a pension at 8% of salary times years of service that can be cashed out tax free at any time, and educational subsidies for children of UN employees. Many also participate in an "alternative work schedule" in which they get every other Friday off. But don't even try to apply. Your application will not be acknowledged nor will you ever get invited for a job interview. You must know someone to work at the UN (or worse, sleep with them).

Several of us have advanced degrees in management and have been trained to manage large public organizations, yet we are blocked from advancing by bureaucrats in their 50s with no management training, education, or experience - only sitting in their chairs because they are friends with someone in a higher position. We threaten them because they know they are there based only on their connections.

And there is a profound lack of accountability within the UN regarding budget and resource allocation, resulting in loss of millions upon millions each year through skimming, graft and corruption. Simple procurement that would normally take five minutes using modern technology systems takes 2-3 months in the UN. And many United Nations Development Program country offices pay "local experts" outrageously high sums of money for products of dubious quality. Such contracts would never be made by other international aid agencies such as USAID that have much stronger internal controls and oversight.

We are all familiar with outrageous examples of scandals within the UN system, and yet time and again the scandal is covered up. In fact, a recent article on internal management in the Financial Times cited a UN-commissioned report released in 1994 that was remarkably damning and yet, as the article noted, nothing has changed which has led to this present crisis of credibility at the UN.

Despite its dysfunction, if the UN were actually making a difference, many would mutter to themselves but the UN deserves its strongest bashing because of its profound inability to respond to genocide, war, famine, natural disasters, and corruption.

Kofi Annan, current head of the United Nations who ironically lives in a mansion in New York worth about $10 million, was head of peacekeeping operations in 1994 in Rwanda when 800,000 people died. In 2004, he said "I believed at that time that I was doing my best" despite the fact that he held back UN troops from intervening to settle the conflict and declined to provide more logistic and material support to stop the slaughter.

And don't forget that ten years ago thousands of Bosnian Muslims were murdered by the Serb militias who were in a UN protected “safe haven” with hundreds of UN soldiers assigned to defend them. Yet the UN stood by while the entire adult and teenage male population was systematically butchered.

Kofi Annan was unable to stop mismanagement of the Oil-for-Food Program that allowed Saddam Hussein's regime to embezzle $4.4 billion through pricing irregularities and an additional $5.7 billion through illegal oil smuggling. And for several years Kofi's son Kojo received payments from the Swiss company Cotecna (while not even working there!), which won a lucrative contract under the UN Oil for Food program.

Kofi Annan protected Ruud Lubbers, UN High Commissioner for Refugees, against a report that found him guilty of sexual harassment by declaring him innocent. This created a global protest against Annan, resulting in Lubbers being eventually forced to resign, not because of his own egregious actions, but because he was starting to adversely impact Annan’s public image. By the way, Annan’s image is propped up around the world thanks to an $85 million dollar annual “communications” budget. What other modern corporation has two directors of communication like the UN doe - one for the UN “Secretariat” and one for the Secretary General.

Kofi Annan accepted a $500,000 prize from the ruler of Dubai, courtesy of a judges' panel full of U.N. cronies, one member of which Annan then appointed to a high U.N. job! By the way, Annan was advised to take the prize money by Malloch Brown who rents a home in Westchester County from his friend George Soros for $12,000 a month with a $287,087 annual salary.

Kofi Annan remains in power despite continuing sexual abuse scandals by UN peacekeepers. A 2005 internal UN investigation found that sexual abuse and forced pregnancies has been reported in at least five countries where UN peacekeepers have been deployed including the Congo, Haiti, Burundi, Cote d'Ivoire, and Liberia.

And Kofi Annan remains in power while genocide continues in Darfur, while Zimbabwe tailspins into despotism, while up to a third of the population of some African countries will die from AIDS, while government corruption keeps the poorest countries in starkest poverty, and while the U.N. Human Rights Council includes repressive non-democratic states such as Cuba, China, Russia, and Saudi Arabia.

Kofi Annan and Mark Malloch Brown arrogantly ignore the fact that the quality of life of several of us has come close to being destroyed because of the mismanagement, abuse, fraud and corruption.

Most who work for the UN are so used to its dysfunctionality that they have NO idea how sick the organization is or they are unwilling to come forward because UN labor laws and protections are abysmal. Coming forward to a kangaroo court will only result in firing or worse. Please refer to the recent report prepared by UK Barrister and Human Rights QC Geoffrey Robertson on behalf of UN Staff, which highlights the gross deficiencies of worker protections at the UN at - and read about so many more abuses at

Adding insult to injury, the newly created OIOS (the new "independent" internal oversight panel established to "reform" the UN) has been strong-armed by Malloch Brown and is not independent because its meager budget comes directly from the UN, equal to about one-half of Annan’s annual PR budget! Thus all are dissuaded from within the UN from coming forward.

And what really happened at UNDP, the organization that Malloch Brown used to “lead”? Why would Malloch Brown leave his influential post as head of UNDP to spend a year defending the scandals swirling around Kofi Annan and then announce that he would resign when Kofi leaves at the end of this year? Because he royally mismanaged UNDP. Everyone at UNDP knows this but is too scared to share the details of what happened for fear of retaliation by Brown. But ask UNDP Country Directors and UNDP Practice Managers what happened under King Mark's reign and you will get a completely different picture of his mismanagement skills and bombastic ways.

Another example, in order to uphold their political neutrality, UN employees are expressly barred from political participation and yet UNDP employee Justin Leites was allowed to campaign for U.S. Presidential candidate John Kerry - with MMB's approval!

As the walls literally crumble down around them, those who work for the UN and citizens who believe in the founding principles of the UN have no understanding how bad it really is. Unfortunately, we encourage young people who are seeking a career in international affairs to avoid the United Nations at all costs. We wish there would come a day when we would no longer make this recommendation.

Of course the senior leadership of the UN try to hide the profound problems of the UN but shame on them for saying that Americans don't know or understand how the US is engaged with the UN. If you and everyone in Middle America truly understood what ails the UN, the US, which funds $3.3 billion annually or 22% of the entire UN budget, would shut off the money spigot yesterday.

And remember - the talk of “reforming the UN” has gone on for over a DECADE. In sum, the UN should be shuttered, allowing a brand new organization to emerge because the current UN is broken beyond repair.
Not much has changed since the UN was founded 60 years ago. The UN could have done much, much better in making the word a better place.

Make no mistake. This is about the future of YOUR world – a world of some 180 countries desperate for a better life for all their citizens. Don't let self-interested, incompetent middle-aged bureaucrat hacks – most raised and educated under dictatorships - determine the future of OUR world.

Please contact your two Senators and your representative to the House of Representatives by clicking here: Ask your Senators and Congressman to stop discussing "reform" of the UN. Ask your Senators and Congressman to create a NEW organization that can lead the world well into the 21st Century.

This is NOT a Democrats vs. Republicans debate. All Democrats and all Republicans should be able to easily agree that if deep, deep reform is not possible, the UN should be closed and a new organization should be created to truly make the world a better place.

This is a non-partisan issue! Please share this with family and friends and post it on your favorite blogs.

For more information, please contact Edward Patrick Flaherty at who represents UN employees including our views here.

Written by a concerned group of current and former UN employees.

Posted by AYTQ to SIXTH COLUMN at 6/18/2006 11:29:31 AM

What is WRONG With the Dixie Chicks? And Kennedy, and Murtha, and Ward Churchill, and Cindy Sheehan, and. . .


Because of the time zone I live in, I sometimes miss things that you in earlier zones pick up on hours earlier. This morning, I woke up to the frothing of the mouth of our beloved local radio talk show host, who was angry at the Dixie Chicks for something (I couldn't tell exactly what it was) - again. When I was finely able to come and check the blog, I saw Eleanor's post (republished here in its entirety!), and understood immediately what our radio talk show host was upset about.

Here's Eleanor's post:

"Did you hear about the Dixie Chicks, girl band that is 'sickened by American patriotism'? They don't understand how one can 'love the whole country' and why 'patriotism is necessary' or 'why people care about patriotism.'"

Ever wonder how it is that these three pretty, talented, wholesome-looking American girls happened to have such hostile attitudes towards the country of their birth (to say nothing of the opportunity if afforded them to earn such a very nice living), despite what they observe here and around the world?

And make no mistake about it; they really DO think that "patriotism" is sick, they really DON'T understand the idea of pride of nation, and they MEAN it when they say they don't care about our country.

These girls are the most successful products and examples of the American educational system. I kid you not; it's no state secret; they got their hatred for patriotism, for love of country, for pride of nation, straight from the classrooms of our school system.

Those of you who visit this blog fairly often know just what I think of the American educational system.

You also know that several of us have been posting things about the increasing awareness of many people about the growing influence of the UN in the United States, an unattractive appeal that many in government and in the population have developed for the "sensitivity" about whether other nations "approve" of what we do, or whether they "like" us.

The UN and other like-minded individuals and institutions value 1) the "One World" idea, 2) the soon-to-be-established (2010) North American Union, 3) the fact that the borders between Mexico, the US, and Canada do not, in fact, exist, 4) the disarming of private citizens of the U.S., and more recently, 5) the desire to make homeschooling difficult or even illegal.

These issues are all related to each other and to the hostile attitude of the Dixie Chicks.

Instead of just telling you "our educational system played a very strong role in teaching the Dixie Chicks this U.S.-hating attitude," I'll put down a few historical snippets and some quotes from the academic and government establishments for you to consider.

I think that this material would make a great sci-fi movie about our future; it's absolutely Orwellian, or like the story "Logan's Run," or Ayn Rand's novella, "Anthem."

First, there are growing numbers of people - I am one of them - who are alarmed at the increasing pace and SNEAKINESS with which the One World concept is being implemented.

It is not uncommon for the government to conclude unpopular deals in smoke-filled back rooms when they know that the people will oppose them. Remember the Dubai Ports fiasco, and how we, the "little people," didn't find out about it until it was literally days from becoming a done deal? (By the way, that deal is still waiting in the wings until we "little people" with our "short attention spans" forget about it, and it can be quietly slipped past us like the Doncaster deal was shortly afterwards. As you recall, Doncaster's is a British company that makes sensitive items for the Department of Defense, and was sold to Dubai while we were breathing a sigh of relief that our ports hadn't been handed over to the Muslims, and while we were distracted by the problem of illegal invaders pouring across our borders).

Anyway, back to the Dixie Chicks and their anti-American, patriotism-hating, nation-despising statements and attitudes.

I am particularly sickened by the use of the school system as a principal means of accomplishing it.

When did this project of the globalization of America begin? It was probably earlier than you thought possible.

The Framers of the Constitution had an incredible opportunity, during a unique moment in history, to design a brand new nation from scratch. The opportunity was a “perfect storm” of sorts.

For thousands of years, people all over the world had lived in an uncomfortable relationship with their governing bodies. Almost from the beginning, the ruler had absolute power over the lives of individuals. This relationship had become accepted almost as a given because it had "always been that way."

But then, during the Enlightenment, an astonishing breakthrough in philosophy occurred. The Enlightenment was a period of thunderous philosophical growth. It was during the Enlightenment that it was discovered that the rights of individual human beings were more important than the raw power of governments.

This - the breakthrough in thinking about a proper relationship between a government and its citizens - was "Part I" of the "perfect storm."

"Part II" was the discovery of vast lands where a new country based on the breakthrough ideas could be created.

Because the technology of the period made it difficult for the rulers of the Old World to control the people living in the New World, the Founders were free to establish a totally new kind of country. For the first time in history, a nation was deliberately designed to recognize, in writing, that the rights of the citizen stood above the power of government, and that the power of government should properly be restricted to those activities that protected rights. It was not, according to the new philosophical discoveries, a proper function of government to tell people how to think, what to believe, what to do with their lives, etc.

But the old view that had prevailed throughout history up to that time was not to be so quickly or easily dismissed.

As early as the late 1700s, around the time of the ratification of the Constitution, utopian social reformers Robert Dale Owen (son of socialist reformer Robert Owen) and Frances Wright were working together, and established a commune. They had a vision where, through the utterly “equal” (read: “identical”) education of all children by the government, from ages two through sixteen, 24/7, all property and income would eventually be equalized. Their idea was not adopted “as is” right off the bat, but it helped seed ideas that would shape the course of education in the United States about eighty years later.

Dr. Dennis L. Cuddy, a former Senior Associate in the U.S. Department of Education, was disturbed long before many others were by the direction being taken by American education. He understood that the teaching programs in our schools would lead to precisely the attitude we see in the Dixie Chicks.

Cuddy compiled an interesting timeline called "Chronology of Education" which gave example after example of statements by proponents of education for the "New World Order." Another former government official, Charlotte Iserbyt, served with the Department of Education as Senior Policy Advisor in the Office of Educational Research and Improvement. She quietly collected many memos and internal documents about the plan to "globalize" American children, then left her job and later published the material she had collected as "The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America." Another exceedingly accessible collection of information is in Berit Kjos' book, "Brave New Schools."

There is some very interesting information in Cuddy’s "timeline." I can only put a few selections here, but you’ll have no trouble connecting the dots.

First, by way of a preamble to these two "whistle blowers," our tax-supported, compulsory-attendance, lock-step curriculum school system did not exist at the time of the founding of our country, or for nearly a hundred years thereafter. There is no mention in our Constitution of the establishment of an educational system by the government. Education is NOT a Constitutionally mandated function of government.

Out government-run school system was modeled after the one in Germany, which was established in the early 1500s by Martin Luther. He knew that not everyone in Germany favored the idea of his split from the Catholic Church, and that something needed to be done quickly if his ideas were to "stick." He knew that the most effective way to bring Germany on board was to teach as many of the children about Lutheran piety as quickly as possible.

It worked; the first schools based on his idea of a tax-supported, compelled attendance (they even had truancy laws!) and controlled curriculum were set up by 1527. The idea spread rapidly, first to Calvin's Geneva, then to Holland, and from Holland, the concept was brought by the Puritans to the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Each of the Colony's municipalities had such a school. The idea at that time was that in order to have “social stability,’ every child must be taught to have the same belief system. No competition of ideas permitted - that would rock the boat!

Horace Mann, who is credited with the founding of the US public school system, was a descendant of those colonists. He grew up in the traditional family belief system, but converted to Unitarianism, a very tolerant religion, one of whose founders was British chemist Joseph Priestley. Mann converted only in part because of the gloomy atmosphere that prevailed in the family religion; a significant part of the reason was a matter of retaliation.

Mann's brother had skipped Sunday school to go swimming, and had drowned. On the occasion of the funeral, the preacher made a mean-spirited object lesson of the death, and Mann could think of no better way to punish him than to reject his religion. Mann's conversion notwithstanding, he retained many of his Calvinist ideas, including the one that said that children were predisposed to evil, and that "social stability" could be acquired only through the teaching of a uniform Protestant orthodoxy.

Mann wasn't thinking "globalization" when he established the government education system in the early-mid 1800s, but his desire for a social stability based on a single belief system laid the groundwork for it. The dream of the "One World" people saw in the new system an irresistable opportunity to teach their collectivist ideas to entire generations of school children.

The final impetus for Mann to act came with the immigration of thousands upon thousands of Catholics to the U.S. He was utterly convinced that nothing less than the salvation of the nation was at stake should Catholic children not be taught his beliefs.

The unintended result was the first serious sign of social instability; Catholic parents, outraged that their children were being compelled to study "Protestantism," established their own school system, which remains in place to this day.

In the peri-Civil War period, Americans were still pretty pissed off at the Brits because of the Revolution and the War of 1812, so instead of sending their sons to complete their educations in Britain, which was the birthplace of the Enlightenment principles on which our nation was founded, they sent them instead to Germany.

Germany was one of the European countries where the old ideas of the relationship between government (it was all powerful) and the citizen ( subject to government whim) still heavily influenced the culture. In fact, it was a German philosopher, George Hegel, who popularized the notion of the "Organic Theory of State." According to this theory, the state (the "organism") was supreme, and the citizen (the "cell") existed only by the state's permission, and was expendable.
The education of the flower of our youth in the old collectivist system was a disaster for our country; our red-blooded American boys got thoroughly infested with this old, outworn, and totally invalid philosophy, which was 180 degrees away from the Founders' views. The boys came streaming back to the US, where they entered every field of endeavor, generation after generation after generation.

Think about it; they became politicians, academics, businessmen, philosophers, journalists, entertainers, and - of course - teachers.

Does it surprise you, then, to observe that so many of our politicians, universities, journalists, publishers, entertainers and - of course – teachers - hold collectivist views? Over the years, it has been a small step from the collectivist philosophies of the day (which evolved into the American Left, socialism, Communism, Fascism, the Nazis, etc.), to the even larger collectivist ideal of today, Globalism. And please, don't forget the nastiest collective ever, Islam, which has the same remote ancestor as the rest of the collectivist doctrines, including globalism.

That's the reason the Left here in the U.S. and the other collectivists elsewhere in the world, including at the U.N., seem so chummy.

Formal planning of the globalization of education began very soon after Mann had established the system in use today, and is teaching the ideas to millions upon millions of American school children.

Let's take a look: We've already mentioned the Utopian Socialists Owen and Wright, and their pure culture of communism (no capitals).

In 1905, the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching was founded. It is a major promoter and funder of socialist and globalist education projects.

Soon after that, in 1919, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace gave a grant to establish the Institute of International Education. Socialist philosopher/educator John Dewey, often referred to as the “Father of Progressive Education,” and one of the developers of the American philosophy of Pragmatism, was on the National Advisory Council of the brand new Institute of International Education. Dewey also served as Honorary President of the National Education Association (NEA).

By 1934, the NEA was actively promoting an “equitable distribution of income” as well as the view that the “major” function of education was to seek to give the student “understanding of the transition to a new social order” (remember Owens and Wright?). The NEA is famous to this day for its very strong dedication to "socialist ideals."

By 1942, early in WWII, the NEA’s journal had an editorial called “The United Peoples of the World,” in which it explained the proposed New World Government’s need for a single World Police Force, a single World System of Money and Credit, a single World Bill of Rights [a collectivist’s definition of a “right” is a very distorted and dangerous one] and ‘Duties’” (read “duties” to mean “obligation to serve the State” in the sense of the “Organic Theory of State”), and last, but certainly not least, the means of producing entire populations around the world that would support such a notion. They would need an Educational Branch. The Educational Branch of the World Government which would establish a single, uniform system of education for the whole world, with the same textbooks used in every school around the globe.

In 1946, the same publication stated that “…to establish an adequate World Government, the teacher…can do much to prepare the hearts and minds of children…At the top…must stand the school, the teacher, and the organized profession.”

Also in 1946, Canadian psychiatrist Brock Chisholm, then head of the World Health Organization (the UN was founded in 1945), said this:

“We have swallowed all manner of poisonous certainties fed us by our parents…the re-interpretation and eventually eradication of the concept of right and wrong which has been the basis of child training…are the belated objectives of practically all effective psychotherapy...the study of such things as trigonometry, Latin, religions and others of specialist concern should be left to universities. Only so…can we help our children carry their responsibilities as world citizens…We must be prepared to sacrifice much...putting aside the mistaken old ways of our elders if that is possible. If it cannot be done gently, it may have to be done roughly or even violently…”

In 1948, the NEA produced a set of guidelines called “Education for International Understanding in American Schools—Suggestions and Recommendations.” It included the following:

“Many persons believe that enduring peace cannot be achieved so long as the nation-state system continues as at present constituted. It is a system of international anarchy.”

Please read that part carefully, because the Dixie Chicks and many others have learned this lesson about the anarchy that is supposed to exist because of the existence of nations very well indeed. It is for PEACE that they, and all the Left, want to demolish the United States!

In 1962, the plan for globalization was beginning to catch the public’s attention. In an editorial about NEA goals and power, the Chicago Sun-Times said: “…real control over the Nation’s children…is being shifted rapidly to the NEA. That organization has about completed the job of cartelizing public school education…It is extending that control over colleges and universities…it will be a simple matter to extend control over whatever Washington agency handles the funds.”

In 1965, a book authored by a UCLA professor, John Goodlad ("Citizens for the 21st Century"), and funded by money from the Federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act, said:
“…the school is perceived…as a…box where boys and girls come to sit still for six hours a day…to be told about some fragmentary pieces of ‘knowledge’ thought to reflect the rudiments of their ‘culture.’ This image must be shattered, violently if necessary—and forever.”

In 1970, the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, a branch of the NEA, published “To Nurture Humaneness: Commitment for the ‘70s.” Here’s some of what it had to tell us:

“Many daily decisions and value judgments now made by the individual will soon be made for him…How to plan for one’s children’s education will be partially taken out of his hands…” (John Loughary, University of Oregon).

By 1973, the Global Education Associates was founded. In "Toward a Human World Order," a book written a few years later by GEA’s founders Gerald and Patricia Mische, it said “It examines the strait-jacket of the present nation-state system and…explores world order alternatives…”

Here it is again, the promotion of the existence of independent nations as an evil entity. The Dixie Chicks applaud!

In 1976, an article by Harold Shane, Project Director for the NEA Bicentennial Committee, was printed in the Phi Delta Kappan. It was “America’s Next 25 Years: Some Implications for Education.” Here is a little of what it had to say:

“As young people mature, we must help them develop…a service ethic which is geared toward the real world…the global servant concept in which we will educate our young for planetary service and eventually for some form of world citizenship.”

The Dixie Chicks are among the first of our most loyal world citizens.

In 1983, the Institute for 21st Century Studies was founded by Gerald O. Barney (and funded by the Rockefellers, the World Bank and UNESCO). Its mission is “to provide support for…21st Century Study exploring alternative national futures…adopting a global perspective.”
In 1985, the State Department gave the Carnegie Corporation the authority to “negotiate with the Soviet Academy of Sciences, which is known to be an intelligence-gathering arm of the KGB, about the ‘curriculum development and the restructuring of American education.’”

In 1990, in “The Keys of This Blood: The Struggle for World Dominion," author Malachi Martin described the transnationalists’ goal that “ideally the same textbooks should be used all over the world…and…a concrete initiative in this direction has been under way for some years…undertaken by Informatick, a Moscow-based educational organization, and the Carnegie Endowment Fund…” The values the transnationalists promote are: “Good” will not longer be colored by a moral or religious coloring. “Good” will simply be synonymous with “global.”…We must all become little Transnationalists.

In 1993, Howard Gardner, author of “Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences” (if you are interested in education, you probably remember all the swooning that took place with the publication of this book) said: “…the educational plans…help the society to achieve its larger goals…individuals with gifts in certain directions must nonetheless be guided along other, less favored paths, simply because the needs of the culture are particularly urgent in that realm at that time.” (Read "needs of the culture" as "whims of the globalists.")

In 1994, South Dakota passed a bill that would require that home school teachers be certified by the year 2000. Parents and private schools would not be able to teach without going through the training required to teach children the new beliefs and attitudes.

The list goes on and on, but this should be sufficient to cause you to suspect that your complaints about the schools and what’s being taught in them are not just some accident, the product on an atypical few with loud mouths.

The goal of the collectivists, ever since Mann established the government school system, has been to hijack it and hitch it to the wagon of globalism. Author Iserbyt has aptly said, “The soil has been tilled and the seeds have been planted. We now await the blossoming of what John Dewey and his followers have worked for since the early 1900s: universal socialist/internationalist education for the world government’s planned economy.”

The Dixie Chicks are hardly the only well known products of our educational system. There are many others, from “academics” like Ward Churchill, political activists like Cindy Sheehan, politicians like Kerry, Kennedy and Bush (yes – and I mean both Bush 41 and Bush 43), military personnel like John Murtha (whose uniform should offer no disguise or protection from criticism for his thinking, any more than the label of "religion" should offer Islam protection from scrutiny and criticism), CNN’s Ted Turner, and too many judges, journalists and entertainers (in addition to the Dixie Chicks) to count.

Don’t believe for a minute that the sudden rash of articles being published about how the UN wants to create a borderless world, how Bush wants to create a North American Union, how the Supreme Court is listening more and more closely to world opinion, how the UN wants to disarm citizens of the United States, how the UN wants to make it unlawful for parents to teach their own children, and so on and on, are just the rants of wild-eyed conspiracy-theorists who are running about waving signs with messages about the end of the world as we know it.

If you do think that, just you wait and see.

Muslim Cognitive Constipation

There is a Muslim who writes me from time to time. His approach is respectful, and I applaud him for that. However, he is solidly ossified cognitively into Islam.

Today I got another one of his messages, in which he attempts to soften my stand on Islam. The email chain follows as an example of how hard it is to budge someone from a BELIEF SYSTEM once they incorporate it into their psyche.

The message to me is that the rational can successfully turn off Islam only by getting to the children at a very young age. On our website, Cubed and I, in several articles (here, here, and here), have been exploring what Islam does to the forming minds of children to ensure its perennial success. To the best of our awareness, the available materials on Islam deal only with the fully formed Muslim and not with the formative forces, except Raphael Patai's The Arab Mind (reviewed here). We will continue to publish on our website how Islam deforms children's minds and why that produces the refractory adolescent and adult Muslims who actively or passively support killing us.

18 June 2006

Salam (Peace) Mr. George,

sorry for the late reply.

i sense from your reply that you have a great misunderstanding about islam & muslims, i know it`s the result of the media which only focuses on the negative side, where each society has that side.

but to judge on a belief we should search the teachings of that belief, we can`t judge it by the acts of some followers, by that , we would not use our brains properly, to distinguish between right & wrong.

there are some who understand things in a wrong way, or maybe try to assure a certain thought in order to ruin the image of islam (i mean the muslims who understand islam the wrong way)

while the real islam calls for peace, love & justice.

you are saying that the moderate muslims have been interred, have you have visited a muslim society? have you even visited a muslim country? have you ever dealt with muslims?

you can`t judge based on TV & news , i call you to explore islam from it`s original source & try to be fair without a pre-judgment.

thank you very much

Salam (Peace)

IWG 50 M1


Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2005 06:04:14 -0700
From: 6thCAJ & Sixth Column
To: IWG 50 M1
Subject: Re: I know that, my article may be unusual ,but
it might be useful. PLEASE read it


You wrote: "I know that, my article may be unusual ,but it might be useful. PLEASE read it."

I read it. I found nothing unusual about it. I failed to find it useful in any way.

Your article is Islamic propaganda. It spins the same set of kitmanisms that a number of Muslims would like for non-Muslims to think that Islam really is. Alas, I have read Islamic materials in breadth and depth, covering the Muhammadan times to the present, and I watch the news.

However much syrup Muslims pour over Islam, they can never disguise its fundamental toxicity. What the world needs is a radical Islamectomy. Muslims have made us realize that the only peaceful and trustworthy Muslims have been interred.

George Mason


On 7/6/05, IWG 50 M1 wrote:
> I know that, my article may be unusual ,but it might
be useful. PLEASE read
> it ________________________________
> What is Islam¿
> The name of this religion is Islam, the root of which is Silm and Salam which means peace. Salam may also mean greeting one another with peace. One of the beautiful names of God is that He is the Peace. It means more than that: submission to the One God, and to live in peace with the Creator, within one's self, with other people and with the environment. Thus, Islam is a total system of living. A Muslim is supposed to live in peace and harmony with all these segments; hence, a Muslim is any person anywhere in the world whose obedience, allegiance, and loyalty are to God, the Lord of > the Universe.

> The followers of Islam are called Muslims. Muslims are not to be confused with Arabs. Muslims may be Arabs, Turks, Persians, Indians, Pakistanis, Malaysians, Indonesians, Europeans, Africans, Americans, Chinese, or other nationalities. An Arab could be a Muslim, a Christian, a Jew or an atheist. Any person who adopts the Arabic language is called an Arab. However, the language of the Qur'an (the Holy Book of Islam) is Arabic. Muslims all over the world try to learn Arabic so that they may be able to read the Qur'an and understand its meaning. They pray in the language of the Qur'an, namely Arabic. Supplications to God could be in any language. While there are one nillion Muslims in the world there are about 200 million Arabs. Among them, approximately ten percent are not Muslims. Thus Arab Muslims constitute only about twenty percent of the Muslim population of the world. >
> Muslims believe that Allah is the name of the One and Only God. He is the Creator of all human beings. He is the God for the Christians, the Jews, the Muslims, the Buddhists, the Hindus, the atheists, and others. Muslims worship God whose name is Allah. They put their trust in Him and they seek His help and His guidance.

Muhammad was chosen by God to deliver His Message of Peace, namely Islam. He was born in 570 C.E. (Common Era) in Makkah, Arabia. He was entrusted with the Message of Islam when he was at the age of forty years. The revelation that he received is called the Qur'an, while the message is called Islam.

> Muhammad is the very last Prophet of God to mankind. He is the final Messenger of God. His message was and is still to the Christians, the Jews and the rest of mankind. He was sent to those religious people to inform them about the true mission of Jesus, Moses, Jacob, Isaac, and Abraham. Muhammad is considered to be the summation and the culmination of all the prophets and messengers that came before him. He purified the previous messages from adulteration and completed the Message of God for all humanity. He was entrusted with the power of explaining, interpreting and living the teaching of the Qur'an.

> Muslims are required to respect all those who are faithful and God conscious people, namely those who received messages. Christians and Jews are called People of the Book. Muslims are asked to call upon the People of the Book for common terms, namely, to worship One God, and to work together for the solutions of the many problems in the society. Christians and Jews lived peacefully with Muslims throughout centuries in the Middle East and other Asian and African countries. The second Caliph Umar, did not pray in the church in Jerusalem so as not to give the Muslims an excuse to take it over. Christians entrusted the Muslims, and as such the key of the Church in Jerusalem is still in the hands of the Muslims. Jews fled from Spain during the Inquisition, and they were welcomed by the Muslims. They settled in the heart of the Islamic Caliphate. They enjoyed positions of power and authority. Throughout the Muslim world, churches, synagogues and missionary schools were built within the Muslim neighborhoods. These places were protected by Muslims even during the contemporary crises in the Middle East
> Thank You
> For more information about Islam:
> Embrace Islam
> EmbraceIslam@yahoo.comFree Islamic Books
Free_islamic_book@yahoo.comMore Info

I have tried to edit only the formatting to improve readability. I removed only redundant and noncontributory phrases.

That a Muslim attempts to PERSUADE me is unique. I expect nothing but blood-curdling threats and vituperations. This is refreshing.

However, the writer has drunk all of the Islamic kool-aid and now marches to its drummer. He attempts to mix fact and fantasy, rather than going to principles. He has all the cliche'd rejoinders down pat as well as the lines of propaganda. All of these have neutralized his ability to step out of the Islamic box and take a fresh look, which includes reading and hearing what others tell about Islam.

Going to the principles takes Islam and Muslims to ground they cannot defend or even fight on. Thus, Islam long ago waged continuous war on the human mind.

Once the Islamic mind ossifies in early adolescence, most Muslims are lost to reason forever. Yes, they always retain the capacity for it, but Islam's efforts to kill reason in each and every Muslim usually carry the day for Muslims.

Saturday, June 17, 2006

"Dixie Chicks Question Your Patriotism"

"But don't question theirs:

Did you hear about the Dixie Chicks, girl band that is "sickened by American patriotism"? They don't understand how one can "love the whole country" and why "patriotism is necessary" or "why people care about patriotism".

Hattip: Michelle Malkin. Besides this one, Michelle also includes a variety of patriotic pix that are sure to turn the Chicks collective stomachs.

What's This About? "British civics class encourages kids to think like terrorists"

Via: LGF

From: The Stupidest Educators Files:

In order to assist in the teaching of current affairs.

Who's bright idea was this: "Citizenship class is taught to think like a terror cell...

Teaching packs entitled 9/11: The Main Chance, which invite pupils to imagine organising a terrorist attack, have been distributed to schools running the Government’s much-vaunted citizenship classes.

One worksheet asks the pupils to imagine what terrorist targets there are in their neighbourhoods. They have then to suggest what weapons and methods should be used to ensure the most effective results.

At the end of the worksheets, which are funded through the Government’s neighbourhood renewal programmes, a number of links to other terrorism-related articles are listed including one on food terrorism and how fast-food chains, for example, could be attacked. Another article is headlined “How safe is our water?” A series of links to websites on the September 11 atrocity, in which 2,986 people were killed when al-Qaeda terrorists hijacked and crashed four planes, are also listed on the worksheets.

Many of the sites propound outlandish conspiracy theories on the atrocity including the suggestion that the American military shot down flight United 93.

Another link takes pupils to a website which suggests that Dick Cheney, the US Vice-President, directed the attacks, while another “news” website the worksheets encourage pupils to visit includes references to images of Satan appearing in smoke over the Twin Towers on September 11.

Tim Window, one of the creators of 9/11: The Main Chance, said that the packs had been used with great success at a pupil referral unit he works at in East London before they were introduced across the borough of Waltham Forest.

Mr Window denied that the packs were culturally insensitive and said that they were about teaching pupils to bring “impartial and unbiased information” to a subject.

After the publication by the Government of the “narrative” into the July 7 bombings, Bill Rammell, the Higher Education Minister, said that citizenship classes should be used to give pupils a stronger sense of British identity.

He said that teaching all children about British culture and traditions would allow Muslim children to integrate better into society.

How can simulating terrorism and assassination "help Muslim children to integrate better into society"? The developers of this program must have gone to same school as those that created JFK Reload, the game that simulates the assassination of JFK and gives players an opportunity to learn assassination decisions and techniques.

According to Hot Air that did the research, the demographics of pupils in the area where the program is used is "disproportionately Muslim"

Why am I not surprised...and won't they be surprised when more terrorists, Muslim or not, arise from the population exposed to this program!

"An Electric Car, Booted"

The premise of the film "Who Killed the Electric Car" makes you shake your head and wonder which idiots took these cars off the road, cancelled the program and set the United States down the road of foreign-oil dependence. One doesn't have to be rocket scientist to guess that the big oil and car companies and their satellites, some of whom are foreign governments, influenced the demise of the electric care and created the energy and political quagmire in which we find ourselves today. I hate to say it: the authors of this decision are guilty of gross stupidity and perhaps, treason.

The film chronicles how GM developed and launched a fleet of silent, aerodynamic electric vehicles to meet California's zero-emissions mandate. The shapely two-seaters with a GM logo enjoyed a brief ride in California and Arizona from 1996 until 2003, when they were taken off the market and destroyed. (GM says it was concerned about safety; others say the company wanted to head off the loss of proprietary secrets.)

Paine was one of the original drivers. The director started to make a comedy about Los Angeles drivers going nutty over cars, but the project turned serious after he encountered perfectly drivable EV1s being crushed and shredded at the Mesa Proving Grounds in Arizona.

In the film, images of President Bush and Vice President Cheney set a political tone, although California regulators set standards for zero emissions that forced automakers, including Honda and Toyota, to experiment with electric cars. Ralph Nader weighs in. So do Mel Gibson and Tom Hanks, who drove EV1s.

The car evolved from the Impact concept car developed by Paul MacCready's AeroVironment team. Every one of its 2,000 parts was unique. The engine whirred, rather than roared, but spewed no emissions; there was no gear-shifting; and drivers talk of the car's torque with awe.

The first wave of cars, including the Smithsonian's, could travel 52 miles on a charge of four to six hours; the second-generation cars used a nickel metal hydride battery, which increased the range to about 125 miles. Cars were leased, rather than sold, by Saturn dealers, with monthly costs from $350 to more than $500.

The film presents the EV1 as an answer to global warming, pollution, unrest in the Middle East and rising gasoline prices.
Instead, California changed its emissions laws and automakers could again pursue nonelectric technology. GM, which had spent more than $1 billion on the EV1, says it halted production of the vehicle because there were only 800 paying customers.

Electric-car activists contend that GM ignored a waiting list of 5,000 because achieving success with the EV1 threatened to make the rest of GM's cars look bad.

Phil Karn, a vice president for technology at Qualcomm in San Diego, drove the Smithsonian's car for two years. He leased a second one, commuting 11 miles each way to work without recharging issues. When the car was reclaimed, he says, it felt like losing a family pet.

"It made no sense to us," he said by phone. "The only way we can figure is, they built this car to fail . . . or the anti-EV1 faction inside GM won."

What bothers Karn the most is the idea that a bold new chapter in autos ended so abruptly. "We thought it was the beginning of something new," Karn said. "It may not have been the perfect car, but it looked like the beginning of something new."

GM's Barthmuss compares the launch of the EV1 with the debut of the iPod, only with far fewer customers. "We, in our heart of hearts, believe we did the right thing," he says. "The EV1 experience demonstrated to California regulators that battery technology was not going to advance further. It was only going to appeal to a small number of people."

GM needs "extremely large numbers" to survive, Barthmuss added.

"We lost well over a billion dollars," he said. "We simply could not afford to lose that kind of money. I very much regret that people are so angry."

The Smithsonian has no plans to bring the EV1 back on view. When the museum reopens in 2008, one of the most innovative commuter cars ever will be resting in peace in a Suitland storage facility.

The U.S. Government subsidizes every kind of pork project imaginable. Why couldn't and why didn't the U.S. Government put this project at the top of its list and who made the decision not to do so?

The electric car concept and promising others that have been ignominiously shelved in favor of of the oil industry's darlings does not have to be swept into the dustbin of history. Sooner or later we will have to revive or create something else. At this point, soon is better than later.

"Proposal for UN Standing Army Would See UN Head Trumping Security Council"

Is the handwriting on the wall?

Uh, oh. A standing army at the UN that "would trump the security council," that would be a rapid response to " 'take action to prevent war and dire threats to human security and human rights' within 48 hours of UN authorization."

I don't like the sound of that. Who decides what is a "dire threat" and we already know that the UN has decided that the right of free association, thought, and action in lieu of parental control are human rights and that the UN has decided that not allowing individuals to have dangerous weapons that could hurt others (small arms: guns,knives) is a human right. Could a standing force appear at my door to demand that my children attend school or that I surrender my steak knives? What about the payment of international taxes? Would I be forced by this entity to ante up for the UN?

UNITED NATIONS, New York - June 16, 2006 ( - A book launched at the United Nations headquarters today proposes a permanent standing UN army with "rapid reaction capability" under the sole direct command of the UN. The proposals stem from A United Nations Emergency Peace Service to Prevent Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity, envisioning a standing UN army that would "take action to prevent war and dire threats to human security and human rights" within 48 hours of UN authorization.

According to the book, the need for a UN Emergency Peace service stems from "the international community's failure to stop genocide in Rwanda in 1994 and to avert 'ethnic cleansing' occurring in the Darfur region of Sudan." The book hinges the need for this independent UN army on the claim that the UN has "no capacity to avert such catastrophes", even though UN forces on the ground in Rwanda were ordered not to interfere in the 1994 genocide, despite the pleadings of Gen. Romeo D'Allaire to intervene in the massacres.

Unlike previous proposals for a UN army, these latest proposals call for an army consisting of troops that would not be accountable to any nation or state, but completely remain under the auspices of the United Nations in order to increase response time to humanitarian crises such as "genocide" or "gross violations of human rights". The UN force would consist of 12,000 to 15,000 "civilian, police, judicial, military, and relief professionals" composed of "individually recruited" volunteers from many countries, which means that this army "within a single command structure" would have direct loyalty to the UN, "avoiding divided loyalties."

These forces would have to incorporate "gender sensitivities" and "gender training" in compliance with UN resolution 1325. This UN force would be in the payroll of the UN like UN civil servants, and estimates for the project's startup are 2 billion dollars with an estimated annual cost of 900 million dollars. According to the report, "the UN Emergency Peace Service would, for the first time in history, offer a rapid, comprehensive, internationally legitimate response to crisis."

The book emphasizes that the Security Council would be the most likely group to authorize this UN army, followed next by the UN General Assembly, or "a regional international organization." In one proposal for a more rapid response, in order to bypass a veto, the Secretary General could authorize the intervention of the UN Emergency Peace Service in a region without the deliberation of the Security Council or the General Assembly. In this scenario, the Security Council could only revoke the deployment of the UN army by passing a resolution according to normal procedures, meaning a veto would continue the deployment of UN troops.

The creation of an independent UN force would give the UN an unprecedented amount of muscle to act in the international arena. According to the book, if the United Nations determined that a state had violated "accountability to its people", the "UN charter", or was not in "compliance with human rights agreements", then the UN could intervene with this rapid response force on the principle of enforcing the "people's sovereignty." Among the six principles for intervention, one of the conditions advocates the pre-emptive use of the UN force when "there is an immediate and evident threat of gross violations of international humanitarian and human rights law."

Pro-life observers are concerned that UN definitions of "human rights" are more and more including abortion as a human right.  Recent proposals by Amnesty International in this direction provide evidence of the trend.  Moreover, non-acceptance of homosexuality is also often a violation of human rights.  Recently the European Union has condemned Poland for violating human rights for the country's refusal to pass laws legitimizing such behaviour.

Friday, June 16, 2006

"We're From the U.N. and We Want Your Guns"

Nothing surprises me anymore. The U.N. is influencing U.S. lawmakers and international law is influencing the courts as some judges are "looking to international law for precedence" to influence decisions. Could our rights under the Constitution become a thing of the past? Anything is possible.

The U.N. will gather in New York City this July for the 2006 Small Arms Review Conference. Doesn’t the name alone make you nervous? The U.N. is “reviewing” guns. If you don’t own one, doesn’t it make you want to go out and buy one just so you can be ready for whatever Kofi’s got planned?

Wayne LaPierre is plenty nervous, which is why he’s written, “The Global War on Your Guns: Inside the U.N.’s Plan to Destroy the Bill of Rights.” Sound alarmist?

His critics think so, claiming that the aim of the conference and its supporters is only to deal with the “illicit” sale of small arms, so it would have no effect on any legally traded arms. But check out the U.N.'s own explanation and see what you think (emphasis mine):

By unanimously adopting the UN Programme of Action to address the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons (UNPoA), in 2001, the UN Member States committed to collecting and destroying illegal weapons, adopting and/or improving national legislations that would help criminalize the illicit trade in small arms, regulating the activities of brokers, setting strict import and export controls, taking action against violators of such laws, and better coordinating international efforts to that end.

Sounds like there’s some wiggle room in there to me. I got to talk to LaPierre, executive vice president and chief executive officer of the National Rifle Association, about his new book and the new fight facing gun owners.

LaPierre has been charting the U.N. gun-ban movement since the mid-1990s, when all of the nuclear freeze non-governmental organizations (NGOs) morphed into gun-ban groups and “hijacked the disarmament machinery of the United Nations,” he said.
The philosophy of these groups, LaPierre said, is that the right to own a gun should be solely the right of governments, and they despise the fact that the United States remains a country in which private citizens can keep a handgun at their bedsides.
In a recent debate LaPierre did with Rebecca Peters, who is heading up the NGOs’ gun-ban efforts, Peters told him that Americans need to give up on the notion of self-defense because it’s something that only happens in movies.

The problem is, of course, that a disarmed people can do nothing when its armed government or militias turns on it. The U.N. has no response about what to do about that, LaPierre said, citing the Tutsis in Rwanda, the people of Darfur, and the Muslims of Bosnia.

“All they offer is a global socialist fantasy…If there were no guns, there would be no poverty, there would be no child hungry, there would be no violence. It’s the same global socialist fantasy we saw in the 20th century, “ he said. “Under the U.N. gun-ban policy, they have no solution for when the government goes bad; they have no answer for how to be liberated from a tyrant or a dictator; they have no answer for what oppressed people should do…Their whole philosophy is give up your arms and your freedoms and we’ll protect you.”

But why should we be scared in the U.S., I asked him. Doesn’t our Constitution override any international treaty the U.N. could impose upon us?

According to LaPierre, the U.N. plans can find their way into America in one of several ways. A treaty would require approval by two thirds of the Senate. An international agreement, however, is a lower hurdle, requiring only a simply majority. But, if neither of those succeeds, much of the U.N. plan can be implemented through executive agreement—the President putting policy to work through his agency heads.

The NRA’s message remains that gun owners should stay vigilant about the U.N. and work in 2006 and 2008 to elect Second Amendment candidates here at home who will protect their rights from U.N. encroachment.
“This threat is real. It is very well-funded and they really do intend to diminish the standard of U.S. freedom and dumb it down to some U.N. standard,” he said.

As for the upcoming conference, LaPierre is just happy to have Ambassador John Bolton on the inside, fighting for American gun-owners. There will be a week of testimony from NGOs and member countries before the U.N. insiders go behind closed doors to make decisions. It’s hard to find an ally on this issue behind those doors, he said.

“The United States stands alone,” he said. “The United Kingdom has not only thrown in the towel; they’re funding this.”
Another contributor to the gun-ban crusade is none other than moonbat favorite George Soros. Though some Democrats have learned recently that it doesn’t pay to be on the wrong side of the Second Amendment come election time, LaPierre doesn’t believe the American left is about to give up on gun control. The U.N. is just another vehicle for the same old policies, he said.

“There’s a whole wing of the party…the Hillary Clinton wing of the party, the George Soros side…I don’t see they’ve changed at all,” he said.

And, the U.N. won’t be giving up either. The gun-ban NGOs are full of folks who’ve dedicated their lives to learning international law, testifying for global symposia, and using both skills burrow under the sovereignty of countries around the globe.

“They’re not going away…they’ll simply find another way to do it,“ he said. “They’ve become really a freedom-eating beast and they’ll take as much as they can get.”

As for the NRA, it’s urging its members to contact Congress, the administration, and the State Department before and during the U.N.’s conference. LaPierre naturally implores Americans to “wake up to what’s going on. That’s one of the reasons I wrote the book, 'We're From the U.N. and We Want Your Guns.' ”

“We’re gonna get in their way and we’re gonna fight them,“ he said.

Far be it from me to question Ronald Reagan, but perhaps it’s about time to rethink the scariest nine words in the English language.

“We’re from the U.N. and we want your guns.”

It’s at least a tie.

Noted Belgian Blogger Interrogated by Police for...Home Schooling His Children!

Paul Belian, "distinguished editor of the free market blog The Brussels Journal, journalist, author, holder of a PhD, fluent in three languages was "summoned for interrogation" again. This time he was not tagged for disseminating divergent ideas but his children!

Belian's wife, Professor Alexandra Colen, "holds an MA in Linguistics (University of Reading, UK) and a doctorate in Germanic Philology (University of Ghent, Flanders, has lectured at the universities of Antwerp and Ghent and is the author of A Syntactic and Semantic Study of English Predictive Nominals and co-author of Vale Dale Groot Woordenboek Engles Nederlands (Van Dale Comprehensive English to Dutch Dictionary) and other linguistic books," is also not considered qualified to teach her own children.

Why? According to this report: they refuse to sign an oath..."respecting the respect (sic) for the fundamental human rights and cultural values of the child itself and of others": they defy multiculturalism and political correctness. (Convention on the Rights of the Child)

"But this is not just a matter of berserker Eurobureaucrats. Belian and Colen are publicly critical of the New European State. The Brussels Journal blieves in liberty and free markets. Such ideas cannot be allowed to flourish in Europe."

Could it happen here. This blog previously posted information about the threat directed at home-schooling by international law. (More information is made available at the Home-schoolers Legal Defense Association site.)

Last month Michael Farris, the chairman of the American Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA), warned that the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child could make homeschooling illegal in the U.S., even though the US Senate has never ratified this Convention.

According to some activist judges the UN Convention is “customary international law. [...] The fact that virtually every other nation in the world has adopted it has made it part of customary international law, and it means that it should be considered part of American jurisprudence.”

Under the Convention severe limitations are placed on parents’ right to direct and train their children. Under Article 13 parents could be subject to prosecution for any attempt to prevent their children from interacting with material they deem unacceptable. Under Article 14 children are guaranteed “freedom of thought, conscience and religion” – in other words, children have a legal right to object to all religious training. And under Article 15 the child has a right to “freedom of association.”

Michael Farris pointed out that in 1995 “the United Kingdom was deemed out of compliance” with the Convention “because it allowed parents to remove their children from public school sex-education classes without consulting the child.” The HSLDA chairman said that, “by the same reasoning, parents would be denied the ability to homeschool their children unless the government first talked with their children and the government decided what was best. Moreover, parents would no longer have the right to bring up their children according to their own philosophical or religious beliefs, as the government, following the guidelines of a UN “committee of experts” would determine what religious teaching, if any, served the child’s best interest.”


Under the Convention severe limitations are placed on parents’ right to direct and train their children. Under Article 13 parents could be subject to prosecution for any attempt to prevent their children from interacting with material they deem unacceptable. Under Article 14 children are guaranteed “freedom of thought, conscience and religion” – in other words, children have a legal right to object to all religious training. And under Article 15 the child has a right to “freedom of association.”

Whoa, Nellie! This means that parents have say in what their children learn or in with whom they associate. Parents can't guide their children's thoughts, according to moral principles, or prevent them from exposure to materials they feel are inappropriate.

I wonder how many parents will sit still once they learn of these regulations. My guess is that the UN regulations will be eased into the generation of children now in school that are being trained to work for the good of the group. After all, isn't that what school work is for? Improving the school and the school system, creating happy and compliant citizens?

American judges are choosing for American parents on the basis of international law:

"Thus the ultimate judge of the child's rights is the United Nations...And some activist US judges are happy to consider the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child 'accepted foreign law,' on part with the US Constitution. Even though the UN Convention was never ratified by the US Senate. They just make it up as they go along."

It appears that many laws and policies are made up as they go along and once on the books and followed without protest or being checked for validity, become common law and assailable.

"Sadly, the United States has plenty of aspiring PC Commisars, ready to destroy home schooling, free blogs, and above all, free thought...If you let them."

I also sadly agree. The story of Paul and Alexander will become commonplace...if we let them.

Thursday, June 15, 2006

"Lost Boys"

Why is the "terrorism cadre" mostly inhabited by young males? Jennifer Wells at Toronto Star reviews the research:

[Lionel] Tiger is the Darwin Professor of Anthropology at Rutgers University. His seminal work, Men in Groups, published in 1969, coined the term "male bonding" — surely one of the catchiest catchphrases of all time — and he has remained at the forefront of research into boys as a societal class ever since.

"The terrorism of Bin Laden," Tiger wrote in Slate, "harnesses the chaos of young men, uniting the energies of political ardour and sex in a turbulent fuel."

The Boys of Bin Laden represented a microscopic subclass of extremism. Yet Tiger's essay triggered the broader, discomfiting question: Is there something in the makeup of young men that might make them especially malleable, or prime fodder, for Al Qaeda and related enterprises? In the wake of the recent arrests of five male minors among a group of 17 alleged terrorists here at home, the question yet again arises: why boys?


"Dealing with young males is the most difficult issue," he says. "They are hormonally deranged, or at least charged. They are all seeking somehow to establish themselves as potentially useful full-grown adults. They have a commitment to a kind of bonded or micro-corporate identity, which is very strong."


So being part of the group is part of our biological heritage. And status matters. "It's also part of the fact we're highly social," says Peterson. "It's probably particularly relevant for young men between the ages of 16 and 26 ... Having a group not only gives you an identity but provides you with distributed social protection."

In discussing the emotional urges of adolescence, Marc Lewis, professor of human development and applied psychology at U of T, refers to the "chemical fuel of the brain" — its neuromodulator systems. "Your goals and plans and urges get charged up," says Lewis. "However, development of the prefrontal cortex, especially the more dorsal part, is not complete."

What that means, continues Lewis, is that the "good sort of high-level thinking-ahead stuff" — planning, preparing, comparing different outcomes, adjusting strategies — doesn't finish maturing until the individual reaches his early 20s. The delay in the maturation of boys puts them, "to the extent that we know," says Lewis, about two years behind girls.

Anyone who has witnessed the fearless, risk-taking, locked-in-the-moment, need-for-speed behaviours of some young men may recognize such traits. This at a time when they are their most physically powerful, most aggressive, most at the mercy of testosterone surges.

So being part of the group is part of our biological heritage. And status matters. "It's also part of the fact we're highly social," says Peterson. "It's probably particularly relevant for young men between the ages of 16 and 26 ... Having a group not only gives you an identity but provides you with distributed social protection."

In discussing the emotional urges of adolescence, Marc Lewis, professor of human development and applied psychology at U of T, refers to the "chemical fuel of the brain" — its neuromodulator systems. "Your goals and plans and urges get charged up," says Lewis. "However, development of the prefrontal cortex, especially the more dorsal part, is not complete."

What that means, continues Lewis, is that the "good sort of high-level thinking-ahead stuff" — planning, preparing, comparing different outcomes, adjusting strategies — doesn't finish maturing until the individual reaches his early 20s. The delay in the maturation of boys puts them, "to the extent that we know," says Lewis, about two years behind girls.

Anyone who has witnessed the fearless, risk-taking, locked-in-the-moment, need-for-speed behaviours of some young men may recognize such traits. This at a time when they are their most physically powerful, most aggressive, most at the mercy of testosterone surges.

Read the rest.

"I Pledge Alliegiance to the North American Union..."

"I pledge alliegiance to the North American Union?" What the hell am I talking about"

Well, you'd better get used to it.

If you think Bush was secretive about the Dubai Ports deal (which, by the way, is not dead; it's still waiting in the wings, driven underground by vigorous public outcry, until our "short attention span" permits Bush and Dubai to slip it over on us, just as the Doncaster sale to Dubai - you know Doncaster's, the British company that makes sensitive stuff for the Department of Defense - has been quietly slipped past us), just listen to the speech he will be giving today when he swears in the new "Trade Ambassador." The speech he gives will explain his policy of "easing poverty by expanding trade and demoncracy as an alternative to increasing foreign aid."

It will be the most public disclosure made to date on the "plan."

That report was given by Wendell Goler on Fox and Friends this morning, and neither Wendell, E.D., Steve, or Brian batted an eye.

Why should they? After all, it was just another speech/ceremony at the White House, wasn't it? And doesn't increased trade to "ease poverty" sound better than out-and-out foreign aid?

Sure, it sounds really benign. Don't get me wrong - I'm a huge fan of laissez-faire capitalism, a totally free market economy. I think that the best thing for everyone on the planet would be to have separation of government and economy, limiting intervention by government into the economy to those situations where the initiation of physical force and the use of fraud, or deceit need to be handled.

But as one of my heros, Thomas Sowell, has pointed out, the free exchange of goods carries with it consequences that are far different from the free exchange of peoples. We still have to know who is entering our country, for what purpose, and for how long. We cannot, for example, willy-nilly allow criminals, terrorists, or people with certain kinds of diseases enter.

We can and should permit the entrance into the country those people who have legitimate reasons to be here, people whose presence is required to support the increased economic activity generated by the free exchange of goods; managers, CEOs, clerks, programmers, researchers, laborers, etc. We should also allow, again on a monitored basis, those people who wish to enter as consumers of the increased economic activity - businesses customers, tourists, patients seeking medical attention, students seeking education, etc.

This would be a great arrangement, and it could be easily accomplished simply by removing existing barriers created and imposed by governments. There is absolutely no need to create a new entity in order to establish a system of free trade.

But this - the establishment of free trade - is merely the excuse, the disguise, being used by the governments of Canada, the United States, and Mexico to create a new mega-union called the North American Union, with free exchange not only of goods, but of people as well.

Hmmmm... Well, maybe that's not so bad...

After all, it sounds as if the three governments have merely decided to create treaties about mutual security and trade. And when you get right down to it, the opening up of trade opportunities sounds like a win-win situation. Beats the doo-doo out of having to pay out of our tax pockets for all the foreign aid we're shelling out now...

But that's not what is happening, and what is happening isn't benign; free trade is the least important part of "the plan." What the three governments have in mind, have agreed to, and have begun to implement, is the loss of our national sovereignty, up to and including our Constitution.

Surely that can't be true! Surely that is a gross exaggeration! That has to be some sort of "conspiracy theory!"

In a sort of ad hominem campaign, anyone in the past who has suggested that the U.S. will be submerged in some sort of political-military-economic arrangement with other nations has been labeled a "conspiracy theorist," running about madly waving his arms and carrying a sign about how the world is coming to an end.

I wish that it were merely a conspiracy theory, but it's for real, and what is happening now is the result of many decades of thinking and planning that began before WWI. I'll get to that a little later.

Meanwhile, back on the ranch, on March 23, 2005, in Waco, Texas, Bush, Fox, and then Prime Minister of Canada Paul Martin, signed a trilateral agreement which resulted in the creation of the SSP, or "Security and Prosperity" office as part of the Department of Commerce. There are corresponding offices in Mexico and Canada.

These offices have twenty "working groups" that deal with such issues as e-commerce, aviation policy, and borders and immingration.

The members of these "working groups" are secret; their names are not published anywhere.

Why? According to Geri Word, head of the SSP office, which is within the NAFTA office, which is in turn within the Department of Commerce, says that the reason the members of these "working groups" a kept a secret is "We do not want to get the contact people of the working groups distracted by calls from the public" (emphasis mine).

"Distracted?" Read between those lines for the real meaning: "When Bush tried to slip the Dubai Ports deal over on the "little people," they opposed it with such vigor that the whole deal had to go back underground to await a later time for it to go forward."

If you think that between Islam, terrorism, the borders, the Islamification of Europe, illegal invasions of the U.S. by who-knows-what, threats from Marxists in South America and whackos like Ahmedinejad and Kim Jong-Il etc. we have some serious problems, and if you feel as though we need to circle the wagons, you're right.

But all of these problems are related to each other and one other that will affect you, directly, by 2010, two years after the next presidential election.

What's the big deal? Well, my friends, there's trouble in River City - and in every other town in the United States. In 2010, unless something intervenes, the United States will become part of the "plan."

The "plan," which has been in the works since before WWI, is to create a single political-military-economic "bloc" out of Mexico, the United States, and Canada. The model for this is the European Union, which was Step One. We, Step Two, will be called the North American Union, and like the European Union, will have a single currency, called the "Amero."

On May 26, 2005, Katherine Harris (R-FL) sponsored a bill (H.R. 2672) that closely resembled a Senate bill (S. 853) . It sounded pretty benign, too; it was to "direct the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish a program to enhance the mutual security and safety of the United States, Canada, and Mesico, and for other purposes."

Other purposes? My, my - what could they be?

Well, the bills are intended to support the establishment of the North American Union. You can't ask the people who are on the working groups of the SSP, of course, or the Department of Commerce, or the Department of Homeland Security, because it's all hush-hush. They don't want to upset you, because if you got upset, you might pull a Dubai Ports thing on them.

But that doesn't mean that you can't get a good idea about what's up; there's the history of the whole plan, which matches up very nicely with all kinds of things in the news, including the UN's grotesque plan for a totally borderless world, where the economic problems of oppressive, unproductive governments would be "solved" by the exportation of their poor underclasses to the U.S. (this issue is the entire agenda for the United Nation's "High Level Dialogue," prepared with the help of Kofi Annan, and to be held with the opening of the General Assembly in the fall of 2006).

And then there's a task force report published by the Council on Foreign Relations called "Building a North American Community." It presents a blueprint for achieving specific objectives to expand on the trilateral SSP agreement which would merge the U.S. and Mexico and Canada into a new governmental form.

You can go to their website and get a copy of the whole report for $15.00 (and a membership list, too, unlike the SSP "working groups"). But unless you really want to shell out $15.00, here's what it says, in part: ". . .the Task Force proposes the creation by 2010 of a North American community . . . based on the . . . March 2005 Joint Statement of the three leaders that "our security and prosperity are mutally dependent and complementary. . . [within its] boundaries . . .the movement of people. . .will be legal. . . Its goal will be to guarantee a free, secure, just, and prosperous North America."

That's "govspeak" for the establishment of all the above, facilitated by the use of a North American Border Pass (to replace the use of national passports within the Union), a North American Court (above our Supreme Court), a North American Interparliamentary Group (to take precedence over the Congress), a North American Executive Commission (sort of like the President), a North American Military Defense Command (any of you U.S. military members want to serve under a Mexican commander?), a North American Customs Office, and a North American Development Bank.

And, my friends, it ain't gonna stop there. While the European Union iwas Step One, and the North American Union is to be Step Two, there are other "steps" also proposed - Africa, Asia, etc., with perhaps as many as ten such blocs or "Unions" in the pipeline.

And it won't stop there, either; ultimately, the plan is for all of these political-military-economic blocs, or "Unions," to merge into a single World Federation of States, with a single monetary system, a single military, a single justice system, a single executive system, a single set of laws, and the freedom to settle anywhere in the world by anybody who wants to do so.

I still plan to write up a history of this whole mess, but until I do, please read this and this for your amusement.

Remember the words in King Arthur's song in Camelot? "Camelot. . . a brief, shining moment . . ."

The U.S. is on the same road to oblivion as Camelot. We are watching the destruction of the only nation in all of history to be designed from scratch on the Englightenment premise that the rights of the individual take precedence over the power of government. It is simply fading from existence under our very noses.

Let's all say it together: "I pledge alliegiance to the World Federation of States. . ."