Top

Courage To Face True History

February 14, 2015 by · Leave a Comment 

Human consciousness and the ability to understand that which really occurred in the past, is a skill that many people have little experience with mastering. Scholarship and researching the yesteryear relies upon analyzing accounts of others and is usually based on chronicles written centuries ago. Most of the original evidence used in writing the accounts may be lost, based upon oral myths or accurate translations of vanished languages. Even when the original sources are impeccable in their authenticity or go unquestioned in the ivory towers of academic scrutiny, the crucial question still remains, Was It So? Attempts to provide definitive proof, when it comes to explaining political events, relies more often on the art of understanding the connection among factions, based within the context of their intended agendas than smoking gun documents.

At the offset, the axiom that history is written by the victors, applies more to the popular culture then just to stories of military campaigns. Control of the perception of current events is the first stage for formulating the narrative, which will be accepted as the initial draft of history. The means upon which societies are manipulated have more to do with defining acceptable reports, using fictional circumstances and conclusions, then the butt of a rifle.

Yet, the distracted public mostly views history as recounts of war and power politics.  The popularity of television channels like the History Channel, H2, AHC and the subjects that air nearly 24/7, provide a version of past events that go virtually unchallenged. At the least, this method for a primary overview is more accurate, when compared to the common core education being taught in government schools.

However, for the most definitive interpretation of the past, the Hollywood extravaganza defines the memory impressions in the movie epics. The ordinary man and woman are not well educated in the depth and range of the human saga. For every dedicated student of former eras, the multitude is content to get their outlook of a different age as well as their attitudes on current affairs from the scripted culture that serves the interests of the elites that rule.

The deceased broadcaster, Paul Harvey used a signature line, The Rest of the Story. Well, it is one thing to elaborate in detail on the background aspects of a particular incident, but seldom will you find in the mass media accounts that explain the true nature of the institutions and government entities, designed to impose penal governance over the expendable subjects of any country.

With the fulfillment from centuries of consolidation for global power and domination, popularly known as the New World Order, the forces for technological and debt money enslavement are achieving their nightmare for humanity. Coining the term, Nefarious Warrior Organism that more closely explains the NWO cabal, will not be found in the establishment annals.

The canard that condemns inquiry into the core elements of the systematic destruction for the planet uses the slur of “Conspiracy Theorist” as the ultimate jab to discredit. Naïve simpletons refuse to do any inquiry on their own, out of fear that they may be tainted with the stain of being cast into the pit of subversives. Pray tell, the essay, There Is No Conspiracy – Only Official Policy illustrates one example of how the MSM, especially The New York Times, serves the interests of ruling elites.

One need not adopt the speculations of Ancient Aliens presented on H2 to be lumped into the pit of social discontents. Just the notion of questioning the official narrative of the past carries a social risk in the corridors of the global economy.

Our emphasis in investigation of Forbidden History focuses upon the political accounts that make up a distorted viewpoint of the last several centuries. Western Civilization is under an existential attack, not predominantly by foreign cultures but from the betrayal of the primacy principles of our genuine heritage.

All moral and political values stem from the cardinal maxim of the sanctity of all life. As this undeniable dogma is being eliminated from the social order, the replacement of divinely created humans are being prepared to accept the Transhumanism Singularity.

The article, NWO Overman is the Eupraxsophy of Transhumanism concludes with a dare that most probably will turn off those who repel from intellectual inquiry into the past traditions which our world accepted for millenniums.

“The end of this age is rapidly approaching. What follows does not bode well for humanity under the reign of a Transhumanism world. Salvation for our created human beings from the evil transgressions of the Overman’s hubris requires our humbling before our Lord and Creator. Faith and belief is the alternative to malevolence and despair. Hope in providential intervention is intellectually founded and sound, when compared to the prospects of the DARPA superman. The Elijah Option challenges you. Whom do you serve?”

Searching to understand the Forbidden History of our age requires the internal fortitude to challenge establishment convention, while maintaining the accuracies of eternal truths. History is often referred to as His Story. The “his” represents the power to invent the chronicle and fabricate meaning of events.

Courage to face the evidence and corroborate alternative explanations to established accounts is not easy. The slings and arrows that target anyone who dares to dispute the ruling order is a given. Demonization of any contrary storyline that conflicts with the comfort of clichés and tales of self-serving accounts is the price one pays for seeking the truth.

Several quotations reveal the components that are valuable to maintain and the methods to achieve this quest.

Remember the portrayal of the Old Gringo in that movie version of Ambrose Bierce? Now read his timeless words.

“History: An account mostly false, of events mostly unimportant, which are brought about by rulers mostly knaves, and soldiers mostly fools.” ~Ambrose Bierce, The Devil’s Dictionary

This perspective is expanded by none other than the author of the renowned Hegelian dialectic.

“History… is, indeed, little more than the register of the ‘crimes, follies, and misfortunes’ of mankind. But what experience and history teach is this – that peoples and governments have never learned anything from history, or acted on principles deduced from it.” ~Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, The Philosophy of History, “Introduction,” 1807

When an American cynic and a philosopher known for German Idealism share a similar regret for the repeat of corrupt actions of rulers, a pattern for judicious distrust for mainstream stories, should be adopted.

So what approach does a prudent person undertake? Learning the skills of philosophical inquest is the suggestion of George E. Wilson.

“For me there is no greater subject than history. How a man can study it and not be forced to become a philosopher, I cannot tell.” ~George E. Wilson

Nevertheless, intellectual inquiry is not enough according to Shailer Mathews who advocated a progressive Social Gospel message.

“When a historian enters into metaphysics he has gone to a far country from whose bourne he will never return a historian.” ~Shailer Mathews, The Spiritual Interpretation of History

That far country that Mathews entered into viewed “the clash of civilizations was in reality a clash of different kinds of social experiences and mentalities and the religious ideas that supported them.”

Developing the bravery to address the elements of Forbidden History is essential to the growth of both temporal and spiritual awareness. Most people avoid such a journey. They never draw upon the courage to enter that metaphysical world, because they are too scared to buck the system or rescind their own denial morass.

Cognitive dissonance is just too comfortable for most to explore real historic investigation.

British historian George Macaulay Trevelyan offers the reasonable urging, that people pursue their own growth in intellectual authenticity. However, history shows that most will decline the invitation.

“History is the open Bible: we historians are not priests to expound it infallibly: our function is to teach people to read it and to reflect upon it for themselves.” ~George Macaulay Trevelyan

BREAKING ALL THE RULES agrees with our fellow Existentialist, Albert Camus. Rebellion is a reoccurring necessity for Camus. When Camus states: “Integrity has no need of rules”, we are given an insight that few can digest. Their own lack of honesty, principle and integrity allows them to accept the madness that dominates society.

“The entire history of mankind is, in any case, nothing but a prolonged fight to the death for the conquest of universal prestige and absolute power.” ~Albert Camus, The Rebel

This immutable reality is rejected by every media gatekeeper or establishment toady on the payroll of the criminals that rule the globe. Forbidden History will offend the timid and outrage the dishonest. Gauging the onslaughts on this publisher only goes to confirm our motto – “Many seek to become a Syndicated Columnist, while the few strive to be a Vindicated Publisher . . .” Forbidden History reveals that exoneration lies in the truth of real historic accounts. Do you have the courage to judge for yourself?


Sartre is the publisher, editor, and writer for Breaking All The Rules. He can be reached at: BATR

Sartre is a regular columnist for Veracity Voice

My Own Personal List of Lies War Street Has Told Us

February 8, 2015 by · Leave a Comment 

Author’s note:  “War Street” is the simplified name that I’ve given to the war-mongers, weapons manufacturers and military-industrial complex members who pretty much own America right now — along with their buddies on Wall Street and K Street of course.

This is my own personal list.  Feel free to jump right in with a list of your own.

1.   That the Civil War was fought to free the slaves.  Nah, that was solely an afterthought.  The real reason for the Civil War was the lust for $$$$ and power.  Like war always is for.

2.  That holding the Union together back in 1860 was a good thing.  A good thing for who?  Dontcha sometimes just wish that The South had been allowed to go on its own merry way back then — so that we now don’t have to waste billions of Yankee dollars on Red State racists, corrupt senators, war-mongers and welfare queens?  Boy, I could surely live without Mitch McConnell.  He’s our ultimate grand prize for The North having won the 1860 Civil War?  Really?

3.  “Remember the Maine!”  Yeah right.  Apparently the sinking of the Maine was a false-flag operation to force Americans into a brutal war with Spain.  http://zinnedproject.org/about/a-peoples-history-a-peoples-pedagogy/

4.  The 1908 invasion of the Philippines — wherein approximately one-sixth of its population was massacred by the US Army in the name of bringing “Democracy” to Filipinos.  They could have lived without that one — literally.

5.  World War I?  Really?  Do you even have to ask why this war was based on lies — such as that the Huns were out to murder our babies?  Or that the Lusitania was torpedoed by the evil Kaiser when actually it was illegally carrying six million pounds of explosives on board a munitions transport ship disguised at a cruise liner before it blew up.  Or how about the famous “Zimmerman Telegram” lie?

6.  Pearl Harbor.  Roosevelt knew.  Of course he did.  And Senator Prescott Bush invested in Nazi Germany bigtime.  And after WW II was over, our very own CIA brought 1,000 Nazi officers over here to help J. Edgar Hoover, Allen Dulles and Joe McCarthy organize their new Cold War storm-troopers.  And today “Corporatism,” as Mussolini called it, is now king in the USA — and all over the rest of world too.  Unbelievable.  Was there any reason at all why we fought World War II?  http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/27/us/in-cold-war-us-spy-agencies-used-1000-nazis.html?_r=1

7.  The invasion of Korea.  Again, that phony “Democracy” thing came into play — as it has again and again and again as Wall Street and War Street set up dictator after dictator across the globe and then whitewashed these brutal bad guys to the gullible American public back home:

7.a  Chaing Kai-shek, “Our democratic ally in Asia”

7.b  The Shah of Iran, “Our democratic ally in the Middle East.”

7.c  Fulgencio Batista, “Our democratic ally in Cuba.”

7.d  Apartheid South Africa, “Our democratic ally in Africa.”

7.d  Francisco Franco, “Our democratic ally in Spain.”

7.e   Syngman Rhee, “Our democratic ally in South Korea.”

7.f.  Papa Doc Duvalier, “Our democratic ally in Haiti.”

7.g  Augusto Pinochet, “Our democratic ally in Chile.”

7.h  Manuel Noriega, “Our democratic ally in Panama.”

7.i  Mubarak and Sisi, “Our democratic allies in Egypt.”  http://www.amec.org.za/articles-presentations/135-egypt/484-sisi-s-unenviable-dilemma-the-illusion-of-stability-and-the-perpetuation-of-unrest

7.i  King Salman al Saud, “Our democratic ally in Saudi Arabia.”  http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2015/01/23/Canada-Saudi-Arabia-Weapons-Deal/

Although I must admit that the new Saudi king now appears to be actually lightening up and coming to his senses a bit — not an easy task for someone who allegedly has Alzheimers http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-hearst/a-saudi-palace-coup_b_6531246.html

However, Saudi Arabia still has a “Democratic” track record that would impress even Hitler, Stalin and Genghis Khan.  In Saudi Arabia today, for example, the government holds a public beheading on the average of once every four days.  No wonder that their ISIS protegees are handy with swords.  But don’t even get me started on the Saudis! http://www.iacenter.org/nafricamideast/oil012915/

There are approximately 50 other “Democratic ally” dictators that I could list here too but am running out of space.  I don’t wanna be doing this forever you know.

8.  The Kennedy assassination.  Do you really believe that one lone gunman could have gotten through all that security without any help, or could have made that incredible kill shot with a BB gun from behind Kennedy and very far away — and yet still manage to hit the front of Kennedy’s head?  Then I have a bridge to sell you.  Lee Harvey Oswald was definitely not Chris Kyle.  He was a patsy.

9.  Vietnam!  The Gulf of Tonkin incident was made-up baloney.

10.  Remember all those lies we were told by that “low-life scum” Henry Kissinger during his vicious secret bombings of Cambodian rice paddies in 1969, wherein approximately 600,000 poor Cambodian farmers were massacred from the skies?  “Never happened,” said Henry.  Plausible deniability is all that matters to him.  http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article40867.htm

11.  The Iran-Contra scandal.  The death squads in Central America.  And all that BS about “Americans do not torture” — even as War Street was running the School of the Americas right under our noses.

12.  What came next?  Oh yeah.  That Milosevic nightmare.  Milosevic was America’s go-to guy — until he wasn’t.  Didn’t you ever wonder why no one did anything to stop him until after socialist Yugoslavia was just a hot mess?

13.  Saudi Arabia.  Again.  They told us that the Saudis were the good guys, but actually Saudi Arabia is where most of the 9-11 hijackers came from. http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/twenty-eight-pages

14.  Israel, said to be “Our democratic ally in the Middle East.”  But if Israel is a democracy, I’ll eat my hat.  Just ask the Moroccan-Israeli Jews living there. http://vimeo.com/60814711  Or the Ethiopian-Israeli Jews.

Violent and shifty Israeli neo-colonialists have also committed despicable crime after despicable crime against humanity in the most undemocratic fashion, including their brutal, traitorous, dastardly and deliberate attempt to sink the USS Liberty, a false-flag operation approved and facilitated by War Street itself https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRZSzdQuOqM, the horrors of the genocidal bombing of Gaza and Israeli neo-colonials’ covert support of ISIS– all in order to steal territory and oil in the Middle East.

Just watch this horrifying film of Israeli neo-colonials’ cowardly destruction of a whole city in Gaza, using US weapons and $$$$: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQ41ko3L5Xc  And if you still have the stomach, watch this too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTr_Un4a_zA

15.  Saddam Husein, who we were told was Ronald Reagan’s hot new Middle East boy wonder — until he wasn’t.  See #12.

16.  And then there was that first Gulf war, totally based on a lie.  The Kuwaitis were slant-drilling into Iraqi oil reserves, a big no-no, and so Pappy Bush told Saddam, “Sure, they deserve it, go ahead and invade…”  And remember all those incubator babies too?  Lies upon lies.

17.  September 11, 2001.  Bush knew.   And let it happen.  http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2015/01/30/police-state-upon-us-paul-craig-roberts/

18.  As a result of that infamous “Second Pearl Harbor” on Bush’s watch, we were once again lied to and told that we needed to invade Afghanistan instead of Saudi Arabia.  And that we needed to invade Iraq.

18.a.  John McCain himself lied right to my face in Baghdad back in 2007 — but I still can’t decide if it was a lie of commission or omission.  At a press conference in the Green Zone, McCain told us that it was perfectly safe for him to walk around a marketplace in Baghdad — but neglected to tell us that he was also protected by body armor, humvees and helicopters, and also put a battalion of grunts in harm’s way while he did it.  http://jpstillwater.blogspot.com/2007/04/letters-from-iraq-me-light-brigade-john.html

Just that same morning, I had been told by Major Hernandez of CPIC that if I wanted to go outside of the Green Zone without a major armored escort, I would be dead within five minutes after crossing the 14th of July Bridge.  Luckily I believed Major Hernandez and not John McCain.

18.b.  That, after 9-11, we also needed to invade Libya, Syria, Yemen, Lebanon, I forget where all else, if we were ever to be safe.  And that we needed to invade oodles of other countries all over the world in order to “Keep America Safe”.  That was the biggest lie so far.  Are we safe yet?

19.  That Muammar Gaddafi in Libya was standing in the way of “Democracy”.  Well, he sure isn’t standing in the way any more!  Turns out he was standing in the way of anarchy.  But you get what you pay for.

20.  That Bashar Assad in Syria is in cahoots with ISIS.  Yeah right.  NATO, Turkey, Israel, Saudi Arabia and the Pentagon are in cahoots with ISIS.  Assad is only the victim here, the one who is getting his country torn apart.  Why would he want to support the brigands who are robbing his home? http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/01/30/syria-yes-we-are-responsible/

21.  “I am Charlie.”  No, you aren’t.  “I am the CIA”.  Watching that film of the killers getting into their getaway car was just a big joke.  They took their time.  They even put their AK-47 on the roof of the car while they fiddled with their backpacks and chatted about the weather, obviously knowing that they were protected.  But then they weren’t.  See # 12.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZyHQljawdE&x-yt-ts=1421914688&x-yt-cl=84503534&bpctr=1422157632

22.  The debacle in Ukraine.  “We’re not involved,” the Pentagon tells me.  Then how come when Flight MH17 was tragically shot down by the Ukies, War Street went to such lengths to blame the event on Russia and not on the neo-Nazi stooges they had set up in Kiev?  https://consortiumnews.com/2015/01/06/nyt-still-pretends-no-coup-in-ukraine/

23.  That the torture and mass murders at Auschwitz and the “preemptive war” on and occupation of Holland, France, Greece, Norway,  Denmark and Poland by Hitler’s minions were obviously war crimes — but the torture and mass murders at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo and Gaza, and “preemptive war” on and occupation of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Lebanon and Palestine by Bush and Obama’s minions aren’t.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N294FMDok98&app=desktop

That Nuremberg standards apply to war crimes committed 70 years ago but no longer apply to war crimes committed today.

24.  That we are always being told the truth by the New York Times and Fox News.  Yeah right.  Despite the fact that War Street just loves the “Newspaper of record” to pieces, the Times needs to wash its mouth out with soap.  And Politifact just announced that 60% of everything Fox News tells us is lies.  60%?  Yikes! http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/article/2014/jul/01/introducing-scorecards-tv-networks/?fb_action_ids=10204846428834242&fb_action_types=og.shares

25.  That War is better than Peace.
http://www.crescent-online.net/2015/02/distorting-the-story-of-syrias-heritage-destruction-eva-bartlett-4815-articles.html

Sorry, that’s all of the War Street lies I can think of right now.  But I’m sure there are many more out there, many many more lies that I’ve missed.  Transparency is clearly and obviously not an American value — and democracy doesn’t seem to be one either.

But I will tell you one thing that I know for sure:  I won’t ever be fooled again.  And the rest of America needs to avoid being suckered down the garden path to War Street as well.


Jane Stillwater is a regular columnist for Veracity Voice
She can be reached at: jpstillwater@yahoo.com

Why Prevent Labeling of GMO Foods?

February 8, 2015 by · Leave a Comment 

Whether to require labeling on GMO foods should be the easiest and simplest of decisions. If health and safety is really a mandate of federal agencies, ‘where is the beef’ in their policies? Come on people, banning such modifications is not even remotely being considered, so why will the government not lead the way and allow the public to be reasonably informed with full disclosure of exactly the makeup and alterations to the very essence of the food we eat.

Advocates stressing caution provide Top 10 Reasons to Label Genetically Engineered Foods. Where are the warning labels that sheer common sense demands?

  1. The Convention on Biodiversity recognizes that genetic engineering is a threat to amount and variety of life on the planet.
  2. Scientists reviewing data from Monsanto’s own studies “have proven that genetically engineered foods are neither sufficiently healthy or proper to be commercialized.”
  3. Biotech’s scattershot technique of spraying plant cells with a buckshot of foreign genes that hit chromosomes in random spots would trigger the expression of new allergens and change the character of plant proteins.
  4. Milk and dairy products from cows injected with genetically engineered growth hormones ARE different from conventional and organic milk and dairy products.
  5. The third generation of hamsters fed genetically engineered soy suffered slower growth, a high mortality rate, and a bizarre birth defect: fur growing in their mouths. Many also lost the ability to have pups.
  6. Animals fed genetically engineered feed ARE different from animals fed conventional and organic feed.
  7. A single serving of genetically engineered soy can result in horizontal gene transfer, where the bacteria in the human gut adopts the soy’s DNA.
  8. Genetically engineered foods ARE different from conventional and organic foods.
  9. Genetically engineered foods have not been tested to determine whether they are safe for human consumption.
  10. Almost all non-organic processed food and animal products in the U.S. today contain ingredients that come from genetically engineered crops or from animals given genetically engineered feed, vaccines or growth hormones.

Health concerns are on the minds of responsible consumers, especially since Obamacare rationing lowers the quality of care. Proponents of limited government are cautious to expand regulations and bureaucratic regulation. However, how can a consumer accept the risk when meaningful labeling is absent?

If you think you are diligent in avoiding selecting such genetically engineered food with your shopping, think again because, What Are We Eating?

“We Currently Eat Genetically Engineered Food, But Don’t Know It.

A genetically engineered food is a plant or meat product that has had its DNA artificially altered in a laboratory by genes from other plants, animals, viruses, or bacteria, in order to produce foreign compounds in that food. This type of genetic alteration is not found in nature, and is experimental. The correct scientific term is “transgenics,” and is also often referred to as (GE) genetically engineered.

Example: Genetically Modified corn has been engineered in a laboratory to produce pesticides in its own tissue. GMO Corn is regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency as an Insecticide, but is sold unlabeled. [EPA Pesticides ]”

So what is the nutrimental value of this laboratory designed foods? Should there be open transparency so that full disclosure can evaluate exactly what comprises this new source of sustenance?  If you listen to the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), think again. CSPI Refuses to Debate Consumers Union on Labeling of GMO Foods presents suspect reasoning.

“Gregory Jaffe, CSPI’s director of Biotechnology told a reporter last year  — “we don’t feel it should be mandated on labels that foods are produced with GM crops.”

“You could argue for example that non-GMO label claims are misleading since they falsely imply that food made without GE ingredients is safer or superior in some other way,” Jaffe said.”

Attempts to equate natural foods with a genetically engineered menu are no surprise. That bistro of fine dining, Monsanto falls back on the select club of government authorities and medical experts of chemically toxic healers to justify the limits on warnings of known risks. In Labeling Food and Ingredients Developed from GM Seed, establishment science protects the corporate benefactors of the designer disease and drug treatment cycle.

“Within the United States, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) oversees food labeling. FDA guidance requires labeling of food products containing ingredients from GM seed if there is a meaningful difference between that food and its conventional counterpart. The American Medical Association (AMA) supports FDA’s approach and approved a formal statement asserting that there is no scientific justification for special labeling of foods containing GM ingredients.”

Skyrocketing cancer associated with processed foods promises to be dwarfed by the hidden consequences of GMO experimentations. Yet, the government simply ignores their mission of promoting public health.

Overcoming this threat is no easy process. When Labeling of Genetically Modified Foods provides a list of pros and cons for mandatory labeling, their negative reasons fall short of reassuring that a GMO food system is safe. Their argument follows a familiar pattern, Caveat Emptor “Let the buyer beware”.

“Mandatory labeling would extend much further and would require, at a minimum, that all food products containing any GM ingredient (above a certain threshold for trace amounts) to indicate that fact. Stronger mandatory labeling requirements could include identification of each specific GM ingredient and its level of content in the product. Mandatory labeling requires further regulatory interventions including monitoring and enforcement. Under a mandatory labeling system, all consumers—both those that are concerned about the GM ingredients and those that are not—help bear the costs associated with being able to verify that foods do or do not use GM ingredients.”

Since our health is ultimately our own responsibility, having reliable labeling on all GMO foodstuffs should be a prudent requirement to enhance public knowledge. Taking actions like those listed in 10 Things You Can Do to Stop GMOs, should not necessitate a full scale crisis. Putting people before corporate profits needs to become the standard every consumer deserves.


Sartre is the publisher, editor, and writer for Breaking All The Rules. He can be reached at: BATR

Sartre is a regular columnist for Veracity Voice

Rushdoony’s Religion

February 8, 2015 by · 1 Comment 

My wife and I have been making arrangements for our transition into Heaven. Funerals are expensive and urgent arrangements at the time of death are not only burdensome but inordinately expensive. A simple pine box buried in the family plot with a marker has burgeoned into charges for transportation, embalming, a casket, rental of space for grieving friends, etc. etc. Cost in the five figure range can quickly accrue.

The man that arrived at our home to fill out papers and arrange for death certificates mentioned that he had recently had a heart attack. He takes care of an invalid wife and was blest that the people from his church came into his home and helped him until he was again able to assume his responsibilities. His gratitude overflowed. He loves his church and even made overture’s about us joining.

The church he attends has grown from meeting in a strip mall to building a fine new church on property they own. Much of the growth results from human interactions. Today’s Christians seek fellowship and blessing. Churches that are able to create a congregation that cares for each other are successful. The mission of successful churches becomes a weekly service that blesses the congregation and teaches them to “love” one another.

”Love in practice is a harsh and terrible thing compared to love in dreams” Fyodor Dostoevsky.

R. J. Rushdoony writes that on many occasions well-meaning people have urged him to get involved with the scholarly world and do some critical analysis. They want to make his work more prestigious but his writings are designed for action, not analysis. The Christian religion has become an effete humanistic entertainment that seeks beneficial promises and personal blessing rather than actions that will change the world.

Theology is not considered exciting reading but for a Christian seeker Rushdoony’s writing provides a startling and exciting experience. There are passages that bring one to tears with truths set forth in plain an understandable language. Rushdoony was different because he wrote as though he was sitting at the elbow of God. His objective was to understand and to point to the error of those who do not.

In Rushdoony’s books God is firmly in control of His creation and seeks Christians who will obey His Law and advance His Kingdom. He was acutely aware of the perennial danger of humanism to the Church of Jesus Christ. He had no truck with those who divide Scripture by what they believe and what they reject. Scripture is the Word of God and all of it is for our benefit. Like the Bible, his emphasis was on obedience. But he was ever aware that he, too, is a sinner and must depend on the forgiveness God provided for His chosen people.

Statism is a bane to Godly life. When government grows like cancer and begins to delve into the intimate details of everyday life it usurps the throne of God and interferes with obedience by replacing His law with the mandates of men. Current would-be reforms are focused on changing our government. What we need to do is change ourselves. Our government will not obey God when we ourselves do not.

If want justice we must be just. If we want honesty we must honest. If we want morality we must be moral. And, if we want change we must be discerning, truthful and confrontational.

Rushdoony lamented the supercilious clergy. He saw clearly that obedience is the quest of the heart of God and though His law is written on the hearts of serious Christians sin requires the yardstick of His written Law.

Rushdoony believed that God would honor His promise to protect His people so he was not fatalistic in assessing our current situation. His trust was in the God of the Bible not in the evil actions of His creatures.

His writings disdain intellectualism and the practice of writing for the consumption of fellow theologians. He was practical, seeking to point the way for believers to act in ways that are pleasing to God and redemptive of society. Expository preaching was not enough. Preachers needed to point the way to actions that would energize their listeners to obedient behavior that would significantly advance the Gospel in the culture.

He writes, “Almost all evangelical and Reformed scholarly works are written with a non-existent modernist audience in mind; most are thus pathetic in their futility. They seek to “prove” not to declare.”

Rushdoony denounces attempts by scholars to divide man into parts, body, mind, and spirit or to the material and spiritual. He writes that Neoplatonism works to create dualism. “But in Neoplatonism, despite the presence of the two substances, one is superior, the spiritual. It is the higher realm. The higher realm for the scholars is the ideational. For the ‘practical’ men, and for the church members, it becomes the ‘spiritual,’ the charismatic, the emotional, the ‘heart’ realms of activities of ‘love.’ In both cases, the wholeness of God’s word, and its materiality, becomes lost.”

The Bible treats man as a single entity and attempts to divide him into segments creates “a non-Biblical materialistic religion”.

Modern culture refuses to believe what is not logical to the minds of men. They treat God like a mechanism that they must understand and manipulate. They fail to acknowledge that God’s ways are not our ways and that if we could encompass Him in our sinful minds He is no longer be our God but we His. This was the determining sin in God’s Garden and is the determining sin of modern man – seeking to be like God.

Rushdoony will have none of this. He supports believing first and understanding later while the theology of our time attempts the destructive procedure of attempting to understand in order to believe. He totally accepts the God of the Bible and acknowledges that there are things that he does not understand.

We are enjoined to love one another. But when the definition of love is maligned by a wishy-washy acceptance of humanity that fails to cite the source of love as the God of the Bible we do not glorify the actions of God but instead we glorify the actions of men.

Rushdoony’s religion is not popular in our day. Christians have been nurtured on a humanistic religion that only sees the Hand of God in delightful miracles. Obedience is so far from the understanding of American citizens that they quake when Muslims bring Sharia law into the United States and seek authority to obey its mandates.

The spirit that causes a visceral fear is of Sharia law blocks the ability to obey the God of the Bible. Adam and Eve disobeyed by seeking to be like God; Jesus obeyed by always doing the will of the Father. We are to emulate Jesus.

In setting themselves up as the arbiters of justice contemporary men and women sustain war, murder, confusion, and tyranny. Justice, freedom, and prosperity await the society that obeys the God of the Bible and His Commandments. Man was not created to govern himself.

What a pleasure to read R. J. Rushdoony!

“You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, no take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.” Deut. 4:2

“I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy in this book: if anyone adds to them, God shall add to him the plagues that are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part in the tree of life and the holy city, which is written in this book.” Rev. 22:18-19


Al Cronkrite is a writer living in Florida, reach him at: trueword13@yahoo.com

Al Cronkrite is a regular columnist for Veracity Voice

Combating Nigeria’s Growing Insecurity

February 8, 2015 by · Leave a Comment 

A roundtable, held last week at the Institute of African Studies reports that the Nigerian government’s “…campaigns have not addressed their plans for combating the growing insecurity that has left Nigerians living in fear, and paralyzed educational and economic activities in large swaths of Northeastern Nigeria.” A string of terrorist attacks have occurred as Nigeria has struggled to build a functional and coherent response. Fortunately, there is a science-based approach to create societal coherence that can protect Nigeria from both internal and external threats. It is called Invincible Defense Technology (IDT) because it assures invincibility, peace, and even economic progress, to the nation and the military that employ it.

Invincible Defense Technology (IDT), a Proven, State-of-the-Art, Non-violent Military Solution

The IDT approach to defense has its basis in a radically new preventive model that has been thoroughly field-tested in numerous world battlegrounds. This approach results in rapid reduction of individual, societal and national collective stress. Its methods have been proven and adopted as part of the training of America’s future commanders at Norwich University, a nationally respected and oldest military academy in the USA (see also the YouTube video “Meditation Improves Performance at Military University” and the Official Homepage of the US Army). IDT is further validated by 23 peer-reviewed studies carried out in both developed and developing nations. Its coherence-creating effect has also been documented on a global scale in a study published in the Journal of Offender Rehabilitation. When large assemblies of civilian IDT experts gathered during the years 1983 – 1985, international conflict decreased 32%, terrorism-related casualties decreased 72%, and overall violence was reduced in nations without intrusion by other governments.

IDT is totally unlike any other defense technology because it does not use violence in an attempt to quell violence. It is a more civilized approach, one especially worthy of nations that abhor violence as a means to power. IDT uniquely goes to the root cause of violence – the built-up stress in the individual and collective consciousness. Scientists have evidence that high levels of collective societal stress are the underlying cause of war, violence, crime and terrorism. When the IDT methodology is applied, stress levels throughout the population are rapidly reduced.

In an environment of lowered stress even staunch adversaries find ways to cooperate and overcome long-standing differences.

IDT Reduces Societal Stress

IDT uniquely neutralizes the underlying power base of contending groups, which is the stress, frustration and civil dissatisfaction prevailing in the general population. By eliminating the root cause of insurgency, violent outbreaks are pre-empted and prevented. IDT is effective because it gets to the heart of the matter. Terrorism often thrives in nations in which decades or even centuries of under-employment, poverty, and hunger have created a huge societal weight of stress, frustration and endemic unhappiness. This inevitably finds expression in acts of terrorism, civil unrest, social violence, and a downward spiral of economic degradation.

A specially trained military unit, an “IDT Prevention Wing of the Military,” uses IDT to reduce stress in the national collective consciousness. IDT could also be introduced into other large groups such as the police forces, or militias. As the stress and frustration ease, the population is more capable of finding orderly and constructive solutions to their problems.

Experience with IDT in other war-torn nations demonstrated increases in economic incentive and growth. Entrepreneurship and individual creativity also increased. With increased civic calm, people’s aspirations are raised and a more productive and balanced society emerges. Such a society abhors violence as a means for change or as an expression of discontent. With this, the ground for terrorism is eliminated. What is more fascinating, this change takes place within a few days or weeks after IDT is introduced. The changes are measurable from such statistics as crime rates, accidents, hospital admissions, infant mortality, etc.

Picture of Prevention Wing of the Military in Ecucador

Military personnel in Latin America, Africa and Asia practice group Transcendental Meditation to help protect their nations

Indoor Picture of Prevention Wing of the Military in Ecuador

Rapid Transformation Through IDT

The daily routine for the IDT military personnel includes the nonreligious practice of the Transcendental Meditation® program along with its advanced form, the TM-Sidhi program. As a societal coherence-creating military unit, they practice these programs twice a day, seven days a week, preferably in a secure location near the targeted population.

Such coherence-creating groups have achieved positive benefits in society, shown statistically, in a short time. Modern statistical methods used in this research show a low probability of any explanation other than a causal influence of the technology. The IDT approach has been used during wartime resulting in the reduction of fighting, a decreased number of deaths and casualties, and an improvement in progress toward resolving the conflict peacefully. The war in Lebanon in 1983 was dramatically impacted in a peaceful way by an IDT Intervention Group. A thoroughly documented study of this phenomenon was published in the Journal of Conflict Resolution, and summaries of follow-up studies were published in the Journal of Social Behavior and Personalityand the Journal of Scientific Exploration.

Summary

IDT works by utilizing our natural human brain mechanics, the most powerful natural resource possessed by every nation on earth. The beneficial transformational effects of IDT have been statistically proven numerous times to decrease and prevent violence and terrorism, and boost the economy.

IDT defense technology supersedes all other known defense technologies (which are based on electronic, chemical, and/or nuclear forces). These old, fear-based modalities are ultimately self-destructive for any nation, and for the human race as a whole, and must be replaced with IDT. So far, IDT is the only known, proven constructive approach.

The military that deploys this powerful, human-resource-based technology disallows negative trends and prevents enemies from arising, and as a result, it has no enemies. No enemies means no war, terrorism and no insurgency.

The Time for Action is Now

IDT is the twenty-first century’s leading-edge defense system. If Nigeria establishes IDT Prevention Wings of the Military, they will ease high tensions, reverse mistrust, crush hatred, create stability and permanently prevent war and terrorism. Extensive scientific research objectively says, “Yes, the system works.” Why not use it in Nigeria? Time is running out. The best time to act is now, before Nigeria’s perilous situation worsens.

References

1. Dr. David R. Leffler (Fall 2009). A New Role for the Military: Preventing Enemies from Arising-Reviving an Ancient Approach to Peace. Journal of Management & Social Science (JMSS), Vol. 5, No. 2., pp. 153-162. This peer-reviewed journal is published by the Institute of Business & Technology BIZTEK in Pakistan. The abstract was published in Session 6, p. 44 of the proceeding of the “International Sociological Association Research Committee 01 Seoul National University & Korea Military Academy International Conference on Armed Forces & Conflict Resolution in a Globalized World.” July 14 – 17, 2008, Seoul, Korea. The paper was also presented at KIDA, the Korea Institute of Defense Analyses.

2. Col. (Retd) S. P. Bakshi, Gerald Geer, and Dr. David Leffler (Special Issue May, 2013). Defense Personnel Worldwide Find Transcendental Meditation To be an Effective Tool in Combating Stress. Defence and Security Alert. Vol. 4, Issue No. 8, pages 34-39. PDF available online at: http://davidleffler.com/2013/defence-security-alert-magazine

3. Dr. David R. Leffler (2008, February). An Overlooked, Proven Solution to Terrorism. In “55 Trends Now Shaping the Future of Terrorism.” Edited by Dr. Marvin J. Cetron and Owen Davies: The Proteus Trends Series, Volume 1, Issue 2 (pp. 18, 79, 176, C-13 through C-16). Dr. Leffler served as an Associate of the Proteus Management Group at the Center for Strategic Leadership, US Army War College where he was published in this US government-sponsored report aimed at governmental and military leaders. Excerpts about Invincible Defense Technology taken from the 254 page report are available online at: http://www.DavidLeffler.com/terrorism-trends.html Note: The entire paper version of the report is available online at:http://www.amazon.com/Trends-Now-Shaping-Future-Terrorism/dp/1441451412

4. Maj. Gen. (Ret.) Kulwant Singh and Dr. David Leffler (July 2014). Preventing Future Boko Haram Attacks. CBRNE-Terrorism Newsletter (CBRNE is an acronym that stands for “Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and Explosive”). PDF available online at:
http://www.cbrne-terrorism-newsletter.com/resources/JULY_2014_Part_C.pdf

5. Lieutenant General Jose Villamil (Ret.) with Dr. David Leffler (2003, January 29). Project: Coherence. India Defence Consultants. Available online at:http://www.indiadefence.com/proj_cohere.htm

Dr. David Leffler is a guest columnist for Veracity Voice

Dr. David Leffler was a member of the US Air Force for nearly nine years. Dr. Leffler served as an Associate of the Proteus Management Group at the Center for Strategic Leadership, US Army War College. He now serves as the Executive Director at the Center for Advanced Military Science (CAMS) in Fairfield, Iowa and teaches IDT. Contact at: http://www.davidleffler.com

The American Church Has Some Big Problems

February 7, 2015 by · 7 Comments 

That the American Church has problems is no surprise. Critics of the Church, many of whom have never actually taken an active part, have hurled pot shots at the Church since its inception. Churches are led and comprised of sinful, fallen people. Accordingly, there will be imperfections, shortcomings, failures, etc. Name an institution managed by people that does not have the same pitfalls.

That said, the current Church in America not only has problems, it has BIG problems. I’m talking about problems that are so huge they threaten the very survival of not only the Church itself, but of our nation, as well.

During the Twentieth Century, liberalism pretty much killed America’s mainstream denominational churches; and legalism did the same thing to America’s fundamentalist conservative churches.

In mainstream denominational churches, the rejection of the veracity of the Scriptures, the repudiation of essential Biblical doctrines, and the reception of liberal social agendas sent people by the millions fleeing these fellowships. Virtually every mainline denomination has been losing membership for decades.

For example, it is one thing for the state to grovel before politically correct ideology and embrace such moral deviances as homosexual marriage. To begin with, the state has no rightful place in sanctioning, defining, or legislating marriage at all. Marriage was never a state matter. It is a sacred matter. Our Creator has already sanctioned and defined marriage. What the state does or doesn’t do is irrelevant. As with most issues involving faith, the best thing civil government can do is butt out. But for the Church to embrace homosexual marriage is another matter altogether. No Christian who has even a rudimentary understanding of the Biblical and Natural laws regarding marriage could maintain fellowship with a church or denomination that would surrender to the amoral machinations of a degraded society. And that is just one issue that has caused millions of believers to flee America’s mainline churches and denominations.

For fundamentalist conservative churches, legalism has had the same effect as liberalism among mainline churches: it has pretty much killed them. During the last half of the Twentieth Century, fundamentalist conservative churches exploded in growth. A few decades ago, the largest churches and Sunday Schools in America were fundamentalist. But, just as mainstream churches succumbed to liberalism, fundamentalist churches succumbed to legalism. As the Scripture notes, “the letter killeth,” and, indeed, it has pretty much destroyed America’s fundamentalist churches. In fact, as a movement, it HAS destroyed them.

Accordingly, going into the Twenty First Century, these two cancers were already major problems within the American Church. But the problems that have wormed their way into the Church during the first decade and a half of the Twenty First Century have grown in both intensity and pervasiveness to the point that only a miracle from Heaven can avert impending disaster.

Here are the major problems that are destroying the American Church:

*Success Orientation

America’s churches went from a “church growth” ideology in the latter half of the Twentieth Century to a “success” orientation in the formative years of the twenty-first century. “Success” is now the driving motivation of the vast majority of America’s churches. But “success” is not defined in Scriptural terms; it is defined in secular terms.

A major study released by George Barna a few months ago clearly showed that “success” is the predominant philosophy of America’s churches. And Barna’s research listed the five-fold criteria that determined “success” in the minds of most pastors and churches: 1) Attendance, 2) Offerings, 3) Number of programs, 4) Size of staff, and, 5) Square footage of facilities. In fact, Barna’s research showed that the vast majority of pastors will purposely NOT preach what they know is Biblical truth in order to accommodate the five-fold “success” goals listed. This has led to popularity-preaching; entertainment-oriented programs; soft, non-confrontational teaching; and an overall weak and compromising pulpit.

The “success” orientation of the modern church is a major problem.

*The Egregious Misinterpretation of Romans 13, the 501c3 IRS non-profit organization status for churches, and Statism

Though these three issues each have an independent nature, I put them together as they are intricately connected.

Though many pastors and church leaders would probably not be willing to admit it, for all intents and purposes, our churches are mostly more concerned with being the compliant servant of the state than they are the obedient servant of God. The way most pastors teach Romans 13 is nothing more than the promotion of idolatry. Christians are taught to obey civil government almost without question. As was the case in Nazi Germany, America’s churches are taught that obedience to the state is obedience to God.

Have you been to a modern church wedding recently? If you have, as the pastor pronounced the bride and groom as husband and wife, you probably heard him say, “As an officer of the laws of the State of (your State) and in the presence of God…I now pronounce you man (or husband) and wife.”

The IRS 501c3 non-profit organization status for churches (instituted in 1954) has turned pastors and church officers into corporate officers of the state–and most pastors and church leaders KNOW it–even if they are unwilling to admit it.

It’s all about preserving the church’s non-profit status so contributors can deduct their offerings on income tax forms and so that the church doesn’t have to pay sales taxes on what they purchase or property taxes on what they own. And whatever pastors and church officers are required by the state to do in order to preserve that non-profit status, they will comply.

This doesn’t require a knock at the door by an IRS agent; it doesn’t require threatening letters or phone calls; it doesn’t require any direct show of force by any government agency against the church. Pastors and church officers INSTINCTIVELY know where the “third rail” is and will avoid it at all costs in order to not jeopardize their non-profit status.

The desire to comply with the IRC (Internal Revenue Code) for churches makes it easy for pastors to teach the Hitlerian version of total submission to civil government.

Statism is NOT patriotism. Neither is it Christian. The Bible is chock-full of examples of resistance to unlawful government. I’m sure many of our pastors and church leaders have never personally studied the issue and are simply regurgitating what they have been taught. I am confident that many of them are truly ignorant of what they are doing, but that doesn’t change what they are doing. Wittingly or unwittingly, they have allowed themselves to become statists: the sheepish servants of the state.

The condition of the American Church today is EXACTLY the same as was the condition of the German and Russian Church during the rise of Adolph Hitler and Joe Stalin. This is why the Church seems totally unconcerned and indifferent to the growing Police State in America today.

*Ignorance of Natural Law and the Law of Nations

God-ordained Natural Law has not been taught from America’s pulpits since the Nineteenth Century. The vast majority of pastors and church leaders in America are totally ignorant of these immutable laws.

The lack of understanding regarding Natural Law has made it virtually impossible for the American Church to truly understand the fundamental principles of good government and liberty. All most Christians know about government is what they hear on FOX News or from Rush Limbaugh. Their pastors almost never broach the subject. And for good reason: most pastors are themselves ignorant on the subject. Therefore, about all they can talk about is “liberal” vs. “conservative,” or Democrat vs. Republican. The divine principles of Natural Law that are supposed to govern nations and man-to-man relationships are foreign to the thinking and understanding of the vast majority of pastors and churches.

The ignorance and misunderstanding of Natural Law by the Church has created the societal and political conditions that now exist in this country.

But there is one more major problem in the American Church. And I believe this problem is the GREATEST problem of all. And, to be honest, it had not dawned on me how pervasive and deep this problem was until last week.

*The Church is Filled With Hate

In my column last week, I used the movie, American Sniper, as a catalyst to point out that the United States has been waging unjust war on countries such as Iraq–and meddling in the internal affairs of countries such as Iraq–for decades. I also pointed out that not all Muslims are terrorists and to condemn all Muslims on the basis of Muslim Jihadists is wrong.

Folks, you can’t believe the firestorm of anger that deluged me. My Facebook page registered over 100,000 views of my comments and precipitated a flood of hate-filled responses. Here is a sample of the more-mild reactions:

“All Christians should be standing against Islam and proclaiming America for the kingdom of Christ. I am not a Muslim sympathizer and I have lost respect for you, Mr. Baldwin. Islam is anti-Christianity. You cannot serve 2 masters.”

By standing against Islam, Cathy means it is right and righteous to go to war against Muslim nations, because they are “anti-Christianity.” So, Cathy, since when is it America’s responsibility to export Christianity over the barrel of a gun? I suppose we should then invade and destroy every Muslim nation in existence, including Saudi Arabia.

Speaking of Saudi Arabia, if we can believe the official story of 9/11 (which I don’t), the Muslim terrorists that perpetrated those attacks were all from Saudi Arabia, NOT Iraq. Why didn’t we invade Saudi Arabia? Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11 and everyone on the planet knows it. In truth, Saudi Arabia has done more to fund Islamist terrorists than any other nation in the region. Yet, official American foreign policy regards Saudi Arabia as our friend and ally.

But Saudi Arabia is a Muslim nation, which means they are “anti-Christianity,” so Cathy (and many like her) believes we should go to war with these nations to advance “the kingdom of Christ.” But what about Judaism, Cathy? Judaism is as “anti-Christianity” as Islam. What about Hinduism? What about Buddhism? What about Atheism? Is America supposed to go to war with every nation of the world that has a population of people who are “anti-Christianity”? If so, we should be attacking most of the nations of the world.

And since when can we evangelize the pagan peoples of the world via brute force? When has that ever worked? And what Scripture do you base that theory on? People are won to Christ with the message of God’s amazing grace and love through Christ’s death on the cross. What? Did God commission us to kill and destroy all of the heathen of the world? I thought our commission was to love and win them, not attack and kill them.

But a host of attacks against my comments last week were much more caustic. Here is an example:

“Imam Mohammed Judas Baldwin; My wife and I were listening on line to your 1-25-15 program, I shut the program off when I heard your rant against your Christian brother and sister Pastors. My wife astutely said: ‘Muslim Lover?’ I believe I have figured out your love of all things Islam, and your betrayal of God, Jesus Christ, and Christians. Your God Allah, Your savior Mohammad, and your fellow Muslims. Allah offered you a better deal. Paradise and 72 Virgins. The Virgins, in your case, 50/50 prepubescent boys and girls. Judas Iscariot had the decency to hang himself for his betrayal of my savior Jesus Christ. How about you? You can get Allah and the virgins, sooner, if you do it to day…Shame on you, you Fool.”

The message I delivered last Sunday, and to which Michael was reacting to, was taken from Matthew 5:44, “Love your enemies,” and from Matthew 7:12, “Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.”

And, yes, Michael, I do love Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Atheists, etc. They are all souls for whom Christ died.

If unbelievers and pagans want to be filled with hate, so be it; but hatred has NO PLACE WHATSOEVER in the heart of a Christian. And after receiving tens of thousands of hate-filled responses regarding my comments last week, it dawned on me that the American Church is largely filled with hate–hatred against the Muslim people.

Ever since 9/11, Christians and conservatives have developed a hatred and animus, not just against Jihadist-Muslims (which, even that is TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE for a Christian), but against Muslim people everywhere. All Muslims are commonly castigated and vilified just because they are Muslims.

Ladies and gentlemen, it is absolutely NOT TRUE that all Muslims are anti-American, anti-Christian murderers and terrorists. It is NOT TRUE that all Muslims want to enact Sharia Law in the United States. It is NOT TRUE that all Muslims are our enemies.

I wonder how many of these Muslim haters have ever met a Muslim in person. I have. I have met many–both in the United States and in the Middle East. They are NOT all America-haters. They are NOT all trying to kill us. America has had Christian missionaries ministering among Muslim nations for as long as our country has been in existence. And many Christians would be shocked to know that overall the Gospel has received greater acceptance by the Muslim population than by other religions of the region–much more, in fact, than by the Jewish population.

Here is a letter I received from a Christian missionary named Jeff:

“Hi, Chuck! We…want to tell you that we stand 100% with what you said in both your column and to your congregation. We have been missionaries for 40 years, a good ten of those in Muslim countries (Tunisia, Libya, Jordan, Bangladesh, Pakistan, India, Bosnia, and Albania). We have not just met or talked to a Muslim, we have witnessed to them in depth for years. It is SO RARE to hear anyone nowadays saying anything conciliatory towards Muslims, much less positive. I thank you for the things you have said, and am so very sorry for the hateful responses you received in the comments to your column that reveal the dark heart of many Christians in the U.S.”

To be honest, most of the Muslims I have met in the U.S. and in the Middle East demonstrate more kindness, common courtesy, and genuine compassion than many of the so-called Christians I have known.

Let’s be honest: some Muslims are Muslims in name only, much like many Baptists are Baptists in name only, or Catholics are Catholics in name only, or Mormons are Mormons in name only, or Jews are Jews in name only, etc. There are millions of Christians in America’s churches that couldn’t tell you what’s in the Bible to save their lives. They couldn’t quote the Ten Commandments; they couldn’t quote the Golden Rule; they couldn’t name Christ’s apostles; they couldn’t quote five verses of Scripture from memory if their lives depended on it. There are many Muslims in the exact same condition.

Furthermore, not all Muslims, who are devout, take the verses of the Koran that speak of Jihad and killing infidels, etc., to literally mean killing all non-Muslims today. No, not all of them do!

Think of this: how many of us Christians believe that the civil laws and military commands that God gave to the children of Israel through Moses should be literally incorporated into the Church and into the civil laws of America today? Do you believe we should be stoning people to death for adultery, or breaking the Sabbath (So, any Christian nurse or policeman or physician or fireman, etc., who works on Saturday should be stoned to death?), or blasphemy, or for children who curse their parents? Do you? Should we literally destroy entire nations–including men, women, and children today? These things were literally commanded by Jehovah God for the children of Israel under Moses. And, yes, God is God and is righteous and just as much when he condemns as when he forgives. No man sits in judgment of God. His ways are always right and holy. But God is NOT giving direct audible commands to anyone in the U.S. government today–or to anyone in our church pulpits, for that matter.

Many Muslims I’ve met interpret those passages in the Koran like we do those Old Testament Scriptures. Why can Christians interpret our Bible in this manner but Muslims cannot interpret their bible in a similar fashion?

In fact, I know of several Christian pastors and preachers in America who mimic Muslim Jihadists and believe that we SHOULD be implementing the Mosaic Law in our country today. If they had their way, we would be stoning people to death for the sins mentioned above just as they did under Moses. Have you ever witnessed a stoning? It is as equally torturous as beheading–maybe even more so.

Beyond that, these Muslim haters seem to be completely ignorant of the fact that every day there are tens of thousands of Muslims who risk their lives resisting Muslim Jihadists. It was a Muslim village that risked their lives against the Taliban to save the American fighting man that was depicted in the movie, Lone Survivor. Why don’t we recognize this reality? It’s because hatred and bigotry against the Muslim people have blinded us.

Plus, the dirty truth that most Americans, including most Christians, seem unwilling to accept is that most of the conflict between the United States and the Muslim nations of the Middle East has been created by our own federal government.

I speak regularly with retired Special Forces military personnel who share with me the way our own CIA and State Department have bullied, lied to, intimidated, and betrayed our Muslim friends in the Middle East. They have seen it up close and personal. This has been going on for decades. In fact, our federal government has tortured hundreds of people in the Middle East in some of the most vile ways possible. The only difference is, they don’t broadcast it over television.

I recently asked a retired Green Beret, “How much of the conflict between the U.S. and Middle Eastern states would stop if Washington, D.C., would simply stop meddling in the internal affairs of those countries?” This Green Beret served in the the Middle East for years; he was a Special Ops soldier. He saw the surreptitious and covert things that our government routinely does–things the public doesn’t see. His answer to me was, “100%.”

Our own federal government put the Taliban in power, put Al Qaeda in power, and put ISIS in power. Our federal government often uses war and conflict to cover up its own murderous activity or to kill the very people that they formerly gave arms to, supported, befriended, etc. Whether one wants to believe it or not, most of the conflict in the Middle East has been caused by our own government. We are our own worst enemy. How convenient that we make Muslim people everywhere the straw man to divert attention away from the real criminals.

Yes, the American Church has a BIG problem: much of it is filled with HATE. To be sure, Christians are instructed to hate “evil,” but nowhere are we instructed to hate people–any people. Yet, the hatred of Muslims by Christians in America appears to be epidemic.

Hatred is a cancer. Hatred, bitterness, resentment, bigotry, etc., kill the soul. When Jesus instructed us to love our enemies, it was NOT for our enemies’ sake; it was for OUR sake. How can God bless a hate-filled Church when He commands us to love our enemies? How can He bless warmongers when he tells us that it is peacemakers who are blessed?

When America MUST defend itself against any enemy, regardless of nationality, race, ethnicity, religion, etc., we are obligated to do so. In the Twentieth Century, we fought hot wars against Christians from Germany and Italy, against Shintoists from Japan, against atheists from North Korea, and against Buddhists, Taoists, and Confucianists from Vietnam. But there is a huge difference between defending oneself against an enemy that poses and imminent threat and fomenting hatred against an entire people for the crimes of a few.

How can Christians claim to love God and believe in winning lost souls to Christ be so consumed with hatred against an entire people–most of whom have done NOTHING to harm them? Yes, I realize there are some who call themselves Christians who hate other people besides Muslims. Some hate everyone who is a Jew; some hate everyone who is a minority; some hate everyone who is victimized by an aberrant sexual lifestyle, etc. Hatred has been with us since the dawn of human history. But in my entire lifetime, I have never witnessed anything like I am witnessing now: the pervasive, widespread, almost universal hatred of the Muslim people–by Christians.

As I said, hatred destroys the soul. And I fear that hatred is destroying the soul of the Church.

Whose fault is it that mosques are being built in America? Many of the buildings being used for these new mosques are abandoned CHURCH buildings. The darkness of false religion will always fill the vacuum that is left when truth departs. And the fact is, Christianity is dying in the United States. No, it’s not dead; but it’s dying. There are tens of thousands of empty abandoned churches all over America. More and more Americans are turning their backs on the Church. What difference does it make which form of darkness invades the land? The problem is that the true light (the Church) is failing. What do you expect will happen?

What difference does it make whether the darkness takes the form of Islam, or Buddhism, or Shintoism, or Judaism, or Atheism, or Communism, or any other “ism?” The problem is not the presence of darkness; the problem is the absence of light.

The Church has lost its light and its love. Christ is doing what He said He would do to those who lose their love: He is removing the candlestick.

The American Church has focused on being “successful” instead of being righteous; it has capitulated to the lordship of the state; it fears the IRS more than it fears God; it has stopped preaching the “hard” messages of the Bible; it is popularity-driven, entertainment-driven, and comfort-driven; it has abandoned the fundamental principles of Natural Law and liberty; it has replaced genuine patriotism with statism; and it has used Romans 13 as justification for idolatry.

A quote from Charles Caleb Colton (1820) is in order here: “Men will wrangle for religion; write for it; fight for it; die for it; anything but–live for it.”

The Muslim people are NOT our problem; the problem is the American Church. It needs to start living its religion.


Chuck Baldwin is a regular columnist for Veracity Voice

You can reach him at: chuck@chuckbaldwinlive.com
Please visit Chuck’s web site at: http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com

Love It or Leave It

February 7, 2015 by · Leave a Comment 

A half century ago the infamous and timeworn trope coming from the supporters of the Viet Nam War was all over the airwaves. “Love It or Leave It” was the standard retort from the gung-ho believers to the anti-war activists, who filled the streets with civil disobedience. An entire era of youth came under suspicion, from fathers of that “Greatest Generation” for questioning the purpose and wisdom of American leaders and the military policy that drafted dissenting objectors into coercive service.

Now with the undying “War on Terror” as the trumped up cornerstone of government survival, the same old party line of jingoism rises again to smear any opposition of the all mighty war machine.

The following is written by a student, Alex Bertsch, not back in the 1960’s but in this year.

“I can’t question the actions of the military without being anti-American. I can’t question events like the My Lai Massacre, in which U.S. Army soldiers killed between 347 and 504 unarmed civilians in Vietnam, with virtually no punishment. I am barely allowed to question the Haditha Killings, in which U.S. Marines killed 24 civilians in 2006. Questioning these atrocities would be “un-American.”

As the public is being conditioned for the next round of conflicts, the mere idea of conducting an open and frank debate is too dangerous to allow. So when the hullabaloo over the Chris Kyle movie, “American Sniper” exploded, the NeoCons rushed in to prance out their ultranationalism for the NWO age. Just what kind of world has these super patriots of the internationalist imperium bestowed on humanity?

Start with a review of the violent history of our species and especially the involvements from our own country in its short existence.

In the lifetime of the eldest living Americans, the Major Military Operations Since World War II, gives a summary of the largest involvements.

For a more comprehensive analysis of American conflicts, “We’re at War!” — And We Have Been Since 1776: 214 Years of American War-Making, provides an exhausted list.

  • Pick any year since 1776 and there is about a 91% chance that America was involved in some war during that calendar year.
  • No U.S. president truly qualifies as a peacetime president.  Instead, all U.S. presidents can technically be considered “war presidents.”
  • The U.S. has never gone a decade without war.
  • The only time the U.S. went five years without war (1935-40) was during the isolationist period of the Great Depression.

If the goal is to build a global empire, all these campaigns fit a pattern of design and intention. But is this the true purpose of our founding as a nation?

When John Milton Hay Secretary of State coined the phrase, “A Splendid Little War” – Whose War Is It?, he must have known that expansion to form an intercontinental realm was put irrepressibly in motion.

“This NeoConservative philosophy is pure Internationalism in its most raw form. It is the antithesis of traditional American policy, and attempts to foster a new imperialism that is totally out of step and discredited by civilized societies. The portrait of the ‘Ugly American’ is one that needs to be relegated to the scrap heap of embarrassed memories.”

Regretfully, the entire last hundred years, billed as the American century, just continued an imperialism that kicked off with the Spanish American War. This foreign policy never made the world safe for some mythical “Democracy”, but actually set forth a domination culture of rhetoric and force that fostered the economic corporatist interests, protected by garrison outposts scattered around the world.

So what slight of hand or mental hypnoses keeps the gullible public from facing up to the indisputable facts that all these oversea adventures actually destroy our country’s real security?

Libertarian Jacob G. Hornberger makes a striking argument in THE TROOPS ARE DESTROYING OUR COUNTRY that help answers this question. This viewpoint goes directly to de-constructing the silly blind faith that the pudden-head flag waivers keep following with every additional failed overseas venture.

“The mindset that is common to U.S. troops serving overseas is that they are all doing it for America, for us, for our rights and  freedoms, for our safety and security. They’ll all tell you that they are doing it because they love their country.

There’s one big problem with that mindset, however. The truth is that the troops, through what they’re doing over there, are indirectly destroying our country, our rights and freedoms, our safety and security, and our economic well-being.

Once again, the justification is to “keep us safe.” Safe from what? From the people over there who are angry over what the troops are doing over there. The more people the troops kill and maim, the angrier people get, the greater the threat of terrorist retaliation, the greater the need to keep us safe, and the greater the infringements on our freedom and well-being.

The troops have convinced themselves that they’re over there killing the people who would otherwise be coming over here to kill us. That’s ridiculous. If people wanted to come over here to kill us, they could easily circumvent the troops and come over here and kill us.”

With the open border approach in effect, the long forgotten Monroe Doctrine exempts the refugees from our hemisphere from colonizing our own land. Such acts of aggression go unpunished, while deploying foreign legions around the rest of the globe is defended as necessary.

Wake up America! Where is the common sense to ignore the pontifications of government authorities and trained seal newspeak propagandists?

Celebrating the gallantry of a Navy Seal psychopath assassin like Chris Kyle defies the most rudimentary sense of moral scrutiny, even if one wants to argue the “just war” theorem. However, if you candidly research the covert connections in the creation, funding and training of the mythical terrorism threats, the conclusion will adopt the undeniable linkage to Western government’s hidden hand behind the scenes.

Ken O’Keefe, a former US Marine discusses Washington’s major role in either generating or aggravating most of the current crises across the world and allowing groups like the ISIL Takfiri terrorists to foster and grow in the video US can no longer deny its support for ISIL.

Much has been written about how the world has changed after 9-11. The three videos on 911 a saga of deceit and lies goes unanswered because the facts presented has no legitimate counter by the establishment warmongers.

Chicken hawks, like Senator Lindsay Graham that routinely spread their dribble on Faux News are reprehensible. When his patron oracle Senator John McCain spills his vile indignation, the pompous faithful of the permanent warfare society rally round his banner.

The Zero Hedge article asks important questions, 59% Of Americans Support Post-9/11 Torture – Propaganda, Cultural Sickness, Or Both? The way you answer directly reflects your attitude about the supposed “War on Terror”. Whatever it takes to keep the homeland safe never includes questioning the factual circumstances that reveal the false flag nature, used for the phony justification to build a domestic police state.

There is no place for the “Truth Movement” in the realm of the NeoCon right-thinking camp. One such Kool-Aid dispenser in the deadly disease of disinformation is Cliff Kincaid. His article, Lies of the 9/11 “Truth” Movement, published in Accuracy in Media is a classic in denial.

“The “inside job” theory of 9/11 is appealing to those holding a Marxist or anti-Semitic view that American foreign policy is secretly manipulated by “imperialist” or “Zionist” agents. On other occasions, the puppet-masters are “global elites” or members of secret clubs. These theories preclude serious thinking about why America is under attack and by whom. Facts and evidence don’t matter when a theory about sinister secret agents with no names makes more sense.”

Paleo-conservatives are the genuine voice of authentic conservatism. The Love It or Leave It crowds of paper mache sword waving jingoists, who purport to be patriots are committed internationalists in the advancement of an American Empire. Their bellicose and warmongering mindset is no formula for genuine patriotism.

More Liberty Now concludes and asks a question that few dare to confront.

“Love it or leave it” admits that the government is a monopoly that claims ownership of us all. This ultimatum is not compatible with free market beliefs. It advocates settling for mediocrity and a monopoly. Worst of all, it’s a false choice since the very government we are urged to love will not allow anyone to leave its jurisdiction. That doesn’t fit within any definition of ‘patriotic’ I’m aware of. Does it fit yours?”

People are so dumb down about true national security since 911 and gleefully boast and demonstrate their pride in stupidity. Hypocrites who refuse to face reality about their government and foreign policy wickedness, while pretending to be champions of American principles are mentally ill betrayers.

Amerika is in a death spiral because denial is the new national anthem, sung to the tune of THE BATTLE HYMN OF THE REPUBLIC, for an American nation that no longer exists.


Sartre is the publisher, editor, and writer for Breaking All The Rules. He can be reached at: BATR

Sartre is a regular columnist for Veracity Voice

How Obama Is Making The World More Dangerous

February 7, 2015 by · Leave a Comment 

You’re not paranoid if you think the world feels more unstable — it is.  There’s a dangerous confluence of political, economic, and military phenomena that is producing a very hazardous international situation.   Heightened national tensions that lead to regional confrontations have become normal as economic and political winds constantly shift in the direction of instability and conflict.

At the center of each maelstrom is the U.S. Government, and instead of acting as a promoter of peace and stability the Obama administration has been a catalyst of confrontation and war.

Whether it be the Middle East, Asia, Russia’s border, or the world economy, the actions of the Obama administration have leaned towards various forms of provocation and aggression — economic sanctions, threats, funneling arms, etc. This dynamic makes an eventual regional conflict inevitable, beyond the one already occurring in Syria/Iraq, where a U.S.-led proxy war against Syria and Iran is dangerously close to a full-out regional war.

The U.S. public is dangerously ignorant about the significance of these various regional conflicts. To the extent that they’re even reported, the “news” has excelled at blaming others and sharpening conflict, rather than shedding light or presenting peaceful alternatives.

An especially combustible zone is the Ukraine, where the U.S. is engaged in what is becoming a full-fledged proxy war with Russia. The Obama administration’s decisive role in the Ukrainian conflict has received only a sliver of space from the U.S. media, even after an audio of Obama’s Under Secretary of State was leaked, exposing the U.S.’ direct leadership role in a coup that overthrew Ukraine’s democratically elected government.

Obama’s allied boots on the ground in the Ukrainian coup were open fascists — the Svoboda and “Right Sector” — whose ideological hero, Stepan Bandera, was one of Hitler’s most reliable fascist allies during World War II.

The Obama administration has given crucial military and economic support to the anti-Russian Ukrainian government, and provided this fascist-friendly government with various forms of military assistance, and now is considering giving more “lethal” military aid to a government that cemented its coup power via questionable elections during the start of a civil war.

Former USSR president and media darling, Mikhail Gorbachev, is now disregarded by the U.S. media, since his words no longer promote U.S. foreign policy objectives. Gorbachev recently said:

“If we call a spade a spade, America has pulled us into a new cold war, trying to openly implement its general idea of triumphalism. Where will it take us all? The [new] cold war is already on. What’s next? Unfortunately, I cannot say firmly that the cold war will not lead to the hot one. I’m afraid that they might take the risk.”

This “new cold war” is warming quickly, since the U.S.-Russian proxy war in Ukraine shares a large chunk of Russia’s border, and like all wars borders are ignored when convenient. Gorbachev fears that the 5,000 dead Ukrainians and 1.5 million refugees may just be the detonator for a larger war between two fully nuclear countries. Meanwhile, the U.S. media completely ignores this very real threat, giving valuable political cover to Obama’s reckless actions.

Equally crazy is Obama’s longstanding policy in the Middle East, where his “no troops on the ground” mantra has led to non-stop drone bombing and a massive proxy war in Syria, which every nation in the region has directly contributed to. The 200,000 dead and millions of refugees have boiled political tensions across the region, and Obama’s dedication to regime change in Syria is partially due to his dedication to the two biggest pariah nations in the world — Saudi Arabia and Israel.

When Israel recently bombed Syria again — a now regular occurrence — an Iranian general and Hezbollah leader were killed in the attack, which was labeled an assassination. Soon after, it was finally revealed that in 2008 the U.S. and Israel organized a terrorist attack in Lebanon that killed a Hezbollah leader. Both events push the Syrian conflict to the tipping point of regional war, and Obama’s silence over Israel’s repeated bombings against Syria only encourage an extremely dangerous regional conflagration.

Equally reckless is that Obama’s Syrian proxy war relied on thousands of Islamic extremists from neighboring countries.  Obama’s funding, training, and tolerating these extremists created the ideal conditions for a group like ISIS to rise from obscurity into a regional colossus.

To date the Obama administration has proposed no peace plan for Syria outside of “regime change.” When the Russian government recently organized a major peace conference to address the Syrian war, the U.S.-led Syrian National Coalition boycotted the talks, and Obama put no public pressure on his allies to attend, when he should have been publicly demanding it. Once the peace conference started neither Obama nor the U.S. media cared much to talk about the happenings, since continued fighting is the priority.

One shouldn’t forget Obama’s Africa policies, where his “successful” bombing campaign-turned regime change in Libya has ruined a country that previously had the highest standard of living on the continent. After Obama waged an illegal, aggressive war and assassinated the Libyan president, Muammar Gaddafi, Hillary Clinton said — while giggling — “we came, we saw, he died.”

Libya’s weapons were looted and are now, according to the U.N., being funneled throughout the Middle East and Africa, destabilizing neighboring countries and empowering the Islamic extremists that Obama allied with against Gaddafi (similar to the ones he allied with against Syria’s president).

When it comes to the global economy Obama has been launching financial weapons of mass destruction against his enemies. The economic sanctions against Iran, Russia, N. Korea, Venezuela, Syria, etc., are of course an act of war. This kind of war is described in the book, “Treasury’s War,” by former Under Secretary of the U.S. Treasury, Juan Zarate, who glamorizes this “new” form of war that the U.S. has a monopoly over, given the U.S. dollar’s preeminence as the global reserve currency.

Another lethal non-military weapon Obama has recklessly used is his helping crash the price of oil. The U.S. media publicly discussed the anti-Russian motive behind Obama intervening in the oil markets, by selling the “strategic oil reserves” held by the U.S. government — intended to be used at times of severe shortages. But Obama started unloading the strategic reserves at a time when there was already increasing global supply. The oil price floor fell out when Obama persuaded Saudi Arabia to ramp up production, flooding the market with cheap oil.

And whereas the Obama administration has kept mum about the Saudi’s accomplice role in crashing the oil market, the Saudis themselves have been pretty open about using their oil weapon, which they’re using to force Russia to drop support for Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad. The New York Times reported:

“Saudi Arabia has been trying to pressure President Vladimir Putin of Russia to abandon his support for President Bashar al-Assad of Syria, using its dominance of the global oil markets at a time when the Russian government is reeling from the effects of plummeting oil prices.”

Russia’s economy is consequently in free fall, with Iran, Venezuela and every other oil-producing nation suffering massive economic consequences. All of this is barely mentioned in the complicit U.S. media, content with shrugging its shoulders over the subsequent political chaos that directly affects hundreds of millions of people globally, and threatens to boomerang back on the U.S. in the form of unemployment and economic disruption.

All of the above policies have directly created havoc internationally. And today’s world is more inter-connected than ever; the chaos in the oil markets has already caused layoffs in the U.S., and threatens a larger economic conflagration. Obama’s policies in Libya, Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan have greatly increased the likelihood of another terror attack in the U.S.

In a world of increasing danger and threats of war, the Obama administration has been completely unable to champion any serious peace proposal. His main contribution to global affairs has been chaos and death — either by proxy (Syria and Ukraine), drones (Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, etc.) dollars, gun trafficking, sanctions, or direct military intervention (Afghanistan and Libya).

Even the pathetic “peace process” Obama faked with Israel-Palestine was revealed as farce the second Israel decided to re-destroy the Gaza Strip: Obama gave crucial support to Israel in committing its numerous war crimes.

Obama is aided and abetted in his reckless actions by a media that cheer-leads the government’s every move, except when it encourages a more “aggressive” approach. In this way the above realities of U.S. foreign policy — and the very real dangers they present — are completely obscured from the American public. And when the next inevitable military combustion occurs, the public may be disorientated just long enough to fall victim to scapegoating and fear mongering that can lead to a bi-partisan military “solution.”


Shamus Cooke is a regular columnist for Veracity Voice

He can be reached at shamuscook@yahoo.com

Putin Prefers A Bad Peace

February 7, 2015 by · Leave a Comment 

The West presents Putin as a bloodthirsty warmonger with grand imperial ambitions. The reality is that Putin wants a stable, federalized Ukraine—anything else would be too costly for Russia

In February, it is a long way to the spring, lamented Joseph Brodsky, the poet. Indeed, snow still falls heavily in Moscow and Kiev as well as in the rolling steppes that form the Russian-Ukrainian borderlands, but there it is tinted with red. Soldiers are loath to fight in the winter, when life is difficult anyway in these latitudes, but fighting has nonetheless flared up in war-torn Donbass—and the US is preparing to escalate the conflict by supplying sophisticated weapons to Kiev.

Tired by the siege and by intermittent shelling, the rebels disregarded the snow and took the strategic Donetsk airport. This airport with its Stalin-built tunnels, a symbol of solid Soviet defence work, presented a huge challenge for the under-equipped militia. Its many-leveled underground facilities were built to sustain a nuclear attack; still, the rebels, after months of fighting, flushed the enemy out and took it.

In a bigger offensive, they trapped Kiev’s troops in the Debaltsevo pocket, and Kiev is already suing for a cease-fire. The rebels hope to dislodge the enemy from their lands altogether; as now they hold only about one third of Donbass; but Russia’s president is still groping for the brakes. He prefers a bad peace to a good war. For him, the Ukraine is important, but not a sine qua non, the only problem in the world. This attitude he shares with the American leader. There is a big difference: Russia wants peaceful Ukraine, Americans prefer one at war.

Russia would prefer to see Ukraine united, federal, peaceful and prosperous. The alternative of splitting Donbass is not very tempting: Donbass is strongly connected to the rest of Ukraine, and it is not easy to sever its ties. The war already has sent millions of refugees from Donbass and from the rump of Ukraine to Russia, overloading its systems. Putin can’t cut loose and forget about Donbass – his people would not allow him anyway. A cautious man, he does not want to get into an open-ended war. So he has to navigate towards some sort of peace.

I had a meeting with a well-informed and highly-placed Russian source who shared with me, for your benefit, some inner thoughts on condition of his anonymity. Though the West is certain that Putin wants to restore the Soviet Union, actually the Russian president did everything he could to save the Ukraine from disintegration, said the source. This is what Russia did in order to bring peace to Ukraine:

  • Russia supported the West-brokered agreement of February 21, 2014, but the US still pushed for the next day (February 22) coup, or “had brokered a deal to transition power in Ukraine” , in Obama’s words.
  • After the coup, the South-East Ukraine did not submit to the new Kiev regime and seceded. Still, Moscow asked the Donbass rebels to refrain from carrying out their May referendum. (They disregarded Putin’s appeal).
  • Moscow recognised the results of sham May elections carried out by Kiev regime after the coup, and recognised Poroshenko as the president of the whole Ukraine – though there were no elections in the South East and opposition parties were banned from participating.
  • Moscow did not officially recognise the results of November elections in Donbass, to the chagrin of many Russian nationalists.

These steps were quite unpopular in Russian society, but Putin made them to promote a peaceful solution for Ukraine. Some war-like Donbass leaders were convinced to retire. In vain: Putin’s actions and intentions were disregarded by the US and EC. They encouraged the ‘war part‎y’ in Kiev. “They never found a fault with Kiev, whatever they do”, said the source.

Peace in Ukraine can be reached through federalisation, my source told me. That’s why the two most important parameters of the Minsk accords (between Kiev and Donetsk) were those we never hear about: constitutional and socio-economic reforms. Russia wants to secure the territorial integrity of the Ukraine (minus Crimea) but it can be achieved only through federalisation of Ukraine with a degree of autonomy being given to its regions. Its west and east speak different languages, worship different heroes, have different aspirations. They could manage together, just, if the Ukraine were a federal state, like the US or Switzerland or India.

In Minsk, the sides agreed to establish a joint commission for constitutional reforms, but the Kiev regime reneged on it. Instead, they created a small and secretive constitutional committee of the Rada (Parliament). This was condemned by the Venice Commission, a European advisory body on constitutional matters. The Donetsk people wouldn’t accept it, either, and it is not what was agreed upon in Minsk.

As for integration, it was agreed in Minsk to reintegrate Donbass within Ukraine. This was disappointing for Donbass (they would prefer to join Russia), but they accepted it, – while Kiev laid siege to Donbass, cut off its banks, ceased buying Donbass coal, and stopped paying pensions. Kiev troops daily shell Donetsk, a city of a million inhabitants (in peaceful times!). Instead of amnesty for rebels, as agreed in Minsk, there are more government troops pouring eastwards.

The Russians did not give up on Minsk accords. The Minsk agreements could bring peace, but they have to be implemented. Perhaps president Poroshenko of Kiev would like to, but Kievwar party with its western support will unseat Poroshenko if he goes too far. Paradoxically, the only way to force him to peace is through war, – though Russia would prefer the West to put pressure on its clients in Kiev. The rebels and their Russian supporters used warfare to force him to sign the Minsk accords: their offensive against Mariupol on the Sea of Azov was hugely successful, and Poroshenko preferred to go to Minsk in order to keep Mariupol. Since then, Kiev and Donetsk had a few cease-fires, they exchanged POWs, but Kiev refuses to implement the constitutional and socio-economic demands of Minsk accord.

It does not make sense to agree to a cease-fire, if Kiev only uses it to regroup and attack again. The Cease-fire should lead to constitutional reform, said my source, a reform negotiated in an open and transparent dialogue of the regions and Kiev. Without reform, Donbass (or Novorussia) will go to war. So the Debaltsevo operation can be considered a way to force Poroshenko to sue for peace.

Russia does not intend to take part in the war, or in peace negotiations, said the source. The Russians are adamant to stay out, while the Americans are equally adamant to present Russia as a side to conflict.

Meanwhile, the Russian-American relations were moved forty years back to the Jackson-Vanik amendment of 1974 by the Ukraine Freedom Support Act of 2014. US Secretary of State John Kerry considered this act an unfortunate development, but a temporary one. The Russians are not that optimistic: for them, the Act codified anti-Russian sanctions. The US has tried to turn other states against Russia, with some success. In one sweep the German Kanzlerin Angela Merkel eliminated all organisations, structures and ties built between Germany and Russia over many years. Every visit of Joe Biden causes a conflagration.

The Russians are upset with the story of the Malaysian Boeing. In every high-level encounter with the Americans, they are reminded of the hysterical accusations and claims that the liner was downed by the rebels using Russian missiles. Six months have passed since the tragedy; still the Americans have not presented a single shred of evidence of Russian and/or rebel involvement. They have not presented photos from their satellites, nor records of their AWACS aircraft hovering over Eastern Europe. My source told me that the American high-ranking officials do not insist anymore that Russians/rebels are involved, but they stubbornly refuse to apologise for their previous baseless accusations. They never say they are sorry.

Still, the Americans want to play the ball. They insist that they do not seek Russian ‘surrender’, that they find the confrontation costly and unwelcome; meanwhile, the US needs Russian support for dealing with Iran’s nuclear programme, the removal of Syrian chemical weapons, and the Palestinian problem. The Russians retort they have heard it all during the Libyan affair and aren’t impressed.

Differences of opinion between Russia and the US are considerable. But there is one common feature: from Syria to Donbass, Russians endorse peace, Americans push for war. Now the Russians have invited opposition figures and government representatives from Syria for talks in Moscow. They came, talked, went away and will come again. They could probably settle but the US representatives say that they will never accept Assad’s presidency and will fight to the last Syrian for his dismissal. It is not that Americans are bloodthirsty; war makes sense for them: every war on the globe supports the US dollar and invigorates Dow Jones, as capital seeks safe haven and finds it in the US.

They do not think about the fate of Syrians who flee to Jordan—or of Ukrainians who escape to Russia in ever increasing numbers. What a shame for two wonderful countries! Syria was peaceful and prosperous, the diamond of the Middle East until ruined by the US-supported Islamists; the Ukraine was the wealthiest part of the former Soviet bloc, until being ruined by the US-supported far-right and oligarchs. Joseph Brodsky bitterly predicted in 1994, as the Ukraine declared its independence from Russia, that the shifty Ukrainians will still evoke Russian poetry in their mortal hour. This prophesy is about to be fulfilled.


A native of Novosibirsk, Siberia, a grandson of a professor of mathematics and a descendant of a Rabbi from Tiberias, Palestine, he studied at the prestigious School of the Academy of Sciences, and read Math and Law at Novosibirsk University. In 1969, he moved to Israel, served as paratrooper in the army and fought in the 1973 war.

After his military service he resumed his study of Law at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, but abandoned the legal profession in pursuit of a career as a journalist and writer. He got his first taste of journalism with Israel Radio, and later went freelance. His varied assignments included covering Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia in the last stages of the war in South East Asia.

In 1975, Shamir joined the BBC and moved to London. In 1977-79 he wrote for the Israeli daily Maariv and other papers from Japan. While in Tokyo, he wrote Travels with My Son, his first book, and translated a number of Japanese classics.

Email at: info@israelshamir.net

Israel Shamir is a regular columnist for Veracity Voice

The Fallujah Option For East Ukraine

February 7, 2015 by · Leave a Comment 

“I want to appeal to the Ukrainian people, to the mothers, the fathers, the sisters and the grandparents. Stop sending your sons and brothers to this pointless, merciless slaughter. The interests of the Ukrainian government are not your interests. I beg of you: Come to your senses. You do not have to water Donbass fields with Ukrainian blood. It’s not worth it.”

— Alexander Zakharchenko,  Prime Minister of the Donetsk People’s Republic

Washington needs a war in Ukraine to achieve its strategic objectives. This point cannot be overstated.

The US wants to push NATO to Russia’s western border. It wants a land-bridge to Asia to spread US military bases across the continent.  It wants to control the pipeline corridors from Russia to Europe to monitor Moscow’s revenues and to  ensure that gas continues to be denominated in dollars. And it wants a weaker, unstable Russia that is more prone to regime change, fragmentation and, ultimately, foreign control. These objectives cannot be achieved peacefully, indeed, if the fighting stopped tomorrow,  the sanctions would be lifted shortly after, and the Russian economy would begin to recover. How would that benefit Washington?

It wouldn’t. It would undermine Washington’s broader plan to integrate China and Russia into the prevailing economic system, the dollar system. Powerbrokers in the US realize that the present system must either expand or collapse. Either China and Russia are brought to heel and persuaded to accept a subordinate role in the US-led global order or Washington’s tenure as global hegemon will come to an end.

This is why hostilities in East Ukraine have escalated and will continue to escalate. This is why the U.S. Congress  approved a bill for tougher sanctions on Russia’s energy sector and lethal aid for Ukraine’s military. This is why Washington has sent military trainers to Ukraine and is preparing to provide  $3 billion in  “anti-armor missiles, reconnaissance drones, armored Humvees, and radars that can determine the location of enemy rocket and artillery fire.” All of Washington’s actions are designed with one purpose in mind, to intensify the fighting and escalate the conflict. The heavy losses sustained by Ukraine’s inexperienced army and the terrible suffering of the civilians in Lugansk and Donetsk  are of no interest to US war-planners. Their job is to make sure that peace is avoided at all cost because peace would derail US plans to pivot to Asia and remain the world’s only superpower. Here’s an except from an article in the WSWS:

“The ultimate aim of the US and its allies is to reduce Russia to an impoverished and semi-colonial status. Such a strategy, historically associated with Carter administration National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, is again being openly promoted.

In a speech last year at the Wilson Center, Brzezinski called on Washington to provide Kiev with “weapons designed particularly to permit the Ukrainians to engage in effective urban warfare of resistance.” In line with the policies now recommended in the report by the Brookings Institution and other think tanks calling for US arms to the Kiev regime, Brzezinski called for providing “anti-tank weapons…weapons capable for use in urban short-range fighting.”

While the strategy outlined by Brzezinski is politically criminal—trapping Russia in an ethnic urban war in Ukraine that would threaten the deaths of millions, if not billions of people—it is fully aligned with the policies he has promoted against Russia for decades.” (“The US arming of Ukraine and the danger of World War III“, World Socialist Web Site)

Non-lethal military aid will inevitably lead to lethal military aid, sophisticated weaponry, no-fly zones, covert assistance, foreign contractors, Special ops, and boots on the ground. We’ve seen it all before. There is no popular opposition to the war in the US, no thriving antiwar movement that can shut down cities, order a general strike or disrupt the status quo. So there’s no way to stop the persistent drive to war. The media and the political class have given Obama carte blanche, the authority to prosecute the conflict as he sees fit. That increases the probability of a broader war by this summer following the spring thaw.

While the possibility of a nuclear conflagration cannot be excluded, it won’t effect US plans for the near future. No one thinks that Putin will launch a nuclear war to protect the Donbass, so the deterrent value of the weapons is lost.

And Washington isn’t worried about the costs either.   Despite botched military interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and half a dozen other countries around the world; US stocks are still soaring, foreign investment in US Treasuries is at record levels,, the US economy is growing at a faster pace than any of its global competitors, and the dollar has risen an eye-watering 13 percent against a basket of foreign currencies since last June. America has paid nothing for decimating vast swathes of the planet and killing more than a million people. Why would they stop now?

They won’t, which is why the fighting in Ukraine is going to escalate. Check this out from the WSWS:

“On Monday, the New York Times announced that the Obama administration is moving to directly arm the Ukrainian army and the fascistic militias supporting the NATO-backed regime in Kiev, after its recent setbacks in the offensive against pro-Russian separatist forces in east Ukraine.

The article cites a joint report issued Monday by the Brookings Institution, the Atlantic Council, and the Chicago Council on Global Affairs and delivered to President Obama, advising the White House and NATO on the best way to escalate the war in Ukraine….

According to the Times, US officials are rapidly shifting to support the report’s proposals. NATO military commander in Europe General Philip M. Breedlove, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, US Secretary of State John Kerry, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey all supported discussions on directly arming Kiev. National Security Advisor Susan Rice is reconsidering her opposition to arming Kiev, paving the way for Obama’s approval.” (“Washington moves toward arming Ukrainian regime“, World Socialist Web Site)

See what’s going on? The die is already cast. There will be a war with Russia because that’s what the political establishment wants. It’s that simple. And while previous provocations failed to lure Putin into the Ukrainian cauldron, this new surge of violence–a spring offensive– is bound to do the trick. Putin is not going to sit on his hands while proxies armed with US weapons and US logistical support pound the Donbass to Fallujah-type rubble.  He’ll do what any responsible leader would do. He’ll protect his people. That means war. (See the vast damage that Obama’s proxy war has done to E. Ukraine here: “An overview of the socio – humanitarian situation on the territory of Donetsk People’s Republic as a consequence of military action from 17 to 23 January 2015“)

Asymmetrical Warfare: Falling Oil Prices

Keep in mind, that the Russian economy has already been battered by economic sanctions, oil price manipulation, and a vicious attack of the ruble. Until this week, the mainstream media dismissed the idea that the Saudis were deliberately pushing down oil prices to hurt Russia. They said the Saudis were merely trying to retain “market share” by maintaining current production levels and letting prices fall naturally. But it was all bunkum as the New York Times finally admitted on Tuesday in an article titled: “Saudi Oil Is Seen as Lever to Pry Russian Support From Syria’s Assad”. Here’s a clip from the article:

“Saudi Arabia has been trying to pressure President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia to abandon his support for President Bashar al-Assad of Syria, using its dominance of the global oil markets at a time when the Russian government is reeling from the effects of plummeting oil prices…

Saudi officials say — and they have told the United States — that they think they have some leverage over Mr. Putin because of their ability to reduce the supply of oil and possibly drive up prices….Any weakening of Russian support for Mr. Assad could be one of the first signs that the recent tumult in the oil market is having an impact on global statecraft…..

Saudi Arabia’s leverage depends on how seriously Moscow views its declining oil revenue. “If they are hurting so bad that they need the oil deal right away, the Saudis are in a good position to make them pay a geopolitical price as well,” said F. Gregory Gause III, a Middle East specialist at Texas A&M’s Bush School of Government and Public Service (“Saudi Oil Is Seen as Lever to Pry Russian Support From Syria’s Assad“, New York Times)

The Saudis “think they have some leverage over Mr. Putin because of their ability” to manipulate prices?

That says it all, doesn’t it?

What’s interesting about this article is the way it conflicts with previous pieces in the Times. For example, just two weeks ago, in an article titled “Who Will Rule the Oil Market?”  the author failed to see any political motive behind the Saudi’s action.  According to the narrative, the Saudis were just afraid that “they would lose market share permanently” if they cut production and kept prices high. Now the Times has done a 180 and joined the so called conspiracy nuts who said that prices were manipulated for political reasons.  In fact, the  sudden price plunge had nothing to do with deflationary pressures, supply-demand dynamics, or any other mumbo-jumbo market forces. It was 100 percent politics.

The attack on the ruble was also politically motivated, although the details are much more sketchy. There’s an interesting interview with Alistair Crooke that’s worth a read for those who are curious about how the Pentagon’s “full spectrum dominance” applies to financial warfare. According to Crooke:

“…with Ukraine, we have entered a new era: We have a substantial, geostrategic conflict taking place, but it’s effectively a geo-financial war between the US and Russia. We have the collapse in the oil prices; we have the currency wars; we have the contrived “shorting” — selling short — of the ruble. We have a geo-financial war, and what we are seeing as a consequence of this geo-financial war is that first of all, it has brought about a close alliance between Russia and China.

China understands that Russia constitutes the first domino; if Russia is to fall, China will be next. These two states are together moving to create a parallel financial system, disentangled from the Western financial system. ……

For some time, the international order was structured around the United Nations and the corpus of international law, but more and more the West has tended to bypass the UN as an institution designed to maintain the international order, and instead relies on economic sanctions to pressure some countries. We have a dollar-based financial system, and through instrumentalizing America’s position as controller of all dollar transactions, the US has been able to bypass the old tools of diplomacy and the UN — in order to further its aims.

But increasingly, this monopoly over the reserve currency has become the unilateral tool of the United States — displacing multilateral action at the UN. The US claims jurisdiction over any dollar-denominated transaction that takes place anywhere in the world. And most business and trading transactions in the world are denominated in dollars. This essentially constitutes the financialization of the global order: The International Order depends more on control by the US Treasury and Federal Reserve than on the UN as before.” (“Turkey might become hostage to ISIL just like Pakistan did“,  Today’s Zaman)

Financial warfare, asymmetrical warfare, Forth Generation warfare, space warfare, information warfare, nuclear warfare, laser, chemical, and biological warfare. The US has expanded its arsenal well beyond the  traditional range of conventional weaponry. The goal, of course, is to preserve the post-1991 world order (The dissolution up of the Soviet Union) and maintain full spectrum dominance. The emergence of a multi-polar world order spearheaded by Moscow poses the greatest single threat to Washington’s plans for continued domination.  The first significant clash between these two competing world views will likely take place sometime this summer in East Ukraine. God help us.

NOTE:  The Novorussia Armed Forces (NAF) currently have 8,000 Ukrainian regulars surrounded in Debaltsevo, East Ukraine.  This is a very big deal although the media has been (predictably) keeping the story out of the headlines.

Evacuation corridors have been opened to allow civilians to leave the area.  Fighting could break out at anytime.  At present, it looks like a good part of the Kiev’s Nazi army could be destroyed in one fell swoop.  This is why Merkel and Hollande have taken an emergency flight to Moscow to talk with Putin.  They are not interested in peace. They merely want to save their proxy army from annihilation.

I expect Putin may intervene on behalf of the Ukrainian soldiers, but I think commander Zakharchenko will resist.   If he lets these troops go now, what assurance does he have that they won’t be back in a month or so with high-powered weaponry provided by our war-mongering congress and White House?

Tell me; what choice does Zakharchenko really have? If his comrades are killed in future combat because he let Kiev’s army escape, who can he blame but himself?

There are no good choices.

Check here for updates:  Ukraine SITREP: *Extremely* dangerous situation in Debaltsevo


Mike Whitney is a regular columnist for Veracity Voice

Mike Whitney lives in Washington state. He can be reached at: fergiewhitney@msn.com

My Thoughts On The Movie “American Sniper”

February 1, 2015 by · 66 Comments 

As did millions of other Americans, I went to see the hugely popular Clint Eastwood-directed movie, “American Sniper.” Here are some of my thoughts:

No one, at least not me, doubts the patriotism, courage, and sacrifice of our nation’s military personnel–especially our combat forces. I certainly do not share Michael Moore’s opinion that Chris Kyle (and the rest of our military snipers) was a coward. Snipers have been effective in helping to wage America’s wars since our War for Independence. In lawful combat, snipers are as needful as any other specialized fighting man.

My issue is not with Chris Kyle–or with any other American fighting man. My issue is with the justness of the war Chris Kyle was ordered to fight. Yes, I realize that we have an all-volunteer army; but let’s be honest enough to admit that the vast majority of our young people joining the U.S. military sincerely believe that they are doing their patriotic duty by volunteering to conduct war against America’s “enemies.” They learn nothing else from family, school, movies and television, and church. The singular message they hear is that everything the U.S. military does is right and righteous and that every military engagement is just and justified. I’m sure Chris Kyle was no different.

However, at the risk of sounding unpatriotic, after watching the real-life military exploits of Chris Kyle on the Big Screen, I left the theater extremely angry.

In the first place, Saddam Hussein and the country of Iraq had absolutely NOTHING to do with 9/11, and virtually everyone on the planet now knows it. G.W. Bush and Dick Cheney unabashedly lied to the American people about the necessity of America invading Iraq. We invaded Iraq under false pretenses; we occupied Iraq under false pretenses; and we took (and lost) thousands of lives under false pretenses.

If those miscreants in Washington, D.C., want to invade countries that truly have Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD), why don’t they invade Russia, or China, or Great Britain, or North Korea, or India, or Pakistan, or Israel? We haven’t heard the first word about the need to invade and occupy any of those countries. Why not? Each of those countries has known stockpiles of nuclear weapons. And when it comes to abusing human rights, most of the countries listed above have miserable records. But, no one from either party in Washington, D.C., even broaches the idea of invading and occupying (or even bombing) any of these nations. But we were told that the little country of Iraq posed such a severe and imminent threat against the United States that a military invasion was required. Everyone in the world now knows that was poppycock.

And for the benefit of my Christian readers, Saddam Hussein was one of the most tolerant and accommodating Muslim leaders in the entire region. Christian churches thrived under Hussein. For the most part, Hussein happily accommodated the exercise of the Christian religion in Iraq. He even had at least one Christian in his cabinet.

What has happened to Christianity in Iraq since the United States overthrew Saddam Hussein? Several recent reports have documented the fact that, for all intents and purposes, Christianity has been totally expunged from the country of Iraq. Christians have fled the country in terror due to intense persecution. There are no churches left in Iraq. This is AFTER the “liberation” of Iraq and the installation of a puppet government by the United States.

Secondly, as I watched the depiction of U.S. Marines going house-to-house kicking down doors and manhandling old men, women, and children, it occurred to me that these exact same tactics are now being employed by American police agencies against the people of the United States. Our so-called SWAT teams are nothing more than occupying military units on American soil. The strategies, philosophies, mindset, and tactics are exactly the same as soldiers in a war zone.

Thirdly, ask yourself these questions: what if, instead of the place being Fallujah, Iraq, the place was Kansas City, Missouri? Instead of the invasion force being the U.S. military, it was military troops from China, Russia, or North Korea? What if the occupying military snipers were killing American women and children instead of Iraqi women and children? Would we still consider them “heroes?” And would we act any differently from the Iraqi people who were simply trying to defend their homes and communities against an occupying foreign power?

When I left the theater, I was not angry with Chris Kyle because he happened to apparently be the best at what he was trained to do; I was angry with the politicians in Washington, D.C., who sent Chris Kyle into an unjust and undeclared war against people who posed NO imminent threat to the United States.

I am also angry with an American culture that seems to lack the discernment to recognize the difference between just and unjust war. I am further angered by ubiquitous U.S. propaganda against the Muslim people in general (especially by my Christian brethren).

It seems that hardly anyone recognizes that the power-elite are engaged in a global conspiracy to pit the Muslim nations of the Middle East against the West, and vice-versa. Our own CIA has manipulated the internal affairs of Middle Eastern states for decades. The CIA put Saddam Hussein in power. Where do you think those brand new hundred-dollar bills (in the amount of millions of dollars) stored between the walls of Hussein’s house, all wrapped in Bank of America wrappers, came from?

The CIA put Osama bin Laden in power. The CIA created Al Qaeda. The CIA created ISIS. And dare we even talk about the illegal drug-running operations that have been conducted by the CIA in both Middle Eastern and Far Eastern nations (not to mention Central and South America) for at least a half-century?

It might make modern Christian leaders feel morally righteous as they constantly stir hatred in the hearts of their followers against the Muslim people, but what it really does is demonstrate their utter ignorance as to who the real enemy is.

The global elite are using radical Islamists, Jews, and Christians alike to stir fear and hatred among nations. No religion has a monopoly on hatred and violence. I remind readers that it wasn’t Muslims who killed our brave patriot forebears at Bunker Hill, Lexington Green, and Concord Bridge. It was Christians. It wasn’t Muslims who invaded the newly formed United States in 1812. It was Christians. It wasn’t Muslims who were beating, imprisoning, and murdering non-traditional believers in early America. It was Christians.

And for all of you who are scared silly about the threat of Sharia Law, I can tell you for a fact that there are numerous Christian preachers today who openly promote bringing America under the civil laws of Old Testament Israel. Yes, that means legalizing capital punishment for adulteresses, children who curse their parents, people who break the Sabbath (Who would define that?), people who are guilty of blasphemy (Who would define that?) homosexuals and lesbians, etc. If these preachers had anything to do with it, we Americans would suffer as much under their brand of “Christianity” as did the people of Israel under the Pharisees and as many who are currently suffering under the heavy hand of Islamic militants today.

And if you think there is religious liberty for the Jewish people in the modern state of Israel, you haven’t been there. Let a Jew in Israel convert to Christianity and try to publicly witness for his faith (in much the same manner as did the Apostles in the New Testament) and see what happens. The persecution is intense.

When I was in Israel, I preached in the two Baptist churches in that country. One was in Jerusalem; the other was in Bethlehem. What I discovered surprised me: over ninety percent of the Christians in those churches were not converted Jews; they were converted Muslims. And most of them were Palestinians. In fact, Christianity is growing exponentially among the Palestinian people, even as we speak.

Christians who are constantly fear-mongering against Muslim people are playing right into the hands of the globalists who are using people of different faiths and cultures to inflame hatred and violence, thus creating the conditions for globalists to come to the rescue with their plans for world government. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: The American people have far more to fear from Washington, D.C., than they do from Baghdad, Damascus, or Tehran.

As I left the theater, I was angry with a federal government that cares absolutely nothing about our brave U.S. military personnel. They send them to fight unjust wars only then to treat them like second-class citizens in our VA hospitals. If D.C. truly cared about our military personnel, they would never ask them to risk life and limb except for those times that are truly necessary for the safety and security of the United States.

America has NO RIGHT to take upon itself the role of the world’s policeman. It has NO RIGHT to send U.S. fighting men to vindicate the policies and prejudices of the United Nations. The President of the United States has NO RIGHT to invade and occupy foreign countries without a Declaration of War by Congress.

And in the case of rogue militants who pose an imminent danger to the people of the United States, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison handled it constitutionally by asking Congress for a letter of marque and reprisal. Congressman Ron Paul introduced just such a bill following the 9/11 attacks. Had Congress followed the Constitution and passed Dr. Paul’s bill, much of the turmoil and unrest that currently exists in the Middle East today would have been completely circumvented. But, then again, the globalists would not have been able to inflame the world against each other like they have.

I am angry because, in the name of fighting the War on Terror around the world, the American people are quickly losing the liberties guaranteed in our Constitution’s Bill of Rights. And out of a misguided spirit of patriotism, the majority of the American people seem fine with it.

I am angry because our brave military troops are being asked to give their arms and legs and families and lives for the selfish, political, and economic interests of the ruling elite–and are also asked to take the lives of thousands of innocents in the process.

If you ask me, Chris Kyle was the victim of a sadistic and out-of-control federal leviathan that respects NOTHING. Not the rule of law. Not liberty–at home or abroad. Not family–our own or the families of other nations. Not constitutional government. Not national borders–our own or anyone else’s. And certainly not the sacredness of life.

Yes, I watched the movie “American Sniper.” And I left the theater angry.


Chuck Baldwin is a regular columnist for Veracity Voice

You can reach him at: chuck@chuckbaldwinlive.com
Please visit Chuck’s web site at: http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com

Be Skeptical of Dr. Oz’s Remedies and Rick Warren’s “Plans”

February 1, 2015 by · Leave a Comment 

Dr. Mehmet Oz, who is a renowned cardiothoracic surgeon, author and host of a successful TV show, has involved himself in some, um, questionable cures for what ails you.  According to a Fox News report, a recent study showed that “Half of Dr. Oz’s health advice is bad.”  Die-hard Oz fans will more than likely ignore the study results and continue tuning into his TV show for advice from him and the panel of doctors that appear regularly, even knowing that Oz and the other doctors often recommend products straight out of Quacksville.

Our idols would never steer us wrong, would they?  I mean, Oz wouldn’t allow his fans to purchase remedies that have little basis in fact or that many in the scientific community agree are bogus. Test the “cures” and you will find that, in some cases, what they recommended is on par with the sort of thing you’ll find in a witches brew – bat wings, spider legs and crow bones.

From the Fox News report:

The researchers found that about half of the suggestions offered by these shows either contradicted what other scientific studies had found or had no verifiable evidence at all to stand behind them, and that potential conflicts of interest were seldom mentioned.
 
The study looked at 40 random episodes from each show—instead of simply, as Belluz points out, “cherrypicking the worst offenders”—to get the fairest assessment. In general, each episode offered up about a dozen health recommendations, so the researchers were able to cull 479 health tidbits from Dr.
Oz’s show and 445 from The Doctors. Most of the shows’ suggestions involved dispensing general medical advice, followed by non-weight-loss dietary tips; the Doctors professionals tended to repeat the mantra of seeking out a health care provider.
 
But while the benefits of many of the claims were talked about in a general way, specific benefits and magnitude of those benefits, possible drawbacks, and costs were virtually ignored, the study found.
 
The researchers’ conclusion? “Consumers should be skeptical,” and we should ask ourselves “whether we should expect medical talk shows to provide more than entertainment.” (Dr. Oz’s “magic bean” recently lost the study that supported it.) (Fox News’ link.  Emphasis added.)

Meet Mehmet

This is not the first time I’ve reported on Dr. Oz.  In early 2011, I wrote a piece to alert the Church that  SBC pastor and best-selling author Rick Warren had elicited the help of three doctors to write a plan (Warren is all about plans) to promote health and fitness for his church located in Lake Forest CA.  What struck me was that all three doctors hold New Age/New Thought beliefs. Moreover, the trio is involved in what some deem questionable medical practices.  One of the docs Warren asked to help with his endeavor to lose much needed weight and start his journey to better health was Dr. Mehmet Oz.  The end result was The Daniel Plan.

I noted back in 2011 in my piece titled “Rick Warren Introduces the ‘Devil Plan’” that:
 
Oprah Winfrey’s “favorite doctor” is a Muslim and has been influenced by the mysticism of Sufi Muslims.  Moreover, he is keen on the ideas of cultist mystic Emanuel Swedenborg: 
 
“As I came into contact with Swedenborg’s many writing I began to understand Swedenborg’s profound insights and how they applied directly to my life.” 
 
Swedenborg believed he could pass between the life to come and the present.  What is more he claimed he had conversations with spirits of the dearly departed as well as angelic beings:
 
“[T]he spirit world was comprised of a number of concentric spheres, each with its own density and inhabitants. There is no such thing as hell or eternal punishment. Those spirits who find themselves in a hellish place after death can evolve toward a higher spiritual plane.
 
“In spite of it being granted to him ‘to be constantly and uninterruptedly in company with spirits and angels,’ Swedenborg did issue a caution in regard to receiving counsel from just any spirit that might manifest with an alleged personal message. “When spirits begin to speak,” he wrote in Miscellaneous Theological Works (1996), “care should be taken not to believe them, for nearly everything they say is made up by them.…They love to feign. Whatever be the topic spoken of, they think they know it, and if man listens and believes, they insist, and in various ways deceive and seduce.” (Source)
 
Dr. Oz is a practitioner of Transcendental Meditation:
 
“When I meditate, I go to that place where truth lives. I can see what reality really is, and it is so much easier to form good relationships then.” 
 
Do a Google search on Dr. Oz and you’ll find posts from people complaining that he’s irresponsible because he promotes things which have no scientific evidence to support them. Until something is proven, doctors should not promote it as it could endanger lives.  One example of an unscientific practice he promotes is Reiki, which New Agers believe to be a “guided Universal Life Force Energy.”  Dr. Oz’s wife is a Reiki Master.  “Reiki,” he said, “is my favorite treatment that could change the future of medicine forever.”  He also pontificated:
 
“I think [Reiki] may be ultimately the most important alternative medicine treatment of all. And we are embarking on this whole new vista of opportunities, it broadens dramatically the spectrum of where we might be able to go in our bodies, and this is the area of energy medicine.”(Source)
 
It is rather curious that Rick Warren would team up with a man whose fame he owes in part to New Age High Priestess Oprah Winfrey.  Dr. Oz’s worldview more closely aligns to New Age Spirituality than to historic orthodox Christianity.  (Source)

It is unlikely that those who are not Christians will recognize the danger in some of the beliefs held by Dr. Oz.  However, the serious Christian should find his fondness for the world of the occult deeply troubling.  Even though Paul makes it perfectly clear in 2 Corinthians 6:1 that believers must not be unevenly yoked with unbelievers, Pastor Warren wasn’t the least bit concerned about partnering with a Sufi Muslim.   Without question Muslims reject the God of the Bible, thus they’re unbelievers.  Yet he chose Dr. Oz and two other doctors, both of whom are steeped in Eastern mysticism, to collaborate on a “biblical” health and fitness plan.  Sadly, because of Warren’s foolhardiness many undiscerning Christians think there’s no problem purchasing the products and participating in the pagan practices pushed on the public by the three mystics.

In November 2014, adoring fans learned that their beloved Mehmet admitted to a congressional committee that the “Magic” diet bean that he promoted had no scientific backing. The reason he gave for defrauding the public?  “[H]e’s in the business of hope “to get folks to … rethink their future…” (Source)

People, especially evangelicals, need to rethink taking any sort of advice from this man.  Likewise, folks should rethink taking advice from popular pastors who stray from preaching the true gospel of Christ from their pulpits and instead put all their energy into clever plans to make their congregations feel better, look better, and “be all that you can be.”

Is it God’s will for His people to live “Your Best Life Now”?  A growing number of professing Christians like to think so.  But nothing could be further from the truth.  Anyone who takes time to read/study the Bible will quickly learn that God’s will for His people, as long as He allows us to remain here on Earth, is to…… suffer.  (Philippians 1:292 Timothy 3:121 Peter 4:15-19; Acts 14:22)  This could mean mental, physical, emotional, and spiritual.  (Corinthians 4:8)  But, “we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose.” (Romans 8:28)  And by the way, Christians are not meant to be alone in our suffering.  The Lord’s intention is for the church to provide a safe harbor for those who are suffering, a place where we can go and have our needs met, where we can find comfort, peace and rest for our souls.

I’ll close with one of many warnings the Apostle Paul passed on to the early Church, a warning that the man who has taken on the task of shepherding Saddleback Church’s sheep has failed to take seriously.

Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them. (Ephesians 5:11)

Recommended:
Rick Warren and Dr. Oz on Fame and Fitness—video
Rick Warren Publically Called To Repentance For Statements About Uniting With Catholics—Amy Spreeman
The Low Information Evangelical Part 1  Part 2—By Marsha West

Links:
New Age/New Thought “Spirituality”—On Solid Rock Resources
The Occult—On Solid Rock Resources


Marsha West is a regular columnist for Veracity Voice

She can be reached at: embrigade@aol.com

Wyoming Passes Regulation Freedom Amendment

January 31, 2015 by · Leave a Comment 

“I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our Constitution….. taking from the Federal Government the power of borrowing.” – Thomas Jefferson

Many are unaware that it was action by 2/3 of the states which helped force Congress to propose, and pass, the Bill of Rights. This exercise of power by the states fell into disuse and America moved toward a Federal government which exercised far more power than originally envisioned by our Founders.

Today, when many are looking for ways to curb Federal power the application of what has already worked has a strongl attraction. Advocates say they are moved by the need to restore accountability and balance in Washington.

Today, 2/3 of the states, if they agree on a specific Amendment could force Congress to propose the “Regulation Freedom” Amendment. Which reads, “Whenever one quarter of the Members of the U.S. House or the U.S. Senate transmit to the President their written declaration of opposition to a proposed federal regulation, it shall require a majority vote of the House and Senate to adopt that regulation.”

Passage by the Wyoming House of Representatives of a bipartisan vote, 51-9, was passed to make the will of the people known to Congress. Wyoming was not the first state to pass the measure, which has also been passed in Arizona, as Regulation Freedom Amendment, SCL 1005, sponsored by Sen. Nancy Barto. Other states, including Indiana and Georgia have recently passed similar measures.

Governors of two states and more than 200 state legislators plus the 6 million member American Farm Bureau now support the Regulation Freedom Amendment.

Each of these Resolutions urges Congress to propose the “Regulation Freedom Amendment” to the U.S. Constitution to require that Congress approve major new federal regulations. These Resolutions are steps in the process of passage for the proposed Amendment but also open up the political process to more direct control by the people through their state legislatures.

The movement, which includes Regulation Freedom and the Madison Amendment is the brain child of Roman Buhler, an attorney and formerly counsel for the U. S. House of Representatives, from 1989 to 2003.

Buhler has also proposed the Madison Initiative, which gives States the same power as Congress to propose individuals amendments to the United States Constitution. Many view this as the better avenue for cutting back the growth of Federal power, avoiding a new Constitutional Convention.


Melinda Pillsbury-Foster will soon begin her new weekly radio program on Surviving Meltdown. The program examines how government can be brought into alignment with the spiritual goal of decentralizing power and localizing control and links also to America Goes Home americagoeshome.org, a site dedicated to providing information and resources.

She is also the author of GREED: The NeoConning of America and A Tour of Old Yosemite. The former is a novel about the lives of the NeoCons with a strong autobiographical component. The latter is a non-fiction book about her father and grandfather.

Her blog is at: http://howtheneoconsstolefreedom.blogspot.com/ She is the founder of the Arthur C. Pillsbury Foundation. She is the mother of five children and three grandchildren.

Melinda Pillsbury-Foster is a regular columnist for Veracity Voice

My Problem With Sarah Palin

January 31, 2015 by · 2 Comments 

With Sarah Palin once again hinting at a presidential run, pundits and politics wonks are all the more aflutter with 2016 talk. The predictable slings and arrows of the surly left are coming her way, while her excited fans are firing up the troops. Then there are those who say that while they like the ex-governor, they don’t believe she could win the presidency. My focus, however, is a bit different: I have an objection to Palin — one relating to something of which most are unaware.

Before getting to that, please indulge me as I ask a few questions that establish where we all stand. Are you adamantly pro-life, or might your position change if (as in polling) the question is framed as a woman’s “right to choose”? Do you stand foursquare against amnesty, or could you be persuaded to accept a “path to citizenship” for illegals? Do you uphold the proper and only definition of marriage, or have the unrelenting attacks on tradition worn you down to a point where you might conclude, “Well, none of this affects me, anyway”?

If you’re unwavering on all those issues, as I am, you’re a real Sarah Palin conservative.

Or are you?

You see, I’m pretty sure how Palin would answer those questions — and one answer is a real problem.

On October 26, 2008, Palin had an interview with Jorge Ramos of Spanish-language network Univision. She was asked about amnesty: “So you support a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants?”

Her answer: “I do because I understand why people would want to be in America. To seek the safety and prosperity, the opportunities, the health that is here. It is so important that yes, people follow the rules so that people can be treated equally and fairly in this country.”

Sarah Palin supported amnesty…in so many words.

See if you can put enough lipstick on that pig.

Now, since our country is subject to a somewhat planned invasion that’s changing its face and involves the importation of leftist voters-to-be, I consider any pro-amnesty position a deal-breaker. I’ve been front and center on the issue, so much so that Pat Buchanan saw fit to quote me in his book Death of the West. I even stated “Marco Rubio is dead to me” after he supported the Gang of Eight amnesty group in 2013.  And, believe me, I once had high hopes for the photogenic, articulate Rubio. But my principles aren’t negotiable (especially the one in question here).

Some may now say that Palin had to play ball, as she was running for the White House in 2008 with amnesty poster boy John McCain.

But as they say back home, that dog don’t hunt — certainly not grizzly in Alaska.

Remember that Palin has been billed by supporters as a breath of fresh air, the un-politician, a principled crusader and transformational figure. Her whole stated appeal is based on the notion that she’s not just another politician who goes along to get along.

But on Oct 26, 2008 she gave a quintessential politician-like answer. And on one of the biggest issues of our time.

Yet there’s more than just Palin’s words on immigration. There are also her actions — or perhaps inaction. As Examiner.com’s Victor Medina wrote in 2013 citing Lou Dobb’s reportage, “Palin did not appear to act on the fact that Alaska hosted two ‘sanctuary cities.’” As Dobbs put it, related Medina, “Alaska and Oregon both have state-wide policies that forbid state agencies from using resources to enforce federal immigration law. Apparently, this is by design from the highest levels” (emphasis added).

Now, since I’ve learned the hard way that criticizing Palin alienates some of my usual readers, I’ll state that I bear her no special animus. She’s no different from 1000 other politicians who either don’t understand the true impact of immigration (and a lot of other things) or have principles whose malleability is proportional to the power at stake. But that’s the point.

Palin is no different from 1000 other politicians.

This brings us to her true appeal. And if you’re a fan of hers, please try to take a step back, if you can, and view the matter from an emotional distance.

Question: can you cite for me one novel or unusually insightful thing Palin has ever said?

Just one.

Anyone?

Politics wonk that I am, I can’t think of anything. Don’t misunderstand me, there’s nothing wrong with most of what she does say; it’s conservative boilerplate, and that’s where you generally start. But that again is the point.

Palin says nothing 1000 politicians haven’t said before her.

So I ask, what’s her true appeal, really?

Let’s be honest, if we can’t point to even one thing that makes a much ballyhooed politician substantively different from less touted co-ideologists, the process of elimination tells us where the greater appeal must lie.

Style.

It’s not Palin’s oratory, either. Oh, it’s not bad, but she’s no Reagan or Alan Keyes. The difference is what she is.

No one would be talking about Palin if she weren’t attractive and female.

This is true even if, by chance, John McCain would have been willing to choose a “Scott” Palin to be his running-mate (which he wouldn’t have).

It’s the phenomenon I expounded upon in “Cultural Affirmative Action” and “The New Chivalry”: “when people in the market and media privilege others — sometimes unconsciously — based upon the latter’s identification with a ‘victim group.’”

And most every politically aware person grasps this phenomenon to some degree. The late Geraldine Ferraro addressed Barack Obama’s meteoric political rise in 2008 and said, “If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position.” And Ferraro had noted herself that she wouldn’t have been the 1984 vice-presidential candidate were she not a woman. It’s the same reason, by the way, why Fox News hires a large number of attractive female hosts and pundits. Do you think it’s a coincidence? Is the largely conservative audience so taken with them solely because of their minds?

The fact is that it’s impossible to not benefit from fairer-sex status in politics today; it even elevates your brand among conservatives, though it’s difficult convincing many conservatives they’re thus influenced. With many motivations being unconscious, it’s common for people to not be completely aware of what drives them. How many Americans voted for Obama in 2008 without fully grasping the degree to which electing “the first black president” and wanting to feel unbigoted and open-minded influenced them?

This isn’t to say Palin fans don’t have some legitimate reasons to support her, only that the kind of heroine worship and savior-status attribution evident in some quarters — support vastly in excess of what boilerplate conservatism warrants — is due to a purely emotional reaction stoked by image and hope. Many conservatives, knowing that having a female or minority presidential candidate is advantageous today, want to believe in the Great Female Hope. Moreover, there is this politically correct notion, now seamlessly woven into our culture, of female specialness and superiority. So many today are looking for a woman to save us.

Then there’s simply the matter of conservative female politicians’ relative rarity (even many GOP women officeholders are quite liberal); it’s easier to be seen as a standout when you stand out.

So the perhaps unwelcome message here is this: as with the 2008 Barack Obama, Palin is a cult of personality.

If even now you count yourself a Palinista, realize that I’m not emotionally invested in the matter. After all, I know that political remedies won’t cure what at bottom are cultural problems, anyway. It’s also true that like so many other politicians, Palin demonstrates the ability to evolve. And at least she’s evolved in the right direction: two years ago she called the 2013 Gang-of-Eight Rubio “Judas” in a tweet. I only wonder what she now really thinks, deep down, about the 2008 Palin.


Selwyn Duke is a writer, columnist and public speaker whose work has been published widely online and in print, on both the local and national levels. He has been featured on the Rush Limbaugh Show and has been a regular guest on the award-winning Michael Savage Show. His work has appeared in Pat Buchanan’s magazine The American Conservative and he writes regularly for The New American and Christian Music Perspective.

He can be reached at: SelwynDuke@optonline.net

Selwyn Duke is a regular columnist for Veracity Voice

The Northeast Nanny-Staters Who Are And The Blizzard That Never Was

January 31, 2015 by · Leave a Comment 

Call it the Blizzard of Oz. The “Snowstorm of the Century” Monday was supposed to be historic.

All we got was histrionics.

It turned out that the real blustery wind was hot air — and the worst accumulation was the knee-deep nanny-state politicians who think some snow warrants a travel ban.

In New York, the little man behind the curtain was Governor Andrew Cuomo, who, as usual, provided more bluster than any storm ever could.

I knew the blizzard would be a relative bust. How? Because they often are. Everything is over-hyped today, from the weather to entertainment to sports to hopey-changey politicians.

And we’re getting change alright, the kind effected by, as C.S. Lewis put it, “omnipotent moral busybodies” who “torment us for our own good [and] will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

As to this, a statewide travel ban in Connecticut began at 9 p.m. (ET) Monday, ordered by Governor Dannel Malloy. In my sorry state, the Peoples Republic of Nueva York, Il Duce II (hat tip: the late Bob Grant, who famously christened Andrew Cuomo’s father, Mario, Il Duce) prohibited travel in a trove of counties, including mine, starting at 11 p.m. For snow? Really?

For the record, the total snowfall in Central Park, NYC was 5.5 inches.

And though it was heavier in some other areas, let’s get something straight: in a supposedly free country, you don’t tell people they can’t travel because of some snow.

(Good test run for martial law, though.)

Of course, this position finds plenty of opposition nowadays, conditioned as people are to be protected puppets of the state. But know that heavy snowfalls aren’t unusual. During my childhood in the early and mid-’70s — you know, back when they warned us in elementary school of an impending ice age — we had impressive blizzards.

No one thought of telling free people they couldn’t drive around.

But that was at a time when we actually were something approximating a “free” people.

It’s not as if the commoners — the “folks” as ’BamaCare Barry likes to say — can’t have good reason to have to travel. There could be on-call obstetricians who have to rush to deliveries (I know doctors in this field), or it could be someone having to help an elderly parent. And there could be other reasons, not to mention the tens of millions of dollars ill-conceived travel bans can cost the economy.

We have become a soft people. Kids once might walk great distances to school, men marched a hundred miles to fight bloody battles and, believe it or not, for most of history no one had modern medical care. Now a winter storm means we hunker down as if a Viking raid is nigh.

An even larger issue here is the safety-freak mentality sweeping our secular society and dominating the craniums of callow neo-communists coast to coast. It’s reflected in Michelle Obama’s food-Nazi agenda, the banning of trans-fats and big sodas, child-seat and helmet laws, and the new commandment, “Thou shalt ensconce thy progeny in bubble wrap.”

And, for sure, every other nattering-nabob, nanny-state notion today is “for the children.” People are especially incredulous when I dismiss, as I did above, child-seat and helmet laws. But spare me. Yeah, a five-mph national speed limit would save lives, too, but the real limit we need is on government meddling. I experienced the childhood joys of riding in the back of a station wagon with a bunch of other kids and rode my bike helmet-free. I survived. I know, I know, better safe than sorry, they say. What “they” miss is that you can be safe and sorry.

We’re also supposed to believe our omnipotent moral busybodies care about us — deeply. But I could echo here Rodney Dangerfield’s reaction after a loud exchange with a mentally unhinged professor in the film Back to School. Yeah, our leftist politicians really care.

About what, I have no idea.

Cuomo and the rest of his ilk are so concerned about our well-being they’re going to save us from ourselves.

These are the same people who can’t shriek loudly enough for the killing of intrauterine babies.

But don’t dare increase your child’s risk of death even one iota after he’s born by failing to use a child seat or not providing a bicycle helmet. That’ll be a ticketing. For your own good, we’re going to liberate some cash from your wallet.

That reminds me of what I now call police: revenuers. Yeah, I know there are “good cops.” I hear about them all the time. Oh, don’t get me wrong, I’m fair; I defended in print Ferguson officer Darren Wilson and other impugned police as much as anyone. And I thoroughly admire Sheriff Joe Arpaio and the Oath Keeper crew. But don’t kid yourself: like most people, the average cop is a low-info voter. Just like the Nassau County, NY, police who obediently did their masters’ bidding and stole $100,000-worth of guns and ammo from a citizen — just like the New Orleans jackboots who seized firearms from law-abiding residents just when they really needed them in Hurricane Katrina’s wake — most cops vill follow zee orders vhen zey are handed down. Remember, too, the Department of Injustice has warned that constitutionalists can be a terror threat. And this Spokane officer who explained why his department needed military equipment certainly got the memo.

I would be remiss if I didn’t deepen my little rant by mentioning that all our problems stem from a loss of faith. Just consider our safety-freak mentality. Those who believe in an afterlife may certainly tend to the temple of the soul, but they usually don’t initiate themselves into the Cult of the Body. When people believe this world is all there is, however, they can become maniacally obsessed with staying in this world as long as possible. This phenomenon’s ultimate manifestation is “transhumanism,” the new movement and aspiration to use technology to transcend being human and extend “life” virtually indefinitely. Why, it has even been theorized that we may one day be able to upload our consciousness into a computer. (Of course, this would imply there’s something beyond the brain — namely the mind — which contradicts the dogma of atheistic psychologists who say there is no such thing. Yet if we’re not just the organic robots of secularist dreams, a question presents itself: why not just wait for your consciousness to be uploaded into the hereafter, hopefully Heaven? {The world’s Andrew Cuomos might understandably want to delay that upload as long as possible}. But now I’m getting way too deep for a rant.)

So that explains the popularity of a Dr. Oz. It also explains why we’re living in Oz, with the con man behind the curtain.

Or is our third-millennium location better described as Go Ask Alice, in Wonderland, when she’s 10 feet tall?

Whatever the case, Toto, we’re not in Kansas anymore. And Middle America will continue shrinking until we as a people find a heart, a brain and some courage.


Selwyn Duke is a writer, columnist and public speaker whose work has been published widely online and in print, on both the local and national levels. He has been featured on the Rush Limbaugh Show and has been a regular guest on the award-winning Michael Savage Show. His work has appeared in Pat Buchanan’s magazine The American Conservative and he writes regularly for The New American and Christian Music Perspective.

He can be reached at: SelwynDuke@optonline.net

Selwyn Duke is a regular columnist for Veracity Voice

Corporations Make Out Like Bandits

January 31, 2015 by · Leave a Comment 

What if Koch Industries offered burial insurance as a benefit for temporary employees doing clean up on toxic spills, a common need in the petroleum industry? You might think, well at least they are being given something!

Wait. Let’s consider for a moment what happened to the low level employees who cleaned up the Valdez Spill which took place on Prince William Sound, Alaska, March 24, 1989. According to Susan Shaw, a toxicologist, these cleanup workers have all died. This gave them a life span of 52 years when the average life expectancy in America is 78.

Quite a difference there. That is an average loss of 26 years of life, which is deceptive because people struggle with a range of conditions after being exposed to toxic waste which drains them, and their families as they struggle and die.

How much is a year of your life worth? Shaw estimates 150,000 clean up workers were involved in the BP gulf spill. Due to the huge amounts of Corexit dispersant used together with the close contact they may fare worse than the Valdez workers.

Now, let’s look again at the practice of insuring low level employees, a practice generally referred to as taking out ‘peon insurance.’

Insuring the lives of low level employees by corporations is carried out routinely today. Premiums are paid on the policy. The employee is oblivious. He or she can be fired or quit but corporation keeps paying until the employee dies. Then, a check is cut by the insurance company and sent to the corporation which made the payments.

Many have been outraged that the family of the dead employee did not get a portion of the money paid out. But the real issue is that using insurance policies allows corporation to avoid paying taxes. This is a corporate tax dodge. The corporation borrows the money to pay the premiums. The interest on such money used to pay premiums is tax-deductible. The eventual payout is tax-exempt.

Employees, in most industries, are not harmed or benefited by the action of the corporation. Not true for cleanup workers.

Would the Kochs do this?

In their case the cleanup worker loses 26 years, or more, of life and Koch Industries gets the insurance payout and the tax-exemption on their premiums. If they are feeling generous the Kochs provide a burial.

The question should be are they doing this yet?


Melinda Pillsbury-Foster will soon begin her new weekly radio program on Surviving Meltdown. The program examines how government can be brought into alignment with the spiritual goal of decentralizing power and localizing control and links also to America Goes Home americagoeshome.org, a site dedicated to providing information and resources.

She is also the author of GREED: The NeoConning of America and A Tour of Old Yosemite. The former is a novel about the lives of the NeoCons with a strong autobiographical component. The latter is a non-fiction book about her father and grandfather.

Her blog is at: http://howtheneoconsstolefreedom.blogspot.com/ She is the founder of the Arthur C. Pillsbury Foundation. She is the mother of five children and three grandchildren.

Melinda Pillsbury-Foster is a regular columnist for Veracity Voice

« Previous PageNext Page »

Bottom