This could have easily have been entitled clash of Western and Mohammedan civilizations. I guess that would be politically incorrect to those who practice the death cult. Below is a little history lesson written in August of 2005 by Alain Gresh. It demonstrates how Mohammedans attempted to impose their religion on Europe in the 700's and later in the later 1600's. If either threat had not been thrown back, Americans would be speaking Arabic today and would have no concept of democracy, freedom, liberty and rights. The irony of the 700's is that Charles Martel was probably the barbarian of his age. In the late 1600's the Ottomans were pure evil, more concerned about empire than Mohammedanism, nonetheless that was part of conquering package.
-----------------------------
By Alain Gresh
Le Monde Diplomatique (English Version)
FEW people had heard of Frits Bolkestein until recently. But then, before the referendum on the European Union constitutional treaty, the media began to run scare stories about a mythical Polish plumber poised to come west and undercut honest French workers. Bolkestein, who is the European commissioner for the internal market, is the author of a directive that would allow, for example, a Slovak, working in France for a Slovakian employer, to be paid Slovakian wages. Some supporters of a yes vote presented Bolkestein’s proposal as a gesture of solidarity towards east European workers and dismissed those who opposed it as narrow-minded nationalists. Bolkestein might have been surprised to find himself identified with proletarian internationalism: in the early 1990s he was the first politician in the Netherlands, a country which had been associated with tolerance, to assert that the values of Muslim immigrants were incompatible with those of his country.
Bolkestein, speaking recently about Turkey’s proposed membership of the EU and “migratory pressure”, warned: “If this comes about, the liberation of Vienna in 1683 will have been in vain” (1). He said Europe had stopped “them” at Poitiers, and at the gates of Vienna. Europe would stop them again. To demonstrate the danger, he quoted the historian Bernard Lewis: “Europe will be Islamic by the end of the century” (2).
Bolkestein is not the first, nor the last, politician to emblazon the banner of resistance to the “new barbarians” with Lewis’s academic credentials. Lewis has two faces, like the Roman god Janus. He is a British academic who moved to the United States in 1974. He is a recognised expert on Turkey and has produced many publications on the Muslim world. He is also an intellectual with a long-standing involvement in politics, well-known for his unfaltering support for Israeli policy and for excusing the Turkish military dictatorship. He has been condemned in France for denying the Armenian genocide of 1915-17.
Under the Bush presidency, Lewis has become a valued US adviser. He is close to the neoconservatives, particularly Paul Wolfowitz who in 2002, as deputy defence secretary, paid this tribute at a ceremony held in Lewis’s honour in Tel Aviv: “Bernard Lewis has brilliantly placed the relationships and the issues of the Middle East into their larger context, with truly objective, original, and always independent, thought. Bernard has taught [us] how to understand the complex and important history of the Middle East and use it to guide us where to go next to build a better world for generations” (3). In 2003 Lewis encouraged the US administration to take the next step in Iraq. He prophesied that the invasion would lead to a new dawn, that US troops would be greeted as liberators, and that the Iraqi National Congress under his friend Ahmad Chalabi, a shady exile with no real influence, would rebuild a new Iraq.
Reviews of Lewis’s works in French translation have kept quiet about all this (4). Obviously there is more to his research than a political standpoint, but a single thread runs through it: the idea that the Muslim world is fossilised in fundamental opposition to the West. Lewis coined the expression “clash of civilisations” as long ago as 1957, at a Middle East conference at Johns Hopkins University: “We shall be better able to understand this situation if we view the present discontents of the Middle East not as a conflict between states or nations, but as a clash between civilisations” (5). The Suez war was then barely over and the Middle East was in turmoil. Arab nationalism was spreading like wildfire. Political Islam had been marginalised. But as far as Lewis was concerned, the Arab desire for freedom had nothing to do with politics, but was merely the expression of hostility to western culture.
As subsequent events shook the region, Lewis reacted with indifference and even contempt. Although it was in fact another author, Samuel Huntington, who popularised his clash of civilisations theory, Lewis revisited his argument in an article published in 1990: “The struggle between [Islam and Christianity] has now lasted for some 14 centuries . . . For the first thousand years Islam was advancing, Christendom in retreat and under threat. The new faith conquered the old Christian lands of the Levant and north Africa, and invaded Europe, ruling for a while in Sicily, Spain, Portugal, and even parts of France. The attempt by the Crusaders to recover the lost lands of Christendom in the east was held and thrown back, and even the Muslims’ loss of southwestern Europe to the Reconquista was amply compensated by the Islamic advance into southeastern Europe, which twice reached as far as Vienna. For the past 300 years, since the failure of the second Turkish siege of Vienna in 1683 and the rise of the European colonial empires in Asia and Africa, Islam has been on the defensive, and the Christian and post-Christian civilisation of Europe and her daughters has brought the whole world, including Islam, within its orbit . . . It should by now be clear that we are facing a mood and a movement far transcending the level of issues and policies and the governments that pursue them. This is no less than a clash of civilisations - the perhaps irrational but surely historic reaction of an ancient rival against our Judaeo-Christian heritage, our secular present, and the worldwide expansion of both” (6).
Put simply, they don’t like us, not because of what we do, but because they reject our love of freedom and because they have been on the losing side for 200 years. Why did Nasser nationalise the Suez Canal Company in 1956? Out of Muslim hatred of the West. What caused the fall of the Shah of Iran and the revolution of 1979? Muslim hatred of the West. Why do the Palestinians constantly rise up against the occupation of their lands? Hatred of the West. Iraqi resistance? Hatred of the West. The conflicts in Kosovo and Bosnia? Muslims’ refusal to be ruled by infidels. It’s all obvious. And it explains why they hold democracy in such contempt.
According to Lewis, Islam’s weakness over the past two centuries has forced it to seek allies in its battle against western democracy. Hence its disastrous support for the Axis powers against the Allies during the second world war and for the communists against the US (7). It is curious how other observers failed to notice this alliance between Riyadh and Moscow, or between Islam and communism, during the war in Afghanistan.
Lewis as a historian prefers to indulge in flights of fancy, rather than address concrete facts such as oil, the Palestinian exile and western intervention. “For centuries,” he writes, “the world view and self-view of Muslims seemed well-grounded. Islam represented the greatest military power on earth . . . The Renaissance, the Reformation and the technological revolution passed virtually unnoticed in the lands of Islam, where they were still inclined to dismiss the denizens of the lands beyond the western frontier as benighted barbarians.”
Of the 17th century he says: “While generally contemptuous of the infidel West, Muslims were not unaware of western skills in weaponry and warfare” (8). In fewer than 10 pages, Lewis skims over almost 1,000 years of history, with its rival centres of power, schisms and alliances (some with Christian powers), loftily summing up what “the Muslims” thought, whether they were leaders or ordinary people, nations or classes, Sunni or Shia.
His premise is that they are fundamentally different from us. They don’t even like western music (9). Tourists rushing through the streets of Cairo don’t hear Mozart or Brahms wafting from shops in the souks, but are the cafes of Paris or London any different? Edward Said, who was a great lover of opera and classical music, protested: “Several major Arab capitals have very good conservatories of western music: Cairo, Beirut, Damascus, Tunis, Rabat, Amman, even Ramallah on the West Bank. These have produced thousands of excellent western-style musicians who have staffed the numerous symphony orchestras and opera companies that play to sold-out auditoriums all over the Arab world. There are numerous festivals of western music” (10).
Said wondered why Lewis used western music to condemn Islam. What about the extraordinary richness of the Muslim musical tradition? As Said pointed out elsewhere: “The core of Lewis’s ideology about Islam is that it never changes . . . that any political, historical and scholarly account of Muslims must begin and end with the fact that Muslims are Muslims” (11). It cannot be long before a US scientist discovers an Islamic gene, which will explain why they are so different from the rest of civilised humanity.
English language editorial director: Wendy Kristianasen - all rights reserved © 1997-2006 Le Monde diplomatique.
Monday, January 23, 2006
Sunday, January 22, 2006
The 2005 'spike' list: WND editors, readers expose year's underreported stories
WorldNetDaily developed a list of the most under reported stories by the Main Stream Media. There is an obvious liberal bias against President Bush's goals and this list lays it out in perspective. If the MSM had an iota of patriotism these stories would have been reported on equal level of the stories reported with the intention of harming the President of the United States.
----------------------------------------
© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com
January 18, 2006
The failure of the 9-11 commission to investigate the findings of the "Able Danger" team – which allegedly uncovered Mohamed Atta as an al-Qaida operative prior to the attacks – tops the list of the 10 most "spiked" or underreported stories of the last year, according to an annual WND survey.
Around the close of each year, most news organizations present their retrospective replays of what they consider to have been the top news stories in the previous 12 months.
However, the editors of WorldNetDaily always have found it more newsworthy to publish a compilation of the most important unreported or underreported news events of the year – to highlight perhaps for one last time major news stories that were undeservedly "spiked" by the establishment press.
WND Editor and CEO Joseph Farah has sponsored "Operation Spike" every year since 1988, and since founding WorldNetDaily in May 1997, he has continued the annual tradition.
Here, with our readers' help, are WorldNetDaily editors' picks for the 10 most underreported stories of the past year:
1. Failure of the 9-11 commission to investigate "Able Danger." In November, former FBI chief Louis Freeh rebuked the 9-11 commission for ignoring revelations by "Able Danger," a secret data-mining operation that allegedly named Mohamed Atta as an al-Qaida operative a year before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
The assertions made by the Able Danger team contradict government denials that U.S. agencies had any prior knowledge of Atta or any others eventually associated with the attacks.
According to reports, Able Danger had identified Atta, the lead attacker, and three others as probable members of an al-Qaida cell operating in the U.S. by mid-2000.
Last month, Rep. Curt Weldon, R-Pa., the vice chairman of the House Armed Services and Homeland Security Committees, said he expected Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to green light public hearings before Congress to disclose more information regarding prior knowledge of Islamist cells in the U.S. before 9-11.
The disclosure of the operation and its alleged findings was first made by Weldon in a special orders speech on the House floor and in his new book, "Countdown to Terror."
2. Successes in rebuilding Iraq. The year began with President Bush congratulating Iraqis for defying terrorists and voting in their country's first democratic election in more than 50 years.
But a dispatch by a Marine Corps Reserve commander, Lt. Col. Mark Smith, was emblematic of the frustration expressed by U.S. troops who insisted that contrary to the mainstream media and it's emphasis on terrorist attacks, the U.S. is winning the war.
Last month, Iraq Interior Minister Bayan Jabir said terror attacks in the country decreased by 70 percent and no escapee has been arrested at Syrian borders for two weeks. The decrease is a big success, the minister noted, declaring that by the end of 2006 the Iraqi army could take over security.
In one of many examples of U.S troops helping rebuild Iraqi lives, the Utah Army National Guard's 115th Maintenance Company from Draper, Utah, adopted two elementary schools in poor areas of Iraq to provide for basic needs for the students.
3. Cover-up of David Barrett's probe of Clinton IRS and Henry Cisneros. Republican leaders joined with Democrats to squelch an independent counsel's final report on Clinton-era abuse of the Internal Revenue Service and Justice Department – a document said to include damning evidence against the 42nd president and his administration.
More than 10 years ago, independent counsel David Barrett was charged with investigating former Clinton Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Henry Cisneros in relation to his lying to the FBI about tax fraud he committed trying to cover up payments to a mistress. Though Cisneros pleaded guilty in 1999, Barrett, in the course of his probe, found evidence of wrongdoing within the IRS and Justice Department tied to the Cisneros fraud.
Reportedly, Clinton team members tried to interfere with Barrett's investigation, which has cost $21 million, including conducting surveillance of his office.
Clinton lawyer David Kendall allegedly tried to kill the report by gutting it with redactions. Eventually, Democratic Sen. Byron Dorgan of North Dakota inserted an amendment to block 120 pages of the 400-page report – those listing Clinton administration transgressions – in an appropriations bill that was signed into law in November.
Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, still is trying to force release of the full report.
4. The impact of illegal immigration on the U.S. and its security. At least 51 people from countries such as Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Egypt, Syria and Pakistan who crossed the border illegally have been arrested on suspicion of terrorism since such tracking began in October 2004, according to Department of Homeland Security figures.
In November, defending President Bush's "guest worker" program for illegal aliens, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said it's not practical to deport the millions of foreigners who are in the country illegally, because the cost of identifying them and sending them back would be "billions and billions of dollars."
In October, Chertoff promised to end the federal government's "catch and release" policy, but an activist group that wants to build a high-tech barrier to secure the southern border called the move "too little, too late," arguing the crackdown will only solve 25 percent of the problem. For every "Other than Mexican" illegal alien apprehended by border agents, experts estimate another three enter the country undetected.
In June, it was reported that of the 800,000 illegal aliens caught trying to sneak across the U.S.-Mexico border since October, more than 10 percent are from countries other than Mexico, posing serious national security issues.
Sen. John Kyl, R-Ariz., said the U.S. "has intelligence that tells us that al-Qaida specifically desires to bring people across our border."
According to new Border Patrol numbers, a record 98,000 "other than Mexicans" had been apprehended in the previous eight months, an increase of 175 percent from the same time in 2004.
In May, the president of a labor organization representing Border Patrol employees and a Texas congressman criticized a House Homeland Security bill for failing to fund construction of new detention facilities to hold illegal border-crossers from countries other than Mexico, resulting in their automatic release pending a later hearing date.
In April, an analysis of the latest census data by the Federation for American Immigration Reform showed Texas' illegal immigrant population cost the state's taxpayers more than $4.7 billion per year for education, medical care and incarceration.
In March, the volunteer citizen group Minuteman Project began helping U.S. officials capture illegal aliens. President Bush referred to the group members as vigilantes, and the American Civil Liberties Union said it would monitor the activities of the volunteers.
A report in the spring issue of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons said the increasing number of illegal aliens is forcing the closure of hospitals, spreading previously vanquished diseases and threatening to destroy America's health-care system.
According to the study, 84 California hospitals were closing their doors as a direct result of the rising number of illegal aliens and their non-reimbursed tax on the system. While politicians often mention there are more than 40 million without health insurance in this country, the report estimated that at least 25 percent are illegal immigrants. The figure could be as high as 50 percent.
In January, an analysis of census data indicated that the presence of illegal aliens in California cost the state's taxpayers more than $10.5 billion per year for education, medical care and incarceration.
A business analyst who studied the impact of the nation's underground economy said there could be 20 million illegal aliens in the U.S. today. Robert Justich, a senior managing director at Bear Stearns Asset Management in New York, said the underground economy of illegal aliens working in the U.S. is costing the federal government hundreds of billions of dollars in unpaid income taxes and could lead to a higher impact on taxpayers if President Bush's amnesty proposal is passed into law.
5.The truth about Terri Schiavo and her death. Major media organizations painted the pitched battle over the life of Terri Schiavo as a clear-cut debate between pro-life and right-to-die advocates, bankrolled by big money activist organizations on both sides. But the case of the 41-year-old brain-injured Florida woman was anything but clear cut.
Among the doubts was whether the removal of her feeding tube on March 18, which amounted to slow death by dehydration and starvation, reflected her wishes and whether she was in a "persistent vegetative state" as claimed by her husband.
Disputing the findings of the county medical examiner, a neurosurgeon who examined Schiavo before her death says the autopsy report confirms she was aware of what was going on around her.
Dr. William Hammesfahr, known as a pioneer in approaches to helping the brain injured, said to ignore the facts would "allow future Terri Schiavos to die needlessly."
"The record must be set straight," he said. "As we noted in the press, there was no heart attack, or evident reason for this to have happened (and certainly not of Terri's making). Unlike the constant drumbeat from the husband, his attorneys, and his doctors, the brain tissue was not dissolved, with a head of just spinal fluid. In fact, large areas were 'relatively preserved.'"
6. Sandy Berger's slap on the wrist for stealing classified documents. In September, President Clinton's former national security adviser, Sandy Berger, avoided prison time and paid a fine of just $50,000 for stealing classified documents from the National Archives.
The criminal investigation of Berger – accused of pocketing highly classified terrorism documents prior to the Sept. 11 Commission hearings – virtually disappeared from the media after it first was reported in July 2004.
The after-action review of the millennium celebration taken by Berger conflicts with his testimony before the 9-11 commission, prompting some Republicans to charge he stole the documents to protect the Clinton administration.
7. The fact that WMDs were found in Iraq. While members of the U.S. Senate are suggesting once again that no weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq, Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin reviewed the major discoveries, including more than 1.7 tons of enriched uranium.
A former intelligence analyst currently working as a civilian contractor recently said he will unveil publicly next month what he believes to be recordings of Saddam Hussein's office meetings discussing his program of developing weapons of mass destruction.
The highly confidential audio was overlooked when it was found in a warehouse along with many other untranslated Iraqi intelligence files, according to the contractor.
A 2004 report asserted key claims by the intelligence community widely judged in the media and by critics of President Bush as having been false turned out to have been true after all, but the news received little attention from the major media. In virtually every case – chemical, biological, nuclear and ballistic missiles – the United States has found the weapons and the programs that the Iraqi dictator successfully concealed for 12 years from U.N. weapons inspectors.
Charles Duelfer, an adviser to the CIA, did not rule out Saddam's transfer of Iraqi missiles and weapons of mass destruction to Syria. Duelfer agreed that a large amount of material had been transferred by Iraq to Syria before the war begin in March 2003.
8. Atrocities of radical Islam. Along with the front-page news of attacks in Western nations, radical Muslims continue to wage organized jihad worldwide in places such as Israel, Sudan, Indonesia, Nigeria, Chechnya and the Philippines as well as carry out frequent attacks on non-Muslims in Pakistan, Bangladesh and other countries.
In December, for example, militant Islamists in Pakistan called for the elimination of Christians and the public hanging of a Christian accused of blasphemy.
Three weeks earlier, three churches, a school, a convent and Christian homes were attacked in Pakistan's worst outbreak of anti-Christian violence since 2002. Islamic leaders reportedly used loudspeakers urging Muslims to rise up and eliminate Christians.
In October, fearing a repeat of the recent riots against the Coptic Church in Alexandria, Egypt, which left four dead, more than 80 wounded and seven churches defaced, leaders of the Coptic church in the United States called on the U.S. government and the United Nations to take immediate action to stop the bloodshed and destruction of churches.
In the U.S., a fatwa, or religious ruling, issued by American Islamic leaders against "terrorism and extremism" was judged as "bogus" by a leading analyst. Organizers included the Fiqh Council of North America. But in a 1995 speech, the head of the Fiqh Council, Muzamil Siddiqi, praised suicide bombers, saying, "Those who die on the part of justice are alive, and their place is with the Lord, and they receive the highest position, because this is the highest honor." The decree also failed to condemn the radical ideology that has spawned Islamic terrorism and did not renounce or acknowledge the existence of an Islamic jihadist culture that has permeated mosques and young Muslims around the world. It also did not condemn by name any Islamic group or leader."
At the United Nations, representatives of Islamic countries blocked an attempt to have the world body condemn killing in the name of religion. The Muslim members said they saw it as an attack on Islam. The text referred to decisions by high-ranking Muslim clerics to confirm that those who carry out suicide bombings remain Muslims and cannot be treated as apostates.
In June, sources in Pakistan reported a radical Muslim mob attacked Christian homes in three areas near Peshawar, Pakistan.
In March, four armed, Muslim assailants opened fire on Christian worshippers during an Easter service in a Pakistani village, killing one and injuring six others.
9. Islam's impact on French riots. The mainstream media downplayed the Islamic connection to unrest in France that began Oct. 27 with thousands of mostly French Muslims in impoverished Paris suburbs engaging in violent clashes with police as they torched cars and buildings. After 20 nights, officials gave a count of 8,973 vehicles burned, 2,888 arrests and 126 officers injured.
Analysts pointed to many factors behind the riots – including poverty, France's immigration and integration policies and French attitudes toward minorities. But some, including frequent Fox News contributor Daniel Pipes, saw a connection to the Islamist goal of gaining a foothold in Europe in its global jihad.
However, even Fox News was accused of altering its coverage to accommodate politically correct thinking. A Saudi prince who owns shares of the network claimed he persuaded Fox News chief Rupert Murdoch to change a screen banner during a broadcast that identified the unrest as "Muslim riots."
10. Good news about the economy. In the wake of the 2000-02 stock market plunge, the 9-11 terrorist attacks and skyrocketing energy prices, the economy has rebounded in a non-inflationary "Bush boom," fueled, many economists agree, by tax cuts.
The U.S. Labor Department reported the unemployment rate stood at 4.9 percent for December and the economy added about 2 million jobs in 2005, roughly the same as the previous year. The number of workers filing new claims for unemployment aid recently plunged to the lowest level in more than five years.
Meanwhile, the nation's industrial output rose by 0.6 percent last month following gains of 0.8 percent in November and 1 percent in October amid recovery in production of Gulf Coast oil.
The U.S. budget surplus was $10.98 billion in December – double the expected amount – despite record outlays, as gross corporate tax receipts reached a new high.
On Wall Street, the Dow closed in on 11,000 as the year ended and later surpassed the mark for the first time since June 2001.
----------------------------------------
© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com
January 18, 2006
The failure of the 9-11 commission to investigate the findings of the "Able Danger" team – which allegedly uncovered Mohamed Atta as an al-Qaida operative prior to the attacks – tops the list of the 10 most "spiked" or underreported stories of the last year, according to an annual WND survey.
Around the close of each year, most news organizations present their retrospective replays of what they consider to have been the top news stories in the previous 12 months.
However, the editors of WorldNetDaily always have found it more newsworthy to publish a compilation of the most important unreported or underreported news events of the year – to highlight perhaps for one last time major news stories that were undeservedly "spiked" by the establishment press.
WND Editor and CEO Joseph Farah has sponsored "Operation Spike" every year since 1988, and since founding WorldNetDaily in May 1997, he has continued the annual tradition.
Here, with our readers' help, are WorldNetDaily editors' picks for the 10 most underreported stories of the past year:
1. Failure of the 9-11 commission to investigate "Able Danger." In November, former FBI chief Louis Freeh rebuked the 9-11 commission for ignoring revelations by "Able Danger," a secret data-mining operation that allegedly named Mohamed Atta as an al-Qaida operative a year before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
The assertions made by the Able Danger team contradict government denials that U.S. agencies had any prior knowledge of Atta or any others eventually associated with the attacks.
According to reports, Able Danger had identified Atta, the lead attacker, and three others as probable members of an al-Qaida cell operating in the U.S. by mid-2000.
Last month, Rep. Curt Weldon, R-Pa., the vice chairman of the House Armed Services and Homeland Security Committees, said he expected Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to green light public hearings before Congress to disclose more information regarding prior knowledge of Islamist cells in the U.S. before 9-11.
The disclosure of the operation and its alleged findings was first made by Weldon in a special orders speech on the House floor and in his new book, "Countdown to Terror."
2. Successes in rebuilding Iraq. The year began with President Bush congratulating Iraqis for defying terrorists and voting in their country's first democratic election in more than 50 years.
But a dispatch by a Marine Corps Reserve commander, Lt. Col. Mark Smith, was emblematic of the frustration expressed by U.S. troops who insisted that contrary to the mainstream media and it's emphasis on terrorist attacks, the U.S. is winning the war.
Last month, Iraq Interior Minister Bayan Jabir said terror attacks in the country decreased by 70 percent and no escapee has been arrested at Syrian borders for two weeks. The decrease is a big success, the minister noted, declaring that by the end of 2006 the Iraqi army could take over security.
In one of many examples of U.S troops helping rebuild Iraqi lives, the Utah Army National Guard's 115th Maintenance Company from Draper, Utah, adopted two elementary schools in poor areas of Iraq to provide for basic needs for the students.
3. Cover-up of David Barrett's probe of Clinton IRS and Henry Cisneros. Republican leaders joined with Democrats to squelch an independent counsel's final report on Clinton-era abuse of the Internal Revenue Service and Justice Department – a document said to include damning evidence against the 42nd president and his administration.
More than 10 years ago, independent counsel David Barrett was charged with investigating former Clinton Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Henry Cisneros in relation to his lying to the FBI about tax fraud he committed trying to cover up payments to a mistress. Though Cisneros pleaded guilty in 1999, Barrett, in the course of his probe, found evidence of wrongdoing within the IRS and Justice Department tied to the Cisneros fraud.
Reportedly, Clinton team members tried to interfere with Barrett's investigation, which has cost $21 million, including conducting surveillance of his office.
Clinton lawyer David Kendall allegedly tried to kill the report by gutting it with redactions. Eventually, Democratic Sen. Byron Dorgan of North Dakota inserted an amendment to block 120 pages of the 400-page report – those listing Clinton administration transgressions – in an appropriations bill that was signed into law in November.
Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, still is trying to force release of the full report.
4. The impact of illegal immigration on the U.S. and its security. At least 51 people from countries such as Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Egypt, Syria and Pakistan who crossed the border illegally have been arrested on suspicion of terrorism since such tracking began in October 2004, according to Department of Homeland Security figures.
In November, defending President Bush's "guest worker" program for illegal aliens, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said it's not practical to deport the millions of foreigners who are in the country illegally, because the cost of identifying them and sending them back would be "billions and billions of dollars."
In October, Chertoff promised to end the federal government's "catch and release" policy, but an activist group that wants to build a high-tech barrier to secure the southern border called the move "too little, too late," arguing the crackdown will only solve 25 percent of the problem. For every "Other than Mexican" illegal alien apprehended by border agents, experts estimate another three enter the country undetected.
In June, it was reported that of the 800,000 illegal aliens caught trying to sneak across the U.S.-Mexico border since October, more than 10 percent are from countries other than Mexico, posing serious national security issues.
Sen. John Kyl, R-Ariz., said the U.S. "has intelligence that tells us that al-Qaida specifically desires to bring people across our border."
According to new Border Patrol numbers, a record 98,000 "other than Mexicans" had been apprehended in the previous eight months, an increase of 175 percent from the same time in 2004.
In May, the president of a labor organization representing Border Patrol employees and a Texas congressman criticized a House Homeland Security bill for failing to fund construction of new detention facilities to hold illegal border-crossers from countries other than Mexico, resulting in their automatic release pending a later hearing date.
In April, an analysis of the latest census data by the Federation for American Immigration Reform showed Texas' illegal immigrant population cost the state's taxpayers more than $4.7 billion per year for education, medical care and incarceration.
In March, the volunteer citizen group Minuteman Project began helping U.S. officials capture illegal aliens. President Bush referred to the group members as vigilantes, and the American Civil Liberties Union said it would monitor the activities of the volunteers.
A report in the spring issue of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons said the increasing number of illegal aliens is forcing the closure of hospitals, spreading previously vanquished diseases and threatening to destroy America's health-care system.
According to the study, 84 California hospitals were closing their doors as a direct result of the rising number of illegal aliens and their non-reimbursed tax on the system. While politicians often mention there are more than 40 million without health insurance in this country, the report estimated that at least 25 percent are illegal immigrants. The figure could be as high as 50 percent.
In January, an analysis of census data indicated that the presence of illegal aliens in California cost the state's taxpayers more than $10.5 billion per year for education, medical care and incarceration.
A business analyst who studied the impact of the nation's underground economy said there could be 20 million illegal aliens in the U.S. today. Robert Justich, a senior managing director at Bear Stearns Asset Management in New York, said the underground economy of illegal aliens working in the U.S. is costing the federal government hundreds of billions of dollars in unpaid income taxes and could lead to a higher impact on taxpayers if President Bush's amnesty proposal is passed into law.
5.The truth about Terri Schiavo and her death. Major media organizations painted the pitched battle over the life of Terri Schiavo as a clear-cut debate between pro-life and right-to-die advocates, bankrolled by big money activist organizations on both sides. But the case of the 41-year-old brain-injured Florida woman was anything but clear cut.
Among the doubts was whether the removal of her feeding tube on March 18, which amounted to slow death by dehydration and starvation, reflected her wishes and whether she was in a "persistent vegetative state" as claimed by her husband.
Disputing the findings of the county medical examiner, a neurosurgeon who examined Schiavo before her death says the autopsy report confirms she was aware of what was going on around her.
Dr. William Hammesfahr, known as a pioneer in approaches to helping the brain injured, said to ignore the facts would "allow future Terri Schiavos to die needlessly."
"The record must be set straight," he said. "As we noted in the press, there was no heart attack, or evident reason for this to have happened (and certainly not of Terri's making). Unlike the constant drumbeat from the husband, his attorneys, and his doctors, the brain tissue was not dissolved, with a head of just spinal fluid. In fact, large areas were 'relatively preserved.'"
6. Sandy Berger's slap on the wrist for stealing classified documents. In September, President Clinton's former national security adviser, Sandy Berger, avoided prison time and paid a fine of just $50,000 for stealing classified documents from the National Archives.
The criminal investigation of Berger – accused of pocketing highly classified terrorism documents prior to the Sept. 11 Commission hearings – virtually disappeared from the media after it first was reported in July 2004.
The after-action review of the millennium celebration taken by Berger conflicts with his testimony before the 9-11 commission, prompting some Republicans to charge he stole the documents to protect the Clinton administration.
7. The fact that WMDs were found in Iraq. While members of the U.S. Senate are suggesting once again that no weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq, Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin reviewed the major discoveries, including more than 1.7 tons of enriched uranium.
A former intelligence analyst currently working as a civilian contractor recently said he will unveil publicly next month what he believes to be recordings of Saddam Hussein's office meetings discussing his program of developing weapons of mass destruction.
The highly confidential audio was overlooked when it was found in a warehouse along with many other untranslated Iraqi intelligence files, according to the contractor.
A 2004 report asserted key claims by the intelligence community widely judged in the media and by critics of President Bush as having been false turned out to have been true after all, but the news received little attention from the major media. In virtually every case – chemical, biological, nuclear and ballistic missiles – the United States has found the weapons and the programs that the Iraqi dictator successfully concealed for 12 years from U.N. weapons inspectors.
Charles Duelfer, an adviser to the CIA, did not rule out Saddam's transfer of Iraqi missiles and weapons of mass destruction to Syria. Duelfer agreed that a large amount of material had been transferred by Iraq to Syria before the war begin in March 2003.
8. Atrocities of radical Islam. Along with the front-page news of attacks in Western nations, radical Muslims continue to wage organized jihad worldwide in places such as Israel, Sudan, Indonesia, Nigeria, Chechnya and the Philippines as well as carry out frequent attacks on non-Muslims in Pakistan, Bangladesh and other countries.
In December, for example, militant Islamists in Pakistan called for the elimination of Christians and the public hanging of a Christian accused of blasphemy.
Three weeks earlier, three churches, a school, a convent and Christian homes were attacked in Pakistan's worst outbreak of anti-Christian violence since 2002. Islamic leaders reportedly used loudspeakers urging Muslims to rise up and eliminate Christians.
In October, fearing a repeat of the recent riots against the Coptic Church in Alexandria, Egypt, which left four dead, more than 80 wounded and seven churches defaced, leaders of the Coptic church in the United States called on the U.S. government and the United Nations to take immediate action to stop the bloodshed and destruction of churches.
In the U.S., a fatwa, or religious ruling, issued by American Islamic leaders against "terrorism and extremism" was judged as "bogus" by a leading analyst. Organizers included the Fiqh Council of North America. But in a 1995 speech, the head of the Fiqh Council, Muzamil Siddiqi, praised suicide bombers, saying, "Those who die on the part of justice are alive, and their place is with the Lord, and they receive the highest position, because this is the highest honor." The decree also failed to condemn the radical ideology that has spawned Islamic terrorism and did not renounce or acknowledge the existence of an Islamic jihadist culture that has permeated mosques and young Muslims around the world. It also did not condemn by name any Islamic group or leader."
At the United Nations, representatives of Islamic countries blocked an attempt to have the world body condemn killing in the name of religion. The Muslim members said they saw it as an attack on Islam. The text referred to decisions by high-ranking Muslim clerics to confirm that those who carry out suicide bombings remain Muslims and cannot be treated as apostates.
In June, sources in Pakistan reported a radical Muslim mob attacked Christian homes in three areas near Peshawar, Pakistan.
In March, four armed, Muslim assailants opened fire on Christian worshippers during an Easter service in a Pakistani village, killing one and injuring six others.
9. Islam's impact on French riots. The mainstream media downplayed the Islamic connection to unrest in France that began Oct. 27 with thousands of mostly French Muslims in impoverished Paris suburbs engaging in violent clashes with police as they torched cars and buildings. After 20 nights, officials gave a count of 8,973 vehicles burned, 2,888 arrests and 126 officers injured.
Analysts pointed to many factors behind the riots – including poverty, France's immigration and integration policies and French attitudes toward minorities. But some, including frequent Fox News contributor Daniel Pipes, saw a connection to the Islamist goal of gaining a foothold in Europe in its global jihad.
However, even Fox News was accused of altering its coverage to accommodate politically correct thinking. A Saudi prince who owns shares of the network claimed he persuaded Fox News chief Rupert Murdoch to change a screen banner during a broadcast that identified the unrest as "Muslim riots."
10. Good news about the economy. In the wake of the 2000-02 stock market plunge, the 9-11 terrorist attacks and skyrocketing energy prices, the economy has rebounded in a non-inflationary "Bush boom," fueled, many economists agree, by tax cuts.
The U.S. Labor Department reported the unemployment rate stood at 4.9 percent for December and the economy added about 2 million jobs in 2005, roughly the same as the previous year. The number of workers filing new claims for unemployment aid recently plunged to the lowest level in more than five years.
Meanwhile, the nation's industrial output rose by 0.6 percent last month following gains of 0.8 percent in November and 1 percent in October amid recovery in production of Gulf Coast oil.
The U.S. budget surplus was $10.98 billion in December – double the expected amount – despite record outlays, as gross corporate tax receipts reached a new high.
On Wall Street, the Dow closed in on 11,000 as the year ended and later surpassed the mark for the first time since June 2001.
Saturday, January 21, 2006
The Most Dangerous Double Standard in the Middle East
Impressive and well written stuff, nonetheless you and both know that Iran and Syria are unhinged rogue states. For some I sense the world feels safer with Israeli nukes than Islamofascist Iran and possibly Syria (since they are buddying up) having nukes. Mohammedan nations have been rattling sabers at Israel ever since it became a nation in 1948. And we are talking about a sliver of land that poses no threat to Mohammedan lands. All they have to do is show a little largesse and allow the Jews to live in the land of their biblical roots. However Mohammedans are so selfish and militantly against allowing Jews to own and govern their own land that they wish to exterminate them. Look at a map. The amount of land that Israel controls is microscopic compared to the hostile Mohammedans that surround them.
Out of my largesse I am going to publish your email along with my response.
----------------------------------------------
Palestine Chronicle Website Story
The Most Dangerous Double Standard in the Middle East: Ambiguous Nuclear Weapons
Summary: At present, there is only one country in the Middle East with "secret" and ambiguous stockpiles of nuclear weapons.
Over the last 50 years, Israel has been directly and indirectly aided and funded in its development of weapons of mass destruction by the United States, France, Norway, Britain and Germany. These powerful nations have neither been forthright nor accountable in their roles in giving one small country in the Middle East enough clout to wipe out most of their neighbors via nuclear holocaust. Such a stance is not only controversial and hypocritical to non proliferation, it is intrinsically detrimental to all other diplomacy and hope(s) concerning peace in the future of the Middle East.
Iran's rather defiant and overt intentions re: producing and maintaining nuclear energy, calls for a closer scrutiny and study of defiant nuclear ambitions in the Middle East. Israel's long standing ambiguity about its nuclear weapons, gives Iran and the world, pause and speculation as to why some governments, especially the US government and including some EU governments, chose to either subvert emphasis on non proliferation, or simply did not have the adequate intelligence to discern what historians and journalists are now only beginning to piece together as history, concerning Israel's illegal acquisitions of heavy water and uranium.
Either ponderance brings with it a profound sense of unease and mistrust of any governments or political leaders who also remain silent about past, present and future Zionist "Manifest Destiny" that makes excuse(s) for ethnic cleansing and massive group punishments of a people suffering decades of brutal Occupation; a people still having land stolen from them.
Further more, to object to Iran's nuclear future without pressuring and bringing Israel into open and honest negotiation about its arsenal including forthright inspections, seems either absurd or outrageously insulting not only to the Arab world but to the world in general.
The United States and most of Europe, now rumbling and grumbling and on edge over Iran still avoids even discussion let alone confrontation over Israel's proliferation, and thus presents this rather poor standard for diplomacy. A foreign policy that favors and entitles one country with rogue weapons while condemning another, perpetuates an uneasy clime and double standard wherein peaceful negotiation is doomed before it ever begins.
Israeli journalist, Michael Karpin, recently published a book version of "The Bomb in the Basement: How Israel Went Nuclear and What That Means For the World" and provides readers with an interesting history of scientists, politicians and spies. Mr Karpin determines and explores the influences and raison d'etre of Israel's nuclear weapons and the secrecy about them. He writes of the Holocaust and Israel's size and demographic compared to surrounding sizable neighbors.Karpin's book follows in the wake of his earlier (2001) documentary on the same subject, and provides us with the history ,without philosophical, moral or religious agendas. Perhaps it has always been the philosophical and morality that has been lost all these years in ambiguity.
Mr Karpin has carefully, although selectively, researched a history made intricate and complicated in alliances with purpose to buy and sell arms. France, Germany, USA, Norway and Britain all played major roles in supplying the state of Israel with the major "ingredients" for nuclear weapons. Mr Karpin details the influence Israel exerted upon EU countries and the sequence of US administration(s) and public opinion.
In 1960, US military satellites determined that the reactor in Dimona might NOT be in existence for "peaceful" purpose, while the New York Times reported (Dec 19) what the CIA already knew.... that " officials are studying with mounting concern recent evidence indicating that Israel, with the assistance of France , may be developing the capacity to produce nuclear weapons" . The article further implied that Israel had been deceiving the United States in its nuclear ambitions. These realizations and sentiments did not deter Israel from achieving its goal via any and often nefarious means.
Norway had willingly provided Israel with enough heavy water to build hundreds of bombs, but only under agreement of inspections. This agreement was rather dormant until 1986 and the kidnapping , secret trial , testament and punishment of Israel's nuclear whistle blower, Mordechai Vanunu. Only then did Norway fully realize the real price of selling "heavy water" to the state of Israel.
Recently two British lawmakers have accused their government of a cover-up in trying to conceal the secret sale of heavy water to Israel in 1959. Although Britain maintains the deal and sale was only between Norway and Britain, admission comes now regarding prior knowledge of where that heavy water would find its final "home". A BBC report further claims that Brits took the water out of its own stockpile and loaded it on board Israeli ships. Documents also show that Britain was well aware of Israel seeking to buy uranium from South Africa.
Throughout the years, historians and investigative journalists have sought to clarify all of the murkier more ambiguous details that have never been addressed. The cover story for SPIEGAL May 2004, "Black Market of Horror" was recently translated by Victor Diodon and presents us with further details about the well known Mossad commando, Rafi Eitan, who was not only responsible for the abduction of Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann but whose next greatest purpose was to acquire fissionable materials for the atomic weapons program Israel wished to have.
Also detailed is a company from Apollo, Pennsylvania , Nuclear Materials and Equipment Corp (NUMEC), owned and run by the son of an orthodox rabbi and ardent Zionist who strangely lost track of a certain amount of enriched uranium that was stored at the plant for legitimate US government contracts. Rafi Eitan, master mind in spying and stealing technological secrets, paid NUMEC a visit. More than 100 kilos of uranium disappeared and owner, Zalman Shapiro , did not report the loss. He feigned ignorance and ignorance and there was only enough evidence for the United States Atomic Energy Commission to shut the plant down and could not convict him.
In Brussels, according to the same Spiegal cover staory, Eitan takes similar action, only this time with forged papers and the cooperation of a German businessman. Somewhere close to Cyprus a ship carrying a load of uranium disappears, but not before the "goods" were loaded onto an Israeli ship headed for Haifa. Later German businessman, , Herbert Schulzen declares himself an unknowing intermediary for a client he did not know.
In 1982, the most eager of all Israelis to have the "bomb in the basement" was Eitan's friend and then Minister of Defense, Ariel Sharon, who was allegedly prepared on more than one occasion to directly attack Syria and the man responsibile for orchestrated the 1982 massacre of hundreds of thousands civilian Lebanese and Palestinian refugees. Mr. Sharon, dubbed "The Butcher of Beirut" will not likely survive well enough to be tried as a war criminal. Eitan and Sharon, in 1985 would use and abuse and then later distance themselves from American spy for Israel, Jonathan Pollard . Before they snubbed him, however, they received much in the way of technological "high security" secrets.
Iran,filled with mistrust, hate and hateful paranoia towards Israel and the West , seems to have as much practical reasons for acquiring a nuclear reactor under the guise of "energy" as Israel did. Given its turbulent history, and the fact that two of its closest neighbors are now occupied by the West, it seems quite reasonable for Iran to desire the same protection as Israel "secretly" has.
Nuclear Weapons come in all shapes and sizes and the Dolphin class submarines. that complete Israel's fleet and can carry missiles, in 1989 , the very same Mossad commando set out to find a shipyard able and willing to build submarines for Israel. In 1998, Yossi Melman wrote an aptly named article published in Haaretz called "Swimming With the Dolphins: Israel's New Dolphin Submarines, Built in Germany, Will Add a New Dimension to the Nuclear Arms Race in the Middle East". In this article he describes how George the Father HW Bush agreed to allow US funding to pay for Israel's submarines to be built in German shipyards but that the plan for new Dolphin submarines was not realized until the beginning of the Gulf War.
The same German government that allowed German companies to sell materials to Iraq for "unconventional" chemical weapons now approved the funding and the construction of submarines for Israel with potential to be used with nuclear war heads in a "second strike" position. In other words, if the reactor at Dimona was suddenly attacked and wiped out..there is now in place the ways and means to provide immediate second strike in retaliation.
On June 15, 2002, the Washington Post disclosed ,
"Israel has acquired three diesel submarines that it is armimg with newly designed cruise missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads, according to former Pentagon and State Department officials, potentially giving Israel a triad of land-, sea- and air-based nuclear weapons for the first time"
and that the US had monitored Israel's testing of a cruise missile off of Sri Lanka in the Indian Ocean. How many other nuclear testings have taken place and in retrospect , one must consider the potential damage to humanity and environment , that such "untold" tests produce. What seismological causes and effects do nuclear missiles and and their carrier submarines produce in the surrounding areas? especially since it stands to reason most "secret" tests would take place closest to nations who do not have the technology to monitor such activities. What is US reaction when countries that they "suspect" have nuclear weapons, test their arms?
During these last two White House terms, the American public has been recklessly thrust into a seemingly endless occupation inspiring what was not there before (suicide bombers) with mounting death tolls to military and civilian population. Bush's War, based upon faulty intelligence leaks and motivation for reconstruction via war contracts , leads us closer to disaster at a time when only the finest form of diplomacy and leadership is required. The corrupt level of intelligence leaks and spying can only make one look more carefully at the newsbreaking story that leaked to the L.A. Times October 12, 2003 concerning Israel's acquistion of Dolphin submarines from Germany.
This story was posted in alternative news media but got little mention mainstream media. In retropect, considering the anonymous sources who are desribed as Bush administration officials, one must also consider such a "leak" to possibly have been a planned manipulation.
Who were those Bush administration officials? And how did they take it upon themselves to warn Israel's enemies or was it a commanded maneuver ?
"Two Bush administration officials described the missile modification and an Israeli official confirmed it. All three spoke on condition their names not be used
The Americans said they were disclosing the information to caution Israel's enemies at a time of heightened tensions in the region and concern over Iran's alleged ambitions."
Did the map that MSNBC aired on telivision in April 2003 come from such an official source as well? Who are these Bush administration "official" peddlars of secrets?
Suddenly ! mid submarine and negotiation, Germany decided to halt delivery, supposedly in lieu of the building arms race that now included Iran. But if there was ever such a peace worthy motivation, why in December of 2004 does Israel hope to celebrate 40 years of diplomatic ties with Germany by acquiring two more Dolphin submarines? And by February 2005, the world learns of "German Gifting of Nuclear Submarines to Israel: NPT Delinquency".
Present foreign policy facades about arms control and non proliferation will simply NOT work. The diplomatic situation grows worse. Neither bluffing nor bragging will convince Iran to reconcile with all its neighbors and the West in general.
At a time when the world requires more focus on climate and environment, famine and disease, spending money on weapons systems to up the ante around and around again seems a futile spiral. The "second strike" suggestion and tactic set in motion by "anonymous" Bush and Israeli officials re: submarines with nuclear missile capacity, has had an opposite effect in terms of Iran's reaction to being bullied over nuclear reactors without the example(s) of Israel's honest commitment to peace. And now Russia has also decided to make a motion by selling arms to Iran.
For more than fifty years Israel has been directly and illegitimately funded and aided in its nuclear weapons production by France, the United States, Britain, Germany and Norway yet maintaining "ambiguity"
During that time, Israel has also refused to sign or negotiate any commitment against the use of biological weapons, such as the 1972 Biological Weapons Conventions. Thus another ambiguous stance when peace requires making more clear the moral conscience and commitment towards peace and non violence.
In spite of the war mongers and in spite of very little exposure, represntatives and citizens from all around the world are continually working towards peaceful resolution and non proliferation. Here in the US, we are barely noticed ...thousands marching in the streets of NYC against nuclear proliferation and very small awareness, locally and regionally. US Mayors for Peace marched, amid mayors from all over the world including many fromJapan.....while my Mayor avoided the issues.
Recently an Israeli peace group sent the enclosed The Parliamentary Network for Nuclear Disarmament letter to me. Such Israelis exists, just as such Muslims exist, just as I exist...
You are also urged to send a similar message to your governments,urging no military action and especially no use of nuclear weaponsover Iran, and a nuclear - free middle - east.To sign please reply stating your position, name of yourorganisation/party, and location including country, tohttps://www.mailshell.com/mail/client/compose.html?index=15657&actionID=33&to=foesyd4@ihug.com.auThe Parliamentarians and Civil Society Appeal on Iran and NuclearWeapons, now endorsed by Abolition2000 and Mayors for Peace, isavailable on the following urls:In french:Tu le trouveras sur le site d'ACDN : http://www.acdn.net/ en français et enanglais.PNND website at the following url:http://www.gsinstitute.org/pnnd/ParliamentariansIranNukes.htmIt is also on the GANA website of Ak Malten at:http://www.cornnet.nl/~akmalten/Iran_Nuclear_letter.htmlPARLIAMENTARIANS AND CIVIL SOCIETY APPEAL ON IRAN AND NUCLEAR WEAPONSA PEACEFUL SOLUTION TO THE IRAN CRISIS AND A NUCLEAR-FREE MIDDLE EASTNO FIRST USE OF NUCLEAR WEAPONSTo:President George BushSecy of State Condoleeza RiceSecy of Defence Donald RumsfeldUN Ambassador John BoltonPresident Ahmadinejad of IranForeign Minister of Iran, Kamal JharzeIran UN Ambassador, H.E. Zarif-KhonsariAriel Sharon, Prime Minister of Israel,Israel Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom,H.E. Mr. Dan Gillerman, Israel UN MissionccMr Jose Manuel Barroso, President of the European CommissionTony Blair, Prime Minister of UK and Exercising President of theEuropean CouncilJack Straw, Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth AffairsThe Hon. John Howard, Prime Minister of AustraliaThe Hon. Alexander Downer, Minister for Foreign Affairs, AustraliaM. Jacques Chirac, Président de la République FrançaiseM. Dominique de Villepin, Premier MinistreM. Philippe Douste-Blazy, Ministre des Affaires EtrangèresHerr Horst Köhler, Bundespräzsident DeutschlandsFrau Angela Merkel, Bundeskanzlerin DeutschlandsDr. Frank-Walter Steinmeier, Deutsche BundesaussenministerMr Kofi Annan, General Secretary of the United NationsMr Mohamed ElBaradei, Director of the IAEADear Presidents Bush and Ahmadinejad, Presidents, Prime Ministers,Foreign Ministers, Secretaries of State and Defence and Ambassadors,The proliferation of nuclear weapons is possibly the single greatestthreat to civilisation. If a feared cascade of proliferation occurs,the probability that by malice, madness, miscalculation ormalfunction, nuclear weapons will at some point be used will increasesharply. All nations have a responsibility to ensure that the numberof nations with nuclear weapons does not grow, to prevent non-stateactors from obtaining them, and for those who posses nuclear weaponsto eliminate and abolish them.Threats and rumours of military action or even nuclear weapons useonly worsen a growing crisis between Iran, the United States, andIsrael.Reports of preparations for and explorations of military options, nomatter how speculative, are highly disturbing and are in themselvesdangerous. Such explorations must cease. There must be no talk of war.But there IS talk of war, both from the United States and fromIsrael. President Ahmadinejad, you have spoken of "wiping Israel fromthe map." In the US and Israel, 'hotheads' call openly for "swiftmilitary action", while 'responsible' leaders speak of "no optionbeing ruled out." President Bush, we heard these same twoformulations used just months before the invasion of Iraq. We urgethat the explorations of military or nuclear options ceaseimmediately, and support IAEA General Director, Mohamed ElBaradei incalling for this belligerent talk from all parties to stop now.The United States and other Nuclear Weapon States and de factonuclear weapon states -nations that already possess nuclear weapons-have made little progress toward the internationally mandated goal ofthe total and unequivocal elimination of those weapons. Althoughthere has been some limited progress in lowering total nuclearstockpiles, the established nuclear weapons possessors continue torely on those weapons in their security doctrines, and do notenvisage change in that posture 'for the foreseeable future'.This continues in spite of a clear international consensus to theeffect that nuclear weapons are a continuing threat to civilisationand life, in spite of repeated calls by the international communityfor progress toward their total and unequivocal elimination.Nations that possess large nuclear arsenals cannot consistently orcredibly call for others to eliminate or cease the pursuit of nuclearweapons arsenals of their own while not moving to eliminate their ownnuclear weapons. A global commitment to the elimination of nuclearweapons is a global commitment to the elimination of nuclear weapons,and applies equally to all parties. There can be no exceptions.Those who now posses nuclear arsenals are obliged to eliminate thosearsenals. Those who do not have them must not pursue them.Similarly, the violation of the goal of a nuclear-free Middle East byone party does not in any way excuse its violation by another party.However, the renunciation of the nuclear option by one party willfacilitate its renunciation by another party.Israel's nuclear arsenal and the pursuit of nuclear weapons by Iran -if indeed that is taking place - are dangerous per se and open thegate for further proliferation by other Middle Eastern nations, andfor a middle eastern arms race that would be dangerous in theextreme. This must not happen.Serious concerns exist over the possibility that US nuclear doctrinemay envisage strikes against other nations that involve a first useof nuclear weapons, or possibly the use of nuclear weapons againstnations that are not themselves nuclear - armed. We note withapproval the recent letter by US senators and others in this matter.A third use of nuclear weapons must never take place. It would be acatastrophe not only for Iran or Israel but for the entire region andeven for the entire world, because of its radioactive fallout, itschaotic effects, and because it would break the taboo against the useof these weapons that has so far held place for the last 60 years.Breaking this taboo could result in the further use of nuclearweapons, with a lower and lower bar for such use. The widespread useof nuclear weapons would be catastrophic for the world. We urge allparties to renounce the pursuit of nuclear weapons, and to adoptpolicies that rule out their use.The Parliamentarians, civil society organisations, and prominentindividuals signed below hereby urge a solution to the crisis inrelations between the US and Iran, Israel and Iran, based on thefollowing clearly defined principles:1) No use of any military option whatsoever by any party for any reason.2) A clear commitment by all nuclear-armed parties not to use nuclearweapons in this situation, and a broader commitment to the doctrineof no first use of nuclear weapons.3) The implementation of the 1995 Non-Proliferation Treaty Resolutionon a Nuclear Weapon Free Zone in the Middle East, implementation ofthe annual consensus-adopted General Assembly resolutions on'Establishment of a Nuclear-Weapons-Free Zone in the region of theMiddle East', and particularly the full implementation of this yearsresolution on nuclear proliferation in the middle -east.4) A clear commitment by all parties to the global elimination ofnuclear weapons, including through reaffirming the Final Declarationof the 2000 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference, and relevantGeneral Assembly resolutions.5) A diplomatic path to the removal of tensions between the US,Israel, and Iran, involving compromise on both sides, recognition ofthe legitimate security concerns of all parties including both Israeland Iran, and refraining from inflammatory statements or theexploration of military options by any party.SignedTadatoshi Akiba Mayor of Hiroshima President, Mayors for Peace,Abolition-2000 Global Council,Ron Mc Coy, President, Dr. Mary-Wynne Ashford, InternationalPhysicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW),Jennifer Nordstrom, WILPF Reaching Critical Will Project,Alfred L. Marder President, International Association of PeaceMessenger Cities,Ak Malten, Global Anti Nuclear Alliance (GANA) The Hague, Neth,Peer de Rijk, director , World Information Service on Energy,Amsterdam Neth,Fiona H. Dove, Director, Transnational Institute, Amsterdam, Neth,Pol D'Huyvetter, For Mother Earth/Friends of the Earth Flanders,Ghent, Belgium, (Ab2000GlobalCouncil)Prof. H. Firket, President of AMPGN ,IPPNW-BelgiumLeo Platvoet Senator GREENLEFT, Belgium,Jean-Marie Matagne, Action des Citoyens pour le Désarmement Nucléaire (ACDN),Sophie Lefeez, Mouvement de la Paix, France,Phillipe Brousse, Jean-Yvon Landrac, Réseau "Sortir du nucléaire", France,Jean-Pierre Morichaud, Le Forum Plutonium, France,Fabrice Flipo, Vice-président, Amis de la Terre - FranceJeanne-Henriette Louis, Quakers-FranceGLOBAL 2000, Silva Herrmann, Energy Campaigner, Austria,Elvira Pöschko, Antiatom Szene, Pasching, Austria,Heinz Stockinger, Chair, PLAGE-SalzburgBernhard Piller, Swiss Energy Foundation, Zurich, SwitzerlandXanthe Hall, (Ab2000 Global Council/IPPNW Germany)Dr. Angelika Claußen, M.D.IPPNW-Germany,Gewaltfreie Aktion Atomwaffen Abschaffen (GAAA), Germany,Deutsche Friedensgesellschaft - Vereinigte KriegsdienstgegnerInnen (DFG-VK),Roland Blach, Trägerkreis "Atomwaffen abschaffen", Germany,Peter Nicholls, Chair, Abolition 2000 UK,George Farebrother, World Court Project, UK,Kate Hudson, Chair, Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) Lond, UK,Jill Stallard, CND Cymru, Wales,Jenny Maxwell, Chair, West Midlands CND, Birmingham UK,LYNNE JONES MP (Birmingham Selly Oak), UK,David Chaytor, MP for Bury North,Dr. Caroline Lucas MEP Green Party,South East England,Jean Lambert MEP - Green Party, LondonHallgeir H. Langeland, MP Norway,Bjørn Hilt Regional vice president of IPPNW in Europe, Norway,Holger Terp, Danish Peace Academy, Copenhagen,Povl Revsbech, MD Chair, IPPNW, Danish AffiliateJuhani Mastokangas Friends of the Earth FinlandHeidi Hautala MP, Chairperson of the Green Parliamentary Group of Finland,Kati Juva, Chair, Dr. Jouni Ylinen Physicians for SocialResponsibility, Finland (PSR-Finland)Hnuti Duha, FOE-Czech Republic, Brno,Thanassis ANAPOLITANOS , MEDITERRANEAN ANTI NUCLEAR WATCH, GREECEProf. Dr. Leziz Onaran, President, Umur Gürsoy (MD)NUSED (IPPNW-Turkey)Ali Eltari President, Albanian Ecological Club,Kim Hye-Jeong, Secretary General, KFEM-FoE KoreaHiromichi Umebayashi, President, Peace Depot, Japanteve Leeper, Mayors for Peace United States,Alice Slater, GRACE, Abolition2000 Global Council,Patrick Groulx founder - Iron John & Mary With A Snugly US,Helen Caldicott, President, Nuclear Policy Research Insititute (NPRI),James Galbraith, Chair, Economists for Peace and Security,Steven Starr, Physicians for Global Survival, Canada,Joanna Santa Barbara, Centre for Peace Studies, Mc Master Univ, Ont,Ray Morris, Co-Chair, KAIROS, Salmon Arm, BCEfraim Cruz-Marin, Académicos de Ciencias y Humanidades, Mexico,Diodorus Kamala MP, Tanzania,Achin Vanaik, Sukla Sen, Coalition for Nuclear Disarmament and Peace,India,(CNDP)Sandeep Pandey and Arundhati Dhuru, National Alliance of People'sMovements (NAPM),Prof N.N. Murthy, IBRF, IndiaSonia S. Mendoza Chair, Mother Earth Foundation - PhilippinesGordon F Copeland MP United Future - the Family Party NZJohn Hallam, Friends of the Earth Australia Sydney AustraliaJo Vallentine, People for Nuclear Disarmament, Western AustraliaDimity Hawkins, Executive Officer, Medical Association for thePrevention of War (MAPW),Rev Allan Thompson, General Secretary, Uniting Church in Victoria andTasmania,Senator Natasha Stott-Despoja, Australian Democrats, SASenator Andrew Bartlett, Democrats, Qld,Senator Kerry Nettle, Greens, NSW,Kelly HoareMP, Member for Charlton NSW,Carmen Lawrence MP, Member for Fremantle, President, ALP,Julia Irwin MP Federal Member for Fowler,Lee Rhiannon Greens MLC, NSW,
Mary La Rosa, MLS, Samba NYC
Mary La Rosa , January 16 2006
Mary La Rosa is an artist and librarian living close to NYC.
https://www.mailshell.com/mail/client/compose.html?index=15657&actionID=33&to=mddalton@optonline.net
516-481-9177
Links and Full References:
land stolen http://www.btselem.org/English/Settlements/20051228_Modiin_Ilit.asp
The Bomb in the Basement http://www.simonsays.com/content/book.cfm?sid=33&pid=513446
Mordechai Vanunu http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mordechai_Vanunu
cover-up http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-12/10/content_502295.htm
BBC report http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200512/s1528219.htm
SPIEGAL May 2004 http://www.tbrnews.org/Archives/a858.htm
Zalman Shapiro Zalman Shapiro
Herbert Schulzen http://www.tbrnews.org/Archives/a858.htm
Ariel Sharon http://electronicintifada.net/forreference/keyfigures/sharon.html
Jonothan Pollard http://www.israelnewsagency.com/jonathanpollardisrael6490428.html
submarines: http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/israel/sub.htm
Yossi Melman: "Swimming With the Dolphins": http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/sub/internatl1-1.html
new Dolphin Submarines : http://www.dolphin.org.il/press/
Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A54225-2002Jun14?language=printer
nuclear testings http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_testing
alternative news media http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1012-02.htm
December of 2004: http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/Israel/Missile/3571_5220.html
German gifting: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8053.htm
Russia http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/12/03/uruss.xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/12/03/ixportaltop.html
dangerous testing http://www.missilethreat.com/news/testingforeign.html
biological weapons
http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/Israel/Biological/index.html
thousands marching http://lark.phoblacht.net/mlr3105054g.html
Parlimentary Network for Nuclear Disarmament http://www.gsinstitute.org/pnnd/
------------------------------------------------------
If you have made it this far and have read my past entries you know I totally disagree with Enrique (if that is his real name?). When I responded to his email I received a mailer-daemon. Which means he wishes to expound on his side not allow me to rebut. That is telling me he knows that I have posted websites demonstrating the devious nature of Islamofascism and Mohammedanism in general.
Just in case my old buddy checks back I feel the need to post some of my own websites:
Clarity and Resolve
Slanted Right Politics Yahoo Group
Counterterrorism Blog
Jihad Watch
Dhimmi Watch
Terrorism Unveiled
Threat Watch
Little Green Footballs
Islamsux [Comes with a Google Warning for you to choose to proceed. Good job Islamsux]
Masada2000.org
The Religion of Peace
Anti-CAIR
I could go on and on with websites I uses as resources, but I got tired of typing.
For the U.S. and world: A plan for Iran
Jay Ambrose has a good point: "Here's what we should do if we want Israel destroyed, if we want to risk another full-blown world war and if we want the United States put in desperate peril: Let's allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons ..."
Amadinejad's delusion of bringing forth the Mohammedan 12th Imam or Mahdi (or whatever they are calling this pseudo-messiah) by unleashing international chaos should get every Western mind out its drunken stupor. Do not make the same mistake that Appeasement minded Chamberlain made concerning Adolf Hitler. Chamberlain thought he had brought "peace in our time" when he handed Czechlosvakia and Austria over to the Jewish hating Nazi. Uncle Adolf went on to try to establish a Western Third Reich with the Arian nation racial superiority as his goal.
Have I ever mentioned that Uncle Adolf is favorite reading among present day Islamofascists? Baathist Syria and former Baathist Iraq are set up on a Nazi system of government, which includes cultifying a central leader. In Iraq that was Hussein, in Syria it is Assad.
Enought ranting from, read Jay Ambrose's article:
------------------------------------
For the U.S. and world: A plan for Iran
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
The Washington Examiner
Here's what we should do if we want Israel destroyed, if we want to risk another full-blown world war and if we want the United States put in desperate peril: Let's allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons while Europe does its usual dithering dance around reality, and let's rule out a military strike as absolutely unacceptable.
You would have to be in a coma not to know what Iran is up to. The Western world has bent over backward to offer Iran the means of building nuclear power plants without the simultaneous means of building the ultimate weapon of mass destruction, but, no, Iran wants none of that. It wants nuclear materials on its terms, which is to say, it wants the ability to slaughter millions. And it has the crackpots in power to carry out the mission.
The chief crackpot is the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who might be mistaken for a reincarnated Adolf Hitler, given his anger, his anti-Semitism, his nationalist ambitions and fascistic fanaticism. There was no Holocaust, he says. Israel should be "wiped off the map," he adds. This man and his cohorts mean to do evil.
To its credit, Europe appears to know as much, but to its discredit, it appears to lack the will or the backbone to stand in the way. If occasionally, Europe talks tough and seems to mean what it says, wait a day or two and watch while its tail is once more tucked between its legs. Is Iran displeased with the European stance? "Oh, dear, oh dear," the diplomats in effect say, "we must back up and be civilized, even if civilization is thus endangered."
No one is saying that the United States should start making plans for an invasion. But all responsible nations should rise as one and make it absolutely clear to Iran that it will either abide by the international treaty on nuclear non-proliferation or be cut off from further economic development - no ifs, maybes or buts.
The democratic-minded majority in Iran should be encouraged and supported in a wide variety of ways to overthrow the tyrants who are ruining their lives through an unspeakable theocracy. The United States should let it be known in no uncertain terms that if a terrorist-supporting, anti-U.S. Iran slips these nooses and proceeds with its plans, we will bomb any weapon-making facilities to smithereens. And if we have to, the United States should follow through and not take the coward's way out by figuring that Israel should do this job for us.
Maybe the United States does not have the heart for this. The war in Iraq has been unexpectedly difficult and the critics within and outside the country have been vociferous. Would the world be with us? Much of it would not be. It would be no easy matter to unify our own citizenry around the cause, owing in part to the administration's own clumsiness in explaining itself on virtually any issue. But as Harvard professor Niall Ferguson has written, the cost of acting would be far less than a failure to act.Perhaps you pooh-pooh the cost. The world has done that before, Ferguson notes in comparing the present situation with the hope among many before World War II that the problem of Nazi Germany might just go away if left alone. It did not, of course, and if history is any guide at all, neither will the problem of Iran.
Examiner columnist Jay Ambrose is a former Washington opinion writer and editor of two dailies.
Amadinejad's delusion of bringing forth the Mohammedan 12th Imam or Mahdi (or whatever they are calling this pseudo-messiah) by unleashing international chaos should get every Western mind out its drunken stupor. Do not make the same mistake that Appeasement minded Chamberlain made concerning Adolf Hitler. Chamberlain thought he had brought "peace in our time" when he handed Czechlosvakia and Austria over to the Jewish hating Nazi. Uncle Adolf went on to try to establish a Western Third Reich with the Arian nation racial superiority as his goal.
Have I ever mentioned that Uncle Adolf is favorite reading among present day Islamofascists? Baathist Syria and former Baathist Iraq are set up on a Nazi system of government, which includes cultifying a central leader. In Iraq that was Hussein, in Syria it is Assad.
Enought ranting from, read Jay Ambrose's article:
------------------------------------
For the U.S. and world: A plan for Iran
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
The Washington Examiner
Here's what we should do if we want Israel destroyed, if we want to risk another full-blown world war and if we want the United States put in desperate peril: Let's allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons while Europe does its usual dithering dance around reality, and let's rule out a military strike as absolutely unacceptable.
You would have to be in a coma not to know what Iran is up to. The Western world has bent over backward to offer Iran the means of building nuclear power plants without the simultaneous means of building the ultimate weapon of mass destruction, but, no, Iran wants none of that. It wants nuclear materials on its terms, which is to say, it wants the ability to slaughter millions. And it has the crackpots in power to carry out the mission.
The chief crackpot is the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who might be mistaken for a reincarnated Adolf Hitler, given his anger, his anti-Semitism, his nationalist ambitions and fascistic fanaticism. There was no Holocaust, he says. Israel should be "wiped off the map," he adds. This man and his cohorts mean to do evil.
To its credit, Europe appears to know as much, but to its discredit, it appears to lack the will or the backbone to stand in the way. If occasionally, Europe talks tough and seems to mean what it says, wait a day or two and watch while its tail is once more tucked between its legs. Is Iran displeased with the European stance? "Oh, dear, oh dear," the diplomats in effect say, "we must back up and be civilized, even if civilization is thus endangered."
No one is saying that the United States should start making plans for an invasion. But all responsible nations should rise as one and make it absolutely clear to Iran that it will either abide by the international treaty on nuclear non-proliferation or be cut off from further economic development - no ifs, maybes or buts.
The democratic-minded majority in Iran should be encouraged and supported in a wide variety of ways to overthrow the tyrants who are ruining their lives through an unspeakable theocracy. The United States should let it be known in no uncertain terms that if a terrorist-supporting, anti-U.S. Iran slips these nooses and proceeds with its plans, we will bomb any weapon-making facilities to smithereens. And if we have to, the United States should follow through and not take the coward's way out by figuring that Israel should do this job for us.
Maybe the United States does not have the heart for this. The war in Iraq has been unexpectedly difficult and the critics within and outside the country have been vociferous. Would the world be with us? Much of it would not be. It would be no easy matter to unify our own citizenry around the cause, owing in part to the administration's own clumsiness in explaining itself on virtually any issue. But as Harvard professor Niall Ferguson has written, the cost of acting would be far less than a failure to act.Perhaps you pooh-pooh the cost. The world has done that before, Ferguson notes in comparing the present situation with the hope among many before World War II that the problem of Nazi Germany might just go away if left alone. It did not, of course, and if history is any guide at all, neither will the problem of Iran.
Examiner columnist Jay Ambrose is a former Washington opinion writer and editor of two dailies.
Friday, January 20, 2006
UN Claims Map Erasing Israel Just "Historical"
Kofi Annan is a dishonest person and there is plenty of circumstantial inference that the Secretary General of the UN joins his fellow Mohammedan religionists in the goal to wipe Israel of the map. In November 2005 a major UN meeting took place in a map of the Middle East was prominently displayed. This is old news, however in case you missed it the nation Israel was totally non-existent on the map. Israel was replaced by the nation of Palestine!
U.S. Ambassador John Bolton addressed the UN Secretariat's office about this blatant Mohammedan disrespect for the sovereignty of the nation of Israel, a UN member incidentally.
Ambassador Bolton finally received a response dated January 16, 2006. Basically Kofi Annan's position is that the Secretariat has no control over the Assembly actions. The article explains how that interpretation is hogwash and is a revelation of Annan's Mohammedan sympathies!
The UN is more and more blatantly is becoming the tool of Third World Islamofascist to the detriment of the United States - the largest contributor to the UN financial budget.
Clearly, the map without the state of Israel was agreed upon in the context of advocating the violent elimination of the Jewish state or the "Zionist entity." In other words, it was a decision taken during a time in UN history that the self-determination of the Jewish people was said to be a violation of international law and it was intended to promote that policy.
Gambari's letter, however, makes no mention of the 1981 UN environment but instead dismisses it as an innocent "historical map, showing Palestine as it was in 1948, at the end of the British Mandate...[It was] the map and flag "of Palestine as it existed in 1948." Apparently, the Secretary-General needs a history lesson.
The United Nations General Assembly had adopted a resolution dividing the region within the British Palestine mandate into an Arab and a Jewish state on November 29, 1947. The 1948 UN map which purports to be historical, post-dates the UN General Assembly's division, but ignores it.
The title of the map is not the "British" Palestine mandate – but just "Palestine." And what would the British mandate be doing with a flag on it representing Arab nationalism? The Sharifian flag was designed in connection with the Arab Revolt in 1916, and became a symbol of Arab nationalism. (In 1922 the order of the colored stripes was changed.) At the Palestinian conference held in Gaza October 1-3, 1948 the Palestinian National Council adopted the flag (as well as a bill purporting to establish a government and a declaration of independence). The adoption of the flag occurred after the May 14, 1948 expiration of the British mandate and the May 15, 1948 Israeli declaration of independence. A map dated 1948, entitled Palestine, with an Arab flag adopted by the Palestinian National Council along with a declaration of independence, making no reference to the 1947 UN division of the British mandate, is not merely historical – except as a statement of the historical rejection of the state of Israel.
The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), founded in 1964 and granted observer status at the UN in 1974, adopted an emblem which contains the same UN map in form. Why does the PLO emblem have this map? The Palestinian National Charter [*Word Doc Link] explains: "Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit...The liberation of Palestine...is a national duty and...aims at the liquidation of the Zionist presence in Palestine...The partition of Palestine in 1947 and the establishment of the state of Israel are entirely illegal, regardless of the passage of time..." Therefore, the adoption in 1981 of a map dated 1948, entitled Palestine, missing the UN member state of Israel, by a UN Committee living and breathing "Zionism = racism," with the active participation and support of the PLO UN observer, was a statement of rejection of the Jewish state.
The PLO is not alone in their affinity to the UN map which fails to depict a state of Israel.. The emblems of at least eight terrorist organizations, seeking the destruction of the Jewish state, have adopted the same form as displayed in the so-called "historical" UN map: Al Aksa Martyrs Brigade; Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine; Islamic Palestine Block, An-Najah Students Cell; Palestinian Islamic Jihad; Palestinian Liberation Front; Palestinian National and Islamic Forces; Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine; Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine - General Command.
Nevertheless, it is not the context, or the history, or the purpose, or the other uses of this map and flag, which make the UN nervous. The Secretary-General says he is worried "the display of the 1948 map has acquired a new and very troubling connotation in the light of the remarks made recently by the President of the Islamic Republic of Iran." New? For decades the UN has been at the forefront of the effort to isolate and demonize the state of Israel. UN actions have had real consequences: terrorism has been encouraged, Israeli self-defense measures have been undermined with Israel being driven towards indefensible borders. Israel is the only UN state which is not a full member of any of the UN regional groups, key negotiating and appointment-making bodies. Within the last two months the UN General Assembly adopted 31 resolutions critical of human rights records of particular states – 19 of which directed at Israel alone. It is hard to take seriously the Secretariat's concern over Iran's remarks while they ignore the chokehold of the 56-member Organization of the Islamic Conference on actions in their own backyard.
The last excuse trumpeted in the UN letter is that Secretary-General Annan attended and addressed the meeting [*Real Player Sound Link], but so did Ambassador Bolton's predecessor John Danforth in 2004. The parallel ends there. Ambassador Danforth was President of the Security Council in the month of November 2004 and read an agreed text of the Security Council to the meeting. He did not attend or speak as American Ambassador. He took strong measures to distance himself from the proceedings, by missing all the introductory matters and other statements, showing up only to deliver his own 5 minute address and leaving immediately thereafter. His disdain for the proceedings was sufficiently evident to all in attendance that the Palestinian representative, Nasser Al Kidwa, was irate. Prior to delivering his own remarks (in the absence of Ambassador Danforth) he said: "Before I read this message, I would like only to express my hope with [sic] the arrival of the President of the Security Council for this meeting in accordance with the tradition which has been established since 1987, considering his presence [is] the presence of the president of the Security Council, and a presentation of the Security Council and not the national authorities, and we look forward to the arrival of the President of the Security Council." Kofi Annan, on the other hand, and a large phalanx of his employees in the Division for Palestinian Rights, had no trouble arriving early and participating in the Committee's usual opening move, namely, to rise for a "minute of silence...for all those who have given their lives for the cause of the Palestinian people..." - which would include suicide bombers.
In a parting snub, Under-Secretary-General Gambari told Ambassador Bolton "you may wish to discuss the issue further with Ambassador Badji." Badji [*Word Doc. Link] is the Senegalese Chair of the Committee on the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, who on November 29, 2005 admonished Israel in the General Assembly for "provoking" suicide-bombing.
To recap what the Secretary-General's junior answered in response to Ambassador Bolton's queries.
Question: Who is the highest level official within the Secretariat who approved the use of the map for the event?
Answer: Nobody, since nobody at the secretariat is responsible for anything. Everything is the fault of member states.
Question: Does the United Nations intend to use the map in future U.N. sponsored functions and events?
Answer: "The Secretary-General...hopes that the Member States' Committee...will consider deciding not to display the 1948 map in future...You may wish to discuss the issue further with Ambassador Badji [Chairman of the Committee]."
Translation: It's not my problem, and as for its use beyond that Committee, I'm making no commitments. My lips are sealed.
Question: In light of prohibitions under U.S. law to fund events such as this one, do you consider it appropriate for the United Nations to advertise and promote the event on its general website and other venues, which do in fact benefit from U.S. funds?
Answer: "...the observance of the Day of Solidarity...has been mandated by the General Assembly...and is organized by...a committee of the General Assembly. In providing information about the event on the UN website, therefore, the Secretariat is simply doing its job."
Translation: We're just a collection agency. We take the annual 1.5 billion dollars of U.S. money and we don't care if there are strings attached for activities to which Americans have strong objections. And if you have a problem with that, don't pay.
Exactly. It is high time to follow the money trail. The implementation of existing Congressional riders on US-UN funding should be extended. It isn't enough to withhold US contributions to the UN for the amount the UN General Assembly claims is spent on the Committee on the Inalienable Rights for the Palestinian People. For example, last month the Committee booked the UN's Dag Hammerskjöld theater for three days running to screen a film which promotes a one-state solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and attempts to convey the prevalence of Jewish racism. In the words of one interviewee, "All Jews seem to care about is work and money." Why use U.S. dollars to pay for operating the theater, or the employee running the videotape, or the advertisement for the film in the UN daily journal? Or how about those exorbitant renovation costs for UN Headquarters housing the Division for Palestinian Rights? UN officials' explanation that they are merely "providing information" on anti-Israel (and often anti-American) activities cannot be allowed to obscure a global propaganda campaign of staggering proportions that is centered at the UN. The excuse that the UN Secretariat is "simply doing its job" ought to ring alarm bells for forensic accountants (and democratic societies) everywhere.
U.S. Ambassador John Bolton addressed the UN Secretariat's office about this blatant Mohammedan disrespect for the sovereignty of the nation of Israel, a UN member incidentally.
Ambassador Bolton finally received a response dated January 16, 2006. Basically Kofi Annan's position is that the Secretariat has no control over the Assembly actions. The article explains how that interpretation is hogwash and is a revelation of Annan's Mohammedan sympathies!
The UN is more and more blatantly is becoming the tool of Third World Islamofascist to the detriment of the United States - the largest contributor to the UN financial budget.
-----------------------------------
1/20/06
On November 29, 2005 I took a photograph of a map on display at a major meeting at UN Headquarters in New York, which omitted the UN member state of Israel. The map was perched on a frame at the front of the room with a flag of the United Nations on one side, and a Palestinian flag on the other. The occasion was the annual UN Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People.
How did it get there? Who was responsible? Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had been calling for Israel to be wiped off the map, and the UN had literally-speaking already done so. American UN Ambassador John Bolton was properly concerned and wanted some answers. He wrote to Secretary-General Kofi Annan on January 3, 2006 posing three questions: "First, who is the highest level official within the Secretariat who approved the use of the map for the event? Second, does the United Nations intend to use the map in future U.N. sponsored functions and events? Third, in light of prohibitions under U.S. law to fund events such as this one, do you consider it appropriate for the United Nations to advertise and promote the event on its general website and other venues, which do in fact benefit from U.S. funds?"
By letter dated January 16, 2006 the UN responded. [*A Word Doc Link] In an obvious slight to any American Ambassador, and straining to duck responsibility for the event and the response, Secretary-General Kofi Annan refused to write back directly. The letter was signed by Ibrahim Gambari, Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs.
The responses reveal an underlying pathology in the UN system that demands attention.
The letter from this UN official begins with the statement that "the decision to display the map is a decision of Member States not the Secretariat" - ergo no official within the Secretariat was responsible.
I watched the UN staff from the Division for Palestinian Rights bring the map into the room, set it up, and take it back to the Division where it is kept on the 33rd floor of the UN secretariat building only five floors below the office of the Secretary-General. According to the UN Charter "The staff shall be appointed by the Secretary-General under regulations established by the General Assembly." So those staff members are directly appointed by, and responsible to, the Secretary-General. The UN Charter establishes six principal organs of the United Nations, including the General Assembly and the Secretariat. This gives the Secretary-General the capacity to refuse to associate himself, or his staff, with an action that is incompatible with the UN Charter. Actively taking steps to depict the erasure of a UN member state is hardly compatible with the Charter "principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members."
Rather than the "who me?" routine, the Secretary-General (or his legal advisor) might have considered his responsibilities in light of the context in which the decision to display the map was taken. In 1975 the United Nations General Assembly declared Zionism to be racism. Every meeting of the UN on the Arab-Israeli conflict or racial discrimination between that moment and 1991, when the resolution was rescinded, was predicated on the Zionism equals racism declaration. [*Word doc Link] On Palestinian Solidarity Day in November 1981 the UN Committee on the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People (CEIRPP) took a decision to display the map and flag. Here is the decision and the conversation in the Committee immediately following:
Chairman: Mr. SARRE (Senegal) I should like to draw member attention to the map and flag now positioned just outside this chamber; they are those of Palestine as it existed in 1948. If there is no objection I shall ask for that map and that flag to be brought into the chamber, where they will remain until the end of the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People. If there is no objection, it will be so decided. It was so decided. The
CHAIRMAN: I now call upon the representative of the South West Africa People's Organization.
Mr. GURIRAB (South West Africa People's Organization (SWAPO)): I cannot miss this opportunity to note the map that has just been brought into the room, which shows Palestine as it existed in 1947, and the flag, which symbolizes the aspirations and legitimate demands of the Palestinian people. It is therefore my pleasure to be speaking at this point, and I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for directing the Secretariat to bring the flag and the map into the room...With the exception of the racists and Zionists, nobody questions the legitimacy of the oppressed peoples' using all means at their disposal, including revolutionary violence - that is, armed struggle... [I]t is my pleasant duty...to extend on this solemn International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People our revolutionary greetings and warm congratulations to the delegation of the Palestine liberation Organization and its Chairman, Comrade Arafat...for the intensification of the armed struggle against the common enemy...[T]hank you...for all the efforts that are being made to hasten the day of the final liberation of Palestine. That day is inevitable, whether it comes through the bullet or the ballot...
Mr. MUHTASSER (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya) ...The Zionist entity is perpetrating barbarous crimes...these crimes even exceed the crimes committed by Nazi Germany...
Mr. ASHTAL (Democratic Yemen)... The resistance and the heroic revolution in Palestine are clear proof of the potential of the struggle represented by Arab resistance movements against the plans for aggression by imperialist and Zionist forces, aimed at aborting the armed struggle of our Arab brothers to recover hegemony over our destiny and future...
Mr. TROYANOVSKY (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics)... "I wish you, Comrade Arafat, your co-fighters and the entire friendly Palestinian people further success...
Mr. AL-ALI (Iraq): I have the honour to read out a message from Mr. Saddam Hussain... The Zionist leaders have constantly made threats and resorted to all means to implement the very strange theory of 'Israel's security'. Thus, we are convinced that the struggle against international Zionism will be a difficult and long struggle because of the nature of Zionism and racial discrimination and the nature of the Zionist policy and its perfidious plans of hegemony...
Clearly, the map without the state of Israel was agreed upon in the context of advocating the violent elimination of the Jewish state or the "Zionist entity." In other words, it was a decision taken during a time in UN history that the self-determination of the Jewish people was said to be a violation of international law and it was intended to promote that policy.
Gambari's letter, however, makes no mention of the 1981 UN environment but instead dismisses it as an innocent "historical map, showing Palestine as it was in 1948, at the end of the British Mandate...[It was] the map and flag "of Palestine as it existed in 1948." Apparently, the Secretary-General needs a history lesson.
The United Nations General Assembly had adopted a resolution dividing the region within the British Palestine mandate into an Arab and a Jewish state on November 29, 1947. The 1948 UN map which purports to be historical, post-dates the UN General Assembly's division, but ignores it.
The title of the map is not the "British" Palestine mandate – but just "Palestine." And what would the British mandate be doing with a flag on it representing Arab nationalism? The Sharifian flag was designed in connection with the Arab Revolt in 1916, and became a symbol of Arab nationalism. (In 1922 the order of the colored stripes was changed.) At the Palestinian conference held in Gaza October 1-3, 1948 the Palestinian National Council adopted the flag (as well as a bill purporting to establish a government and a declaration of independence). The adoption of the flag occurred after the May 14, 1948 expiration of the British mandate and the May 15, 1948 Israeli declaration of independence. A map dated 1948, entitled Palestine, with an Arab flag adopted by the Palestinian National Council along with a declaration of independence, making no reference to the 1947 UN division of the British mandate, is not merely historical – except as a statement of the historical rejection of the state of Israel.
The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), founded in 1964 and granted observer status at the UN in 1974, adopted an emblem which contains the same UN map in form. Why does the PLO emblem have this map? The Palestinian National Charter [*Word Doc Link] explains: "Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit...The liberation of Palestine...is a national duty and...aims at the liquidation of the Zionist presence in Palestine...The partition of Palestine in 1947 and the establishment of the state of Israel are entirely illegal, regardless of the passage of time..." Therefore, the adoption in 1981 of a map dated 1948, entitled Palestine, missing the UN member state of Israel, by a UN Committee living and breathing "Zionism = racism," with the active participation and support of the PLO UN observer, was a statement of rejection of the Jewish state.
The PLO is not alone in their affinity to the UN map which fails to depict a state of Israel.. The emblems of at least eight terrorist organizations, seeking the destruction of the Jewish state, have adopted the same form as displayed in the so-called "historical" UN map: Al Aksa Martyrs Brigade; Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine; Islamic Palestine Block, An-Najah Students Cell; Palestinian Islamic Jihad; Palestinian Liberation Front; Palestinian National and Islamic Forces; Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine; Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine - General Command.
Nevertheless, it is not the context, or the history, or the purpose, or the other uses of this map and flag, which make the UN nervous. The Secretary-General says he is worried "the display of the 1948 map has acquired a new and very troubling connotation in the light of the remarks made recently by the President of the Islamic Republic of Iran." New? For decades the UN has been at the forefront of the effort to isolate and demonize the state of Israel. UN actions have had real consequences: terrorism has been encouraged, Israeli self-defense measures have been undermined with Israel being driven towards indefensible borders. Israel is the only UN state which is not a full member of any of the UN regional groups, key negotiating and appointment-making bodies. Within the last two months the UN General Assembly adopted 31 resolutions critical of human rights records of particular states – 19 of which directed at Israel alone. It is hard to take seriously the Secretariat's concern over Iran's remarks while they ignore the chokehold of the 56-member Organization of the Islamic Conference on actions in their own backyard.
The last excuse trumpeted in the UN letter is that Secretary-General Annan attended and addressed the meeting [*Real Player Sound Link], but so did Ambassador Bolton's predecessor John Danforth in 2004. The parallel ends there. Ambassador Danforth was President of the Security Council in the month of November 2004 and read an agreed text of the Security Council to the meeting. He did not attend or speak as American Ambassador. He took strong measures to distance himself from the proceedings, by missing all the introductory matters and other statements, showing up only to deliver his own 5 minute address and leaving immediately thereafter. His disdain for the proceedings was sufficiently evident to all in attendance that the Palestinian representative, Nasser Al Kidwa, was irate. Prior to delivering his own remarks (in the absence of Ambassador Danforth) he said: "Before I read this message, I would like only to express my hope with [sic] the arrival of the President of the Security Council for this meeting in accordance with the tradition which has been established since 1987, considering his presence [is] the presence of the president of the Security Council, and a presentation of the Security Council and not the national authorities, and we look forward to the arrival of the President of the Security Council." Kofi Annan, on the other hand, and a large phalanx of his employees in the Division for Palestinian Rights, had no trouble arriving early and participating in the Committee's usual opening move, namely, to rise for a "minute of silence...for all those who have given their lives for the cause of the Palestinian people..." - which would include suicide bombers.
In a parting snub, Under-Secretary-General Gambari told Ambassador Bolton "you may wish to discuss the issue further with Ambassador Badji." Badji [*Word Doc. Link] is the Senegalese Chair of the Committee on the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, who on November 29, 2005 admonished Israel in the General Assembly for "provoking" suicide-bombing.
To recap what the Secretary-General's junior answered in response to Ambassador Bolton's queries.
Question: Who is the highest level official within the Secretariat who approved the use of the map for the event?
Answer: Nobody, since nobody at the secretariat is responsible for anything. Everything is the fault of member states.
Question: Does the United Nations intend to use the map in future U.N. sponsored functions and events?
Answer: "The Secretary-General...hopes that the Member States' Committee...will consider deciding not to display the 1948 map in future...You may wish to discuss the issue further with Ambassador Badji [Chairman of the Committee]."
Translation: It's not my problem, and as for its use beyond that Committee, I'm making no commitments. My lips are sealed.
Question: In light of prohibitions under U.S. law to fund events such as this one, do you consider it appropriate for the United Nations to advertise and promote the event on its general website and other venues, which do in fact benefit from U.S. funds?
Answer: "...the observance of the Day of Solidarity...has been mandated by the General Assembly...and is organized by...a committee of the General Assembly. In providing information about the event on the UN website, therefore, the Secretariat is simply doing its job."
Translation: We're just a collection agency. We take the annual 1.5 billion dollars of U.S. money and we don't care if there are strings attached for activities to which Americans have strong objections. And if you have a problem with that, don't pay.
Exactly. It is high time to follow the money trail. The implementation of existing Congressional riders on US-UN funding should be extended. It isn't enough to withhold US contributions to the UN for the amount the UN General Assembly claims is spent on the Committee on the Inalienable Rights for the Palestinian People. For example, last month the Committee booked the UN's Dag Hammerskjöld theater for three days running to screen a film which promotes a one-state solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and attempts to convey the prevalence of Jewish racism. In the words of one interviewee, "All Jews seem to care about is work and money." Why use U.S. dollars to pay for operating the theater, or the employee running the videotape, or the advertisement for the film in the UN daily journal? Or how about those exorbitant renovation costs for UN Headquarters housing the Division for Palestinian Rights? UN officials' explanation that they are merely "providing information" on anti-Israel (and often anti-American) activities cannot be allowed to obscure a global propaganda campaign of staggering proportions that is centered at the UN. The excuse that the UN Secretariat is "simply doing its job" ought to ring alarm bells for forensic accountants (and democratic societies) everywhere.
It Finally Has Happened: Mohammedan Justifies Preaching Murder From Koran
The Times Online is reporting on true hate crime. It is to politically incorrect to point it out, but actually the report exposes Mohammedanism as a cult of violence:
The Mohammedan Hadith is actually quoted:
My God, the Prosecution could have rebutted with the murderous conquering rampage of Mohammedans from their prophet through their last empire - Ottoman Turks, onward to the current Islamofascists terrorizing the world.
COPIES of the Koran were handed to the jurors in the Abu Hamza trial yesterday as his defence argued that some of the cleric’s “offensive” statements were drawn directly from Islam’s holy book.
Edward Fitzgerald, QC, for the defence, said that Abu Hamza’s interpretation of the Koran was that it imposed an obligation on Muslims to do jihad and fight in the defence of their religion. He said that the Crown case against the former imam of Finsbury Park Mosque was “simplistic in the extreme”.
He added: “It is said he was preaching murder, but he was actually preaching from the Koran itself.”
The Mohammedan Hadith is actually quoted:
"The Hadith says that the trees will call out to the Muslims 'there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him'."This is a classic example of Mohammedan practitioners using Western democratic rights and liberties to expose disillusioned people to violent ideology. Mohammedanism is a death cult or at least a cult of violence.
Edward Fitzgerald, the defense attorney in England for this Imam - Abu Hamza, offers this lame excuse:
"Abu Hamza’s sermons had to be viewed in context, coinciding with conflicts in Afghanistan, Algeria, Bosnia, Kosovo and the Palestinian territories. Mr Fitzgerald said that the West had initially been on the side of the Mujahidin in Afghanistan when they were fighting the Soviet Union army. There had even been a James Bond film, The Living Daylights, in which 007 fought alongside the Mujahidin."
My God, the Prosecution could have rebutted with the murderous conquering rampage of Mohammedans from their prophet through their last empire - Ottoman Turks, onward to the current Islamofascists terrorizing the world.
Nate Saint Played by Gay Activist in "End of the Spear"
This is a huge article in magnitude and length. I do not know about you but it truly bothers me "Nate Saint" is being portrayed by a homosexual activist! I read "Throught the Gates of Splendor" a number of years ago and I had the actual opportunity to meet one of the tribesman who actually aided in the murder of the missionaries of which Nate Saint was a part. What a slap in the face of Christ for a homosexual who actively fights for Gay Rights play the part of a truly Christian hero. I can hardly believe it.
--------------------------------------------------------
By Jason Janz
January 12th, 2006
SharperIron.org
This past weekend marked the fiftieth anniversary of the death of five missionaries in Ecuador-Ed McCully, Jim Elliot, Peter Fleming, Nate Saint, and Roger Youderian. They died after being speared by natives on a sandy beach along the Curaray River. The story rocketed around the globe and landed on the front cover of Life magazine which included a ten-page article. If you talk to someone who was a believer at the time, it had the same effect as other events such as Kennedy’s assassination – people remember where they were when they heard the story. I heard someone at a missions conference say that the greatest flood of American missionaries to land on foreign soil did so after the deaths of these young men.
The story is perhaps the most endearing, convicting, and popular missions story of American missions overseas over the last one hundred years. Who hasn’t heard Elliot’s motto, “He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose?” The story is near and dear to evangelical Christians the world over. As a young boy, I read Through Gates of Splendor and as a youth pastor, I led a group of teens in performing Bridge of Blood, a play about the lives of these five missionaries and their wives. So, you can imagine the anticipation I felt as I heard that a theatrical movie was coming out in 2006 to mark the 50th anniversary of the deaths of these heroes.
I was given free tickets to a pastor’s preview a week ago and so on Thursday night my wife and I attended the showing. I was struggling in my spirit because my wife and I have battled thoughts of the mission field ever since our college days. We are still open to God’s leading in our lives in this regard. So, just like before missions conference, I was anxious. I knew that watching the sacrifice of these men would challenge my comfortable, American Christianity.
Well, I must say that I was severely disappointed. As the movie was concluding, I moved from disappointment to being upset. I was so upset at what I saw (or didn’t see) that I went up and shared some “devotional thoughts” with one of the heads of the promotional department for the film. He was a former Youth For Christ guy and now he’s working on promoting this film to the Christian community. I’ve had a few days to process my thoughts, research the film, and think about what to do. I have narrowed down my concerns to two main areas. The first area is the content of the film – the average believer should be embarrassed at the dumbing down of the Gospel or anything Christian for that matter. My second area of concern is the cast of the film – Every Tribe Entertainment chose Chad Allen, a gay activist, to play Nate Saint (Most people will remember Chad if they watched Dr. Quinn: Medicine Woman. Chad played Matthew Cooper, the oldest of the adopted children). I will write on these two issues. My first article will focus on the choice of Chad Allen as one of the leading stars in the show.
I have divided my article into five points:
1. The facts about Every Tribe Entertainment’s choice of Chad Allen.
2. How the gay community views the choice of a gay man playing a Christian missionary.
3. The response of Every Tribe Entertainment when confronted about this choice.
4. Why Christians should be concerned.
5. What Christians should do.
1. The facts about Every Tribe Entertainment’s choice of Chad Allen.
Every Tribe Entertainment chose a gay actor to play Nate Saint in the movie.
In an interview, he was asked if he had ever been in love. He said, “Yes, absolutely. I’ve loved deeply, in the romantic sense. I’m very proud of that.” The interviewer asked, “Not so long ago you had a big reputation around drugs and parties. Were you a circuit boy?” Allen responded, “No, I was a guy who loved to push everything to its limits. That included the use of drugs and alcohol to expand and heighten every emotion to its absolute extreme. I’ve experienced the rave scene, the underground New York and L.A. scenes, the circuit party scene among gay men—all of it. It’s a nice little label to give somebody, but what does it really tell you about them? Nothing. I’ve had beautiful, intense romantic relationships with women in my life. And in this period in my life I have beautiful, intense romantic relationships with men.” 1I’ve been around evangelicalism enough to know that many will not be a bit concerned about this. After all, is homosexuality the worst sin in the world? Chad is not only gay, he flaunts his sexuality on the big screen. In an interview with InLA Magazine, he was asked about his first gay love scene in a movie. He responded, “I want beautiful, positive representations of gay male sexuality out there. So it was very important to the director, Ron Oliver, and me to make a really good sex scene that wasn't gratuitous or gross but was healthy, sexy, and beautiful.” 2
Every Tribe Entertainment chose a producer of gay films.
Chad Allen is co-producing a film called The Way Out, starring David Duchovny, about two old men who fall in love in an old folk’s home.3 He also started a company called Mythgarden. In August of 2005, he gave an interview to Scene magazine in which he expanded on Mythgarden’s plans. He said, “For television, we have a biography series of gay and lesbian heroes throughout history. We also have a wonderful series that takes classic fairy tales both familiar and lesser known and makes them gay. There's a fantastic book we optioned called Fairy Tales for Gay Men.”4 He further elaborated on his goals when he said, "There are so many good stories that want to be told, and we just want to make good movies with and for gay people," says Allen, who is going back into production with a new Donald Strachey mystery for Here TV in which he plays a gay detective. "We want to tell stories that highlight historical events and also illustrate what it really means to be gay." His agenda comes across pretty clear when he states in an interview with Out magazine that he hopes to use Mythgarden to show gay, lesbian, bisexual, and trans-gendered people in a positive light.5
Every Tribe Entertainment chose a gay activist.
Not only is Allen a gay movie actor who also produces gay films, he is an activist for gay causes. According to Out magazine’s January 2006 article, Chad tours the country with gay outreach programs.6 In an April 23 interview, he was asked if he had been to many gay pride celebrations around the country. He replied, “I love it. Everyone gets so uptight about people marching down the street…I mean who cares, these people have been doing this before we could even talk about being openly gay and stuff. These people have pushed the community so (expletive) far forward, excuse my language that who cares about the shock.” 7 According to Advocate magazine in November of 2003, “He began pouring his energy and time into myriad causes, including the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund, which helps elect openly gay candidates nationwide, and the Trevor Project, which sponsors a toll-free, round-the-clock suicide hotline for GLBT teens.” 8
Every Tribe Entertainment chose a star who has appeared in plays that have degraded Christ and Christianity.
In 2001, Allen starred in a play, set in 1950’s Corpus Christi, Texas. The play is said to parallel the New Testament story of Jesus. The play features a hard-drinking gay man gay named Joshua. Joshua is the Christ-figure who is different because he is gay. He grows up in isolation and becomes an object of ridicule. He runs from the environment of the city and while traveling gathers about him a group of twelve disciples who cling to him because of his message of love and tolerance. Most of the twelve disciples bear the names of Christ's apostles.According to a Gay Wired article in 2001, when asked how he became involved in the play, Allen said, “I had heard of the show and knew of its reputation before I read it. So I took it home and read it and when I read it, I found it to be an incredible play. It single-handedly seemed to give me back a concept of Christ and a concept of human divinity that I had long since lost.” 9Here are excerpts from another interview:DW: Corpus Christi is not a play without its share of detractors. What do you say to those who claim that the play is an attack on Christianity?CA: “I view [Corpus Christi] as a deeply Christian play. I constantly find myself reminding people that Jesus Christ is not a character in this play. This is not written as a historical account or meant to be a historical account of Jesus Christ. What it does is it asks us all, ‘Can we see ourselves as Christ? Are we all capable of that same kind of relationship with God?'”DW: What do you think is the single most important message of the play?CA: “It’s one line in the play. It’s early on when God is talking to his son before Joshua comes to realize himself as the son of God and [God] whispers to him, ‘All men are divine.’ And he [Joshua] says, ‘What? I can’t hear you?’ And he [God] says, ‘All men are divine. That is the secret that you will teach them.’ [Then] Joshua says, ‘What if I don’t want to teach them?’ and God says, ‘You won’t be able to keep the secret.’ That’s the message of the piece as I see it. That we are all capable of the same kind of divine relationship with God that Joshua comes to find.” 10However, Corpus Christi is not the only anti-Christian production that Allen has been involved in. He starred in a production entitled “Save Me” which is about a young man who goes to an organization designed to help gays come out of the gay lifestyle. While at the treatment center, he falls in love with a male reporter. In explaining the production to The Advocate magazine on November 25, 2003, Chad said, “[It's] about the "ex-gay" movement. I read the script and at the end I was crying, because I thought it was the best love story between two guys that I'd ever read. Simultaneously, it explores this ex-gay movement from a place where it doesn't need to make the Christian right out to be the bad guys. I play a [gay] boy who's bottomed out in his life. His family takes him to [an ex-gay ministry], and he genuinely wants to give it a try. In the meantime, Robert Gant is this reporter who goes undercover [into the same ex-gay ministry] to get the scoop, and he and I fall in love. It's a beautiful, beautiful story.” 11
Every Tribe Entertainment chose an actor who has argued publicly (with an evangelical pastor) for the rights to same-sex marriage and gay adoption.
Below is the exchange between Chad Allen and John MacArthur on Larry King Live on February 24, 2004.
2. How the gay community views the choice of a gay man playing a Christian missionary.
First of all, Chad Allen believes that this film will help bring the gay community and Christians together.
An interview with InLA magazine perhaps shows Allen’s true heart when it comes to his acting in a movie about evangelical missionaries. I provide the quote exactly as it appears in the interview. “Allen also stars in the upcoming film End of the Spears, based on the true story of a group of Christian missionaries that make contact with the Waodani, a notoriously violent Ecuadorian tribe. Having grown up in a Roman Catholic family, Allen saw this project as a challenge he wanted to undertake. "There were a lot of people on both sides that weren't particularly interested in me doing this movie. I am from a Christian background, but I have a personal spirituality that spans the distance from Buddhism to Hindu philosophy to Native American beliefs. That aside, this movie is about the power of love. I knew it was an opportunity to bridge these two disparate communities that are believed to be enemies- the gay and the Christian communities."13 I would be the first to say that I do not consider those who live in the gay community as enemies. I work with several such individuals in helping them to put that lifestyle behind them. However, when it comes to the gay agenda and gay activism, there is no doubt that they stand in complete opposition to the message of the Bible. So, discerning pastors must ask themselves the question, “If Chad Allen believes in the power of this film to bring the gay and Christian communities together, should we not be concerned about recommending the film to those in our congregations?” Are we not responsible to not just stay silent about it, but rather to warn people of the dangers of the film? Don’t get me wrong. I think there is much to recommend in the story, however, I think our church members need to be aware of the issues behind the film.
Second, even the gay media seems surprised at the choice.
Out Magazine published an article this month and the subtitle read, “Chad Allen: teen heartthrob, actor, producer, gay activist ...missionary man?”14 Evidently, they see the discrepancy between the lifestyle of a gay actor and a missionary.
Third, Allen is convinced that he landed the role because of an interview read by End of the Spear representatives in a gay magazine.
I quote the Advocate 2005 issue, “And then there are Allen's recent-and, he says, profound-experiences in Panama making the film End of the Spear and in the Ecuadoran Amazon after shooting wrapped. Scheduled for a January release, Spear is a $20 million indie based on the true story of a Christian missionary played by the gay Allen, a role that he confides he landed in part thanks to The Advocate.” 15Does anybody else wonder why a Christian movie company representative is reading gay magazines? Did the movie reps actually know about Allen’s homosexuality before he was hired? Sadly, the answer to the second question is yes.
3. The response of Every Tribe Entertaiment when confronted about this choice.
Every Tribe Entertainment chose Chad Allen even though they were aware of his lifestyle. It’s sad to even report this but the Advocate wrote an article entitled, “Missionary man: How being on the cover of The Advocate got Chad Allen a role as a real-life evangelical Christian killed in the Amazon.” Here is an excerpt from that article.
So, Allen even had sensitivities about portraying an evangelical missionary. He did not want to offend or cause problems because of his homosexuality. However, he was assured by Every Tribe Entertainment that his lifestyle would have no impact on starring in a film portraying one of America’s most loved missionaries. Also, the filmmakers produced the magazine and showed it to Allen and said that Steve Saint agreed that the things he talked about in the article were things that Nate Saint had fought for his whole life. Now, one must read the article to which they are referring. You can find the whole thing here. I read through it twice and found a brief mention of Allen doing charity work for struggling teens, but other than that, the article is filled with facts about his homosexual lifestyle. Then, they actually tell Allen that it would be “wrong” for them not to ask him to star in the film. So, we actually get to peer into the true belief system of Every Tribe Entertainment. Keep in mind that the e-newsletter from the Advocate goes to 40,000 subscribers. They have received a clear message from this branch of evangelicals.
Every Tribe Entertainment refuses to admit that the choice of Chad Allen was a mistake.
Every Tribe Entertainment is a new movie company that has as it’s mission, “To create quality entertainment for a broad audience that inspires hope through truth.” It was founded by Mart Green, founder of the Mardel Christian and Educational Supply chain. When confronted about the issue of Allen being in the film in a leading role, he told Christian Retailing Magazine that he did not believe that Allen being in the movie will “present a problem for Christian viewers.” He said, "After someone told me that Chad appeared on the cover of the gay and lesbian magazine The Advocate, we just felt, 'Hey, he's still the best actor.' If anything, he was more concerned when he found that we found out -- not that he has been hiding his sexuality.” He’s “available to tell our story of faith and forgiveness in the best way possible…Our position is we’re making quality films that tell faith-based stories, so we hire the best.” 17
4. Why Christians should be concerned.
First, we must be careful about who we allow to have a platform of influence in the Christian community.
Chad Allen already has a substantial fan base due to his successful acting career. However, this movie will by far be one of his biggest splashes on the screen. No doubt, his fan base will explode, especially among Christian kids. Every email that is sent from evangelical teens will go through his hands. You cannot go to Chad’s website and spend any time there without seeing his homosexuality on display. At several points, kids can learn about gay publications, online magazines, and support groups for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and trans-gendered teens. To demonstrate his fan appeal, I will quote a response from a magazine interview regarding people contacting him. Interviewer: “Have you experienced more people reaching out to you since your coming-out? Chad Allen: “Absolutely. There's a fan Web site, and that's become the epicenter for people, especially gay kids, who want to communicate and know about my story. Every E-mail that gets sent there eventually gets passed on to me. I spend a lot of time, more time than ever, working with young people, especially in the arena of drug abuse and dependency, people in chemical recovery programs-those issues and sexuality, and the way that those two go hand in hand so often, especially in our community.” 18
Second, we are going to get the level of society that we are willing to tolerate. I have no great visions that we will ever transform this decadent society. However, I am not a pessimist who simply thinks the world is already going to hell in a hand basket and thus will sit and watch it burn. I care about people. I care about my kids. I care about my church. I care about the Gospel. I care about upholding the Word of God. Therefore, I cannot sit by and watch the evangelical left take one more bite out of Christian conviction.
Third, we must realize that the Christian message and the messenger are intricately related.
In the New Testament, when a believer’s life did not match up to the Christian message, there was serious censure and discipline. Now, Chad Allen makes no claim to be a believer, but he portrayed one – a Gospel-proclaiming one. And his lifestyle is not hidden. In fact, he’s one of the foremost voices in Hollywood for the gay agenda. Every Tribe Productions seems to believe that there would never be a case where someone’s public and known behavior would ever disqualify him from playing a Christian missionary in a film. Does anyone really believe that Chad Allen was the best possible actor for Nate Saint? This would be like Madonna playing the virgin Mary. I propose that the Christian film-making community come up with a code of ethics that will show the difference between a Christian film company and a secular film company. If you are going to ask for our loyalty and support, you need to be willing to hear our concerns and let us know that you will protect our beliefs, not muddy the waters. Some will bring up the fact that I am making a big deal out of this just because of the gay issue. However, it’s not just his homosexuality. It’s what he does and has done with it. If someone’s sin problem was drunkenness instead, I would have just as big of an issue with it. If he promoted drunkenness, created movies promoting drunkenness, starred in a play as a drunk Jesus character, went on television and debated the rights of drunks, and then saw this movie as a chance to bring agreement between Christians and drunks, I’d be just as mad.
Fourth, we must be careful that we continue to hold to the Biblical position that homosexual practices are a sin.
This year, several denominations are having key votes regarding their stance on homosexuality. With compromise on every side, it is important to continue to state the position of the Word of God clearly on the issue. According to Romans 1, God said that homosexuality is a sin.
Fifth, we must reach gay people with the Gospel, but this is not the way. When the people starring in the film do not understand the message of the film, this should cause us to pause. I personally believe that more churches should reach out to the gay community with the Gospel. It’s going to be difficult. You will be misunderstood by believers and unbelievers alike. However, whatever we do, they must understand that we love them, care for them, and desire for them to come to a knowledge of the truth.
5. What Christians should do?
1. Communicate with Every Tribe Entertainment and let them know of your disappointment with their decision. Whatever you say, do it with meekness (Galatians 6:1).
2. Explain to your congregation the dangers of this choice so that they are aware of the issue regardless of whether or not they attend the movie or rent it later on.
3. Forward this article to as many people as possible so that they are made aware of the issue.
4. Have your pastor email me at jasonjanz@sharperiron.org to sign his name to the following letter I am sending to Mart Green and Every Tribe Entertainment. If your church has assistant pastors, I will add them to the list as well.
Dear Mart Green and Every Tribe Entertainment,
We are writing to you to express our deep disappointment in your selection of a gay activist to play the role of Nate Saint in the movie, The End of the Spear. We believe it is our biblical responsibility to confront a fellow believer when he makes a mistake. We have been asked over the last several months to aggressively promote this film to our congregations, however, we cannot do so because of this issue.We look forward to hearing how you plan to rectify this unfortunate situation.
In Him, (pastors)
Should we discourage anyone from seeing the film?
Personally, I have conflicting feelings about the viewing of the film. On the one hand, I do not want to send the message to Every Tribe Entertainment and the rest of the Christian film-making community that this is acceptable. This would make me lean towards discouraging anyone to view it in the theatre or to rent it on video. On the other hand, for those familiar with the story, the movie is powerful and could be edifying to the believer. (Don’t worry about it being a tool of evangelism. The Gospel is so hidden in the film that the chances of people getting saved are slim to none. But, that’ll be talked about in a post next week.) So, I think I will do my best to let people know of the problems with the movie and it’s production. Second, if they desire to view it, wait until it comes out on video and have lots of people over to see it in their home. That way, Every Tribe Entertainment doesn’t get as much income.
Disclaimer #1
I’m aware of similar issues in Lord of the Rings, Chariots of Fire, and the Passion of the Christ. However, none were as bold and blatant as this one.
Disclaimer #2
I have no more of an ax to grind with the gay community than I do with any other group that is organized against Bible principles.
Disclaimer #3
I do not think every actor in every Christian film needs to be a Christian.
Disclaimer #4
I don’t think this is the end of the world. Just the end of my support for Every Tribe Entertainment unless an apology is made. If you desire to communicate with me on this, please email me at jasonjanz@sharperiron.org. If you desire to talk by phone, I will be checking my email at regular intervals and will call you back on my cell.
Reference Notes:
1 http://www.chadallenonline.com/press/advocate.htm
2 http://inlamag.com/816/features/816_chad.html
3 http://www.chadallenonline.com/press/advocate2003.htm
4 http://www.chadallenonline.com/press/scene.htm
5 http://www.chadallenonline.com/press/out_mag06.htm
6 http://www.chadallenonline.com/press/out_mag06.htm
7 http://www.chadallenonline.com/press/oia.htm
8 http://www.chadallenonline.com/press/advocate2003.htm
9 http://www.chadallenonline.com/press/gaywired.htm1
0 http://www.geocities.com/chadallenwebsite/interview4
11 http://www.chadallenonline.com/press/advocate2003.htm
12 http://www.chadallenonline.com/press/larrykinglive.htm
13 http://inlamag.com/816/features/816_chad.html
14 http://www.chadallenonline.com/press/out_mag06.htm
15 http://www.chadallenonline.com/press/advocate2005.htm
16 http://www.chadallenonline.com/pres...-missionary.htm
17 Christian Retailing, Tuesday, October 18, 2005
18 http://www.chadallenonline.com/press/advocate2003.htm
______________________________________________
Copyright © 2000 - 2006, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
--------------------------------------------------------
By Jason Janz
January 12th, 2006
SharperIron.org
This past weekend marked the fiftieth anniversary of the death of five missionaries in Ecuador-Ed McCully, Jim Elliot, Peter Fleming, Nate Saint, and Roger Youderian. They died after being speared by natives on a sandy beach along the Curaray River. The story rocketed around the globe and landed on the front cover of Life magazine which included a ten-page article. If you talk to someone who was a believer at the time, it had the same effect as other events such as Kennedy’s assassination – people remember where they were when they heard the story. I heard someone at a missions conference say that the greatest flood of American missionaries to land on foreign soil did so after the deaths of these young men.
The story is perhaps the most endearing, convicting, and popular missions story of American missions overseas over the last one hundred years. Who hasn’t heard Elliot’s motto, “He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose?” The story is near and dear to evangelical Christians the world over. As a young boy, I read Through Gates of Splendor and as a youth pastor, I led a group of teens in performing Bridge of Blood, a play about the lives of these five missionaries and their wives. So, you can imagine the anticipation I felt as I heard that a theatrical movie was coming out in 2006 to mark the 50th anniversary of the deaths of these heroes.
I was given free tickets to a pastor’s preview a week ago and so on Thursday night my wife and I attended the showing. I was struggling in my spirit because my wife and I have battled thoughts of the mission field ever since our college days. We are still open to God’s leading in our lives in this regard. So, just like before missions conference, I was anxious. I knew that watching the sacrifice of these men would challenge my comfortable, American Christianity.
Well, I must say that I was severely disappointed. As the movie was concluding, I moved from disappointment to being upset. I was so upset at what I saw (or didn’t see) that I went up and shared some “devotional thoughts” with one of the heads of the promotional department for the film. He was a former Youth For Christ guy and now he’s working on promoting this film to the Christian community. I’ve had a few days to process my thoughts, research the film, and think about what to do. I have narrowed down my concerns to two main areas. The first area is the content of the film – the average believer should be embarrassed at the dumbing down of the Gospel or anything Christian for that matter. My second area of concern is the cast of the film – Every Tribe Entertainment chose Chad Allen, a gay activist, to play Nate Saint (Most people will remember Chad if they watched Dr. Quinn: Medicine Woman. Chad played Matthew Cooper, the oldest of the adopted children). I will write on these two issues. My first article will focus on the choice of Chad Allen as one of the leading stars in the show.
I have divided my article into five points:
1. The facts about Every Tribe Entertainment’s choice of Chad Allen.
2. How the gay community views the choice of a gay man playing a Christian missionary.
3. The response of Every Tribe Entertainment when confronted about this choice.
4. Why Christians should be concerned.
5. What Christians should do.
1. The facts about Every Tribe Entertainment’s choice of Chad Allen.
Every Tribe Entertainment chose a gay actor to play Nate Saint in the movie.
In an interview, he was asked if he had ever been in love. He said, “Yes, absolutely. I’ve loved deeply, in the romantic sense. I’m very proud of that.” The interviewer asked, “Not so long ago you had a big reputation around drugs and parties. Were you a circuit boy?” Allen responded, “No, I was a guy who loved to push everything to its limits. That included the use of drugs and alcohol to expand and heighten every emotion to its absolute extreme. I’ve experienced the rave scene, the underground New York and L.A. scenes, the circuit party scene among gay men—all of it. It’s a nice little label to give somebody, but what does it really tell you about them? Nothing. I’ve had beautiful, intense romantic relationships with women in my life. And in this period in my life I have beautiful, intense romantic relationships with men.” 1I’ve been around evangelicalism enough to know that many will not be a bit concerned about this. After all, is homosexuality the worst sin in the world? Chad is not only gay, he flaunts his sexuality on the big screen. In an interview with InLA Magazine, he was asked about his first gay love scene in a movie. He responded, “I want beautiful, positive representations of gay male sexuality out there. So it was very important to the director, Ron Oliver, and me to make a really good sex scene that wasn't gratuitous or gross but was healthy, sexy, and beautiful.” 2
Every Tribe Entertainment chose a producer of gay films.
Chad Allen is co-producing a film called The Way Out, starring David Duchovny, about two old men who fall in love in an old folk’s home.3 He also started a company called Mythgarden. In August of 2005, he gave an interview to Scene magazine in which he expanded on Mythgarden’s plans. He said, “For television, we have a biography series of gay and lesbian heroes throughout history. We also have a wonderful series that takes classic fairy tales both familiar and lesser known and makes them gay. There's a fantastic book we optioned called Fairy Tales for Gay Men.”4 He further elaborated on his goals when he said, "There are so many good stories that want to be told, and we just want to make good movies with and for gay people," says Allen, who is going back into production with a new Donald Strachey mystery for Here TV in which he plays a gay detective. "We want to tell stories that highlight historical events and also illustrate what it really means to be gay." His agenda comes across pretty clear when he states in an interview with Out magazine that he hopes to use Mythgarden to show gay, lesbian, bisexual, and trans-gendered people in a positive light.5
Every Tribe Entertainment chose a gay activist.
Not only is Allen a gay movie actor who also produces gay films, he is an activist for gay causes. According to Out magazine’s January 2006 article, Chad tours the country with gay outreach programs.6 In an April 23 interview, he was asked if he had been to many gay pride celebrations around the country. He replied, “I love it. Everyone gets so uptight about people marching down the street…I mean who cares, these people have been doing this before we could even talk about being openly gay and stuff. These people have pushed the community so (expletive) far forward, excuse my language that who cares about the shock.” 7 According to Advocate magazine in November of 2003, “He began pouring his energy and time into myriad causes, including the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund, which helps elect openly gay candidates nationwide, and the Trevor Project, which sponsors a toll-free, round-the-clock suicide hotline for GLBT teens.” 8
Every Tribe Entertainment chose a star who has appeared in plays that have degraded Christ and Christianity.
In 2001, Allen starred in a play, set in 1950’s Corpus Christi, Texas. The play is said to parallel the New Testament story of Jesus. The play features a hard-drinking gay man gay named Joshua. Joshua is the Christ-figure who is different because he is gay. He grows up in isolation and becomes an object of ridicule. He runs from the environment of the city and while traveling gathers about him a group of twelve disciples who cling to him because of his message of love and tolerance. Most of the twelve disciples bear the names of Christ's apostles.According to a Gay Wired article in 2001, when asked how he became involved in the play, Allen said, “I had heard of the show and knew of its reputation before I read it. So I took it home and read it and when I read it, I found it to be an incredible play. It single-handedly seemed to give me back a concept of Christ and a concept of human divinity that I had long since lost.” 9Here are excerpts from another interview:DW: Corpus Christi is not a play without its share of detractors. What do you say to those who claim that the play is an attack on Christianity?CA: “I view [Corpus Christi] as a deeply Christian play. I constantly find myself reminding people that Jesus Christ is not a character in this play. This is not written as a historical account or meant to be a historical account of Jesus Christ. What it does is it asks us all, ‘Can we see ourselves as Christ? Are we all capable of that same kind of relationship with God?'”DW: What do you think is the single most important message of the play?CA: “It’s one line in the play. It’s early on when God is talking to his son before Joshua comes to realize himself as the son of God and [God] whispers to him, ‘All men are divine.’ And he [Joshua] says, ‘What? I can’t hear you?’ And he [God] says, ‘All men are divine. That is the secret that you will teach them.’ [Then] Joshua says, ‘What if I don’t want to teach them?’ and God says, ‘You won’t be able to keep the secret.’ That’s the message of the piece as I see it. That we are all capable of the same kind of divine relationship with God that Joshua comes to find.” 10However, Corpus Christi is not the only anti-Christian production that Allen has been involved in. He starred in a production entitled “Save Me” which is about a young man who goes to an organization designed to help gays come out of the gay lifestyle. While at the treatment center, he falls in love with a male reporter. In explaining the production to The Advocate magazine on November 25, 2003, Chad said, “[It's] about the "ex-gay" movement. I read the script and at the end I was crying, because I thought it was the best love story between two guys that I'd ever read. Simultaneously, it explores this ex-gay movement from a place where it doesn't need to make the Christian right out to be the bad guys. I play a [gay] boy who's bottomed out in his life. His family takes him to [an ex-gay ministry], and he genuinely wants to give it a try. In the meantime, Robert Gant is this reporter who goes undercover [into the same ex-gay ministry] to get the scoop, and he and I fall in love. It's a beautiful, beautiful story.” 11
Every Tribe Entertainment chose an actor who has argued publicly (with an evangelical pastor) for the rights to same-sex marriage and gay adoption.
Below is the exchange between Chad Allen and John MacArthur on Larry King Live on February 24, 2004.
Quote:
(Introductory statement of Allen in the context of the question of same-sex marriages)
Chad Allen: You know, I'll be honest with you. If you'd asked me this question a year ago, I wouldn't have cared. I would have said, Why would I want to get involved with that institution? Why would I want to have -- ultimately, wind up having my things decided by a court and where they go. And then I fell in love a year ago. And he's on the road right now, and when I wake up in the morning, I miss him a lot. I miss him right in my belly. And for the first time in my life, I started thinking about this institution of marriage and what my parents talked about, about building a life with somebody else. And when I woke up today, the president told me that I couldn't have that. The president said he would -- they turned the Constitution around and make it a document of exclusion and tell me that I'm a second-class citizen. That's not OK.(Large part of interview skipped here between various people)
KING: John, what do you say to those who say, What about Chad and the love of his life being together? Isn't that better than, say, the heterosexual marriage where one of the partners cheats? Who is contributing more to the moral decay of the society, the adulterous husband with the female wife or the loving gay couple who don't do that?
MACARTHUR: Yes, well, you're asking me to do something I really can't do, and make a judgment on which sin is better or worse than the other. We've suffered in this country from adultery, divorce, the abuse of children, pedophilia, you name it. I'm not going to classify those in rank. They're sins, and they destroy the family.
KING: And homosexuality is...
MACARTHUR: And homosexuality...
KING: ... a sin to you.
MACARTHUR: Yes. And...
KING: Therefore, it's a choice.
MACARTHUR: It's a choice you make. It's a sinful choice.
KING: Did you make a choice to be heterosexual?
MACARTHUR: I don't think I had to make a choice to be heterosexual. I think that's a natural thing.
KING: Wait a minute. Wait a minute. In other words, one is a choice and one is not?
MACARTHUR: Yes.
KING: So he was unlucky and you're...
MACARTHUR: Because -- because you're not talking about -- because it's natural to be heterosexual. That's built...
KING: What do you mean by natural?
MACARTHUR: Well, I mean, that's the way God made us. That's the normal...
KING: But if he doesn't feel that way, what is he, then? He's not a sinner. It wasn't his decision.
MACARTHUR: Yes, I think it was his decision.
ALLEN: I would love, absolutely love for the pastor to point out for me when in my life I made that decision because I have to tell you, it caused a lot of pain in my family. It caused a lot of pain to me. It's a very, very tough thing that I had to go through. I don't remember making that decision. If I did, maybe can you point it out, but that wasn't the case for me. It's who I am. You also said that it was in the fabric of the human being that -- to understand that marriage was between a man and a woman and that's what family was. It must not be because it's not in the fabric of what who I am. It's not the way I see it. I think families come in all shapes, sizes and colors.
MACARTHUR: Well, let me respond this way, Chad, and say it had to be in the fabric of humanity or you wouldn't be here.
ALLEN: I believe that reproduction is. I'll give you that. I absolutely believe that reproduction is. However, I think family, the definition of family and the definition of reproduction are very, very different things.
KING: All right...
MACARTHUR: Well, what I said earlier is the DNA, the genetic structure of humanity, of civilization, of society is family. Everybody knows that. That's in the heart. That's how it works. You're coming along with others who are homosexual in their perspective and overturning what is natural to everyone.
MACARTHUR: Let me respond to Chad, too, just on a personal basis, Chad, by saying, I don't think at some point you said, OK, I'm going to be a homosexual. I got two alternatives. You know, I'm going to go be a homosexual. But I do think whatever sin patterns show up in our lives -- and it may be different for us -- we can choose to continue down those paths of sin, whether it's adultery or whatever it is, or we can say, Look, this is sin, and I need to deal with this in my heart. If this is the way I'm being led, it's not right. It doesn't honor God. It's not according to his Word. It's not going to ultimately bring blessing on life. I make the choice at that -- I can't make a choice to be a sinner, OK? I am. We all are. But once you start down the path of sin, if you recognize that it is that, then you look to the Lord for the remedy to that.
ALLEN: And I respect you beyond anything for your belief on that. I really do. And let me tell you where the sin was in my life, as I see it. When I was in high school and kids were getting picked on and I was one of those kids picking on other kids, the ones that couldn't help but show that they were gay, the effeminate boys, and I picked on them and I beat them up. That was a sin for me. The sin for me was hiding who I was, when I was -- when it was dark inside my life and I was hiding who I was and trying to be something else, that was the sin for me. I believe that it's God who's called me to open up and start talking.
(King breaks off this part to talk with another panelist)
(Allen now argues for the right to adopt)
KING: John, how about -- here are two people that want to -- they want a family. They want to be a gay couple. They want what you have, you have with your wife. They're asking for that. They want to promise fidelity. They want to promise to love, honor and obey. Why not let them do that?
MACARTHUR: Well, they may want a family, but they can't have one.
KING: No, but -- yes, they can. They can adopt.
MACARTHUR: Well, that -- they can't have one in the way that God designed it. They can't have one.
KING: Well, I'm talking about...
MACARTHUR: I mean, they can borrow somebody else's children.
KING: The state and God are not the same. The state -- what does the state care?
MACARTHUR: Well, I think because the state has a responsibility to uphold the right. Even the Bible says that the government exists to protect the people...
KING: What does the Bible...
MACARTHUR: ... from what is evil. Well, I'm just saying...
KING: OK.
MACARTHUR: What does a state do? It protects us, right? It protects us from what destroys. We enter into the abortion debate. The state makes laws about abortion. Why? Because it wants to protect what is valuable to our society and that is the reproduction process. This goes upstream in some sense, Larry, past the point of conception to a point where there can't even be conception.
KING: But don't you feel compassion for the fact that Chad wants only one thing, the same thing you have.
MACARTHUR: You know, I...
KING: What's wrong with that?
MACARTHUR: Because it's a wrong relationship. It's a sinful relationship. It's an unnatural relationship. It's a relationship that, obviously, common sense tells you can't produce children and care for children in the way that humanity's...
KING: And that's the only reason for marriage, then?
MACARTHUR: Well, there's more...
KING: Reproduction?
MACARTHUR: ... to say than that. You got to look beyond them. You got to look to the future. You have to look to the kids, the children. Law establishes values. Values are taught to children. They determine how children think in the future.
KING: Chad...
ALLEN: I have four friends, married couples, gay couples raising children, doing a very, very good job of teaching their children and raising their children in beautiful, loving families.
KING: Chad, why do you want what the society doesn't want to give you?
ALLEN: That's a good question. I'll tell you why. Because my parents showed me what love was like. They showed me what marriage was like. They showed me what two people could build together, grow old together, be happy together, take care of each other, plan for their future, plan for their deaths, plan to take care of each other if they're in the hospital. I've seen friends do the same thing. I stood up next to my brother when he got married and in front of the church, in front of our family, told -- said how much he loved his wife and wanted to be together.And for the first time in my life, again, I'm in love. And I started thinking, I want that, too. I can do it, too. And the bottom line is whether or not, ultimately, I or any my of my buddies want to get married is besides the point. There exists this institution which we've attached legal ramifications to, special rights to, that you're telling me that I can't have. That's not fair. That's not right. It's not what our country stands for.
(skipping another large part of interview)
CALLER: Hello. I'm -- this is a question for Congresswoman Musgrave and Pastor MacArthur. I'm a father of a gay son, and a grandfather. My son and his partner have been in a committed relationship for eight years. They have adopted two biracial high risk unwanted babies in the District of Colombia. They are a wonderful family. What in the world is wrong with this family that should prevent the parents from being married? Shouldn't they receive all the support that society can provide?
MACARTHUR: I'm not denying that on purely a social level those children will be better off being cared by somebody than being left in some foster situation or even worse. I would never deny that. Than I'm back to the bottom line which is that kind of union is sinful before God.
KING: But the acts they're doing are not sinful. They're raising two children who people didn't want. That's a wonderful thing.
MACARTHUR: That's the good part but the context in which that happens say context that advocates and flaunts the sin of homosexuality which is defined...
ALLEN: Even if that is the case, and listen, we'll all find out at the end of the day, can't we let God decide that?
MACARTHUR: It's in the word of God, it's unmistakably clear in the bible.
ALLEN: What are we so worried about? What are we so scared about? Why all this trouble to prevent me from accepting these privileges while I'm here if God will ultimately take care of it?
MACARTHUR: Let me answer that personally because the bible says in no uncertain terms that no hoe know [sic] sexual or adulterer will ever inherit the kingdom of God. The question is not open. It's a closed question.
KING: Suppose Chad doesn't want into the kingdom of heaven. His right.
MACARTHUR: I think he does. Don't you?
KING: What if he doesn't.
MACARTHUR: Absolutely and if that's the case, great, but however, will may be people that don't. And I don't want this country governed by the word of the bible, I don't want it. I want this country to be open to people who believe in all kinds of things.
MACARTHUR: The bible says that no sinner this is more than just we homosexuals, and then it says this, but such were some of you but you've been washed. You've been sanctified through faith in Jesus Christ. This is the great message of Christianity. We're all sinner, not just this but there is forgiveness and the kingdom of God is open to us. 12
2. How the gay community views the choice of a gay man playing a Christian missionary.
First of all, Chad Allen believes that this film will help bring the gay community and Christians together.
An interview with InLA magazine perhaps shows Allen’s true heart when it comes to his acting in a movie about evangelical missionaries. I provide the quote exactly as it appears in the interview. “Allen also stars in the upcoming film End of the Spears, based on the true story of a group of Christian missionaries that make contact with the Waodani, a notoriously violent Ecuadorian tribe. Having grown up in a Roman Catholic family, Allen saw this project as a challenge he wanted to undertake. "There were a lot of people on both sides that weren't particularly interested in me doing this movie. I am from a Christian background, but I have a personal spirituality that spans the distance from Buddhism to Hindu philosophy to Native American beliefs. That aside, this movie is about the power of love. I knew it was an opportunity to bridge these two disparate communities that are believed to be enemies- the gay and the Christian communities."13 I would be the first to say that I do not consider those who live in the gay community as enemies. I work with several such individuals in helping them to put that lifestyle behind them. However, when it comes to the gay agenda and gay activism, there is no doubt that they stand in complete opposition to the message of the Bible. So, discerning pastors must ask themselves the question, “If Chad Allen believes in the power of this film to bring the gay and Christian communities together, should we not be concerned about recommending the film to those in our congregations?” Are we not responsible to not just stay silent about it, but rather to warn people of the dangers of the film? Don’t get me wrong. I think there is much to recommend in the story, however, I think our church members need to be aware of the issues behind the film.
Second, even the gay media seems surprised at the choice.
Out Magazine published an article this month and the subtitle read, “Chad Allen: teen heartthrob, actor, producer, gay activist ...missionary man?”14 Evidently, they see the discrepancy between the lifestyle of a gay actor and a missionary.
Third, Allen is convinced that he landed the role because of an interview read by End of the Spear representatives in a gay magazine.
I quote the Advocate 2005 issue, “And then there are Allen's recent-and, he says, profound-experiences in Panama making the film End of the Spear and in the Ecuadoran Amazon after shooting wrapped. Scheduled for a January release, Spear is a $20 million indie based on the true story of a Christian missionary played by the gay Allen, a role that he confides he landed in part thanks to The Advocate.” 15Does anybody else wonder why a Christian movie company representative is reading gay magazines? Did the movie reps actually know about Allen’s homosexuality before he was hired? Sadly, the answer to the second question is yes.
3. The response of Every Tribe Entertaiment when confronted about this choice.
Every Tribe Entertainment chose Chad Allen even though they were aware of his lifestyle. It’s sad to even report this but the Advocate wrote an article entitled, “Missionary man: How being on the cover of The Advocate got Chad Allen a role as a real-life evangelical Christian killed in the Amazon.” Here is an excerpt from that article.
Quote:
“When Chad Allen was first told by his agent that he was being offered a pivotal role in an independent film called End of the Spear, Allen asked point-blank, "’Do they know who I am?'”Allen went into his first meeting with the film's producers and director with real trepidation that they and the Saint family-for whom, he stresses, he had great respect would not want a gay man representing their legacy. After he aired his concern, however, the filmmakers produced, of all things, the November 25, 2003, issue of The Advocate with Allen on the cover, in which the actor spoke of his faith and the importance of doing good works for the holidays. They had showed that issue to Steve Saint, the filmmakers told Allen. "And this man Steve Saint said that the same things that I talked about in The Advocate are the same things he fought his whole life for," Allen beams, "and it would wrong for them not to ask me to do it. That's an amazing story, right?"
No kidding. Allen's casting as Saints father, Nate-and, later in the film, as Steve himself-did not pass without further controversy, especially after a contentious Larry King Live appearance with minister John MacArthur the day President Bush announced his support for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. But by the end of production Allen was invited along with Saint and a select group of actors and producers from the film to live with the Waodani for several weeks, three days' journey from any working telephone. "When it was over," Allen says quietly, "both [Steve Saint] and I were in tears, hugging each other saying goodbye, because so much love had developed between us. It was an amazing experience:" 16
So, Allen even had sensitivities about portraying an evangelical missionary. He did not want to offend or cause problems because of his homosexuality. However, he was assured by Every Tribe Entertainment that his lifestyle would have no impact on starring in a film portraying one of America’s most loved missionaries. Also, the filmmakers produced the magazine and showed it to Allen and said that Steve Saint agreed that the things he talked about in the article were things that Nate Saint had fought for his whole life. Now, one must read the article to which they are referring. You can find the whole thing here. I read through it twice and found a brief mention of Allen doing charity work for struggling teens, but other than that, the article is filled with facts about his homosexual lifestyle. Then, they actually tell Allen that it would be “wrong” for them not to ask him to star in the film. So, we actually get to peer into the true belief system of Every Tribe Entertainment. Keep in mind that the e-newsletter from the Advocate goes to 40,000 subscribers. They have received a clear message from this branch of evangelicals.
Every Tribe Entertainment refuses to admit that the choice of Chad Allen was a mistake.
Every Tribe Entertainment is a new movie company that has as it’s mission, “To create quality entertainment for a broad audience that inspires hope through truth.” It was founded by Mart Green, founder of the Mardel Christian and Educational Supply chain. When confronted about the issue of Allen being in the film in a leading role, he told Christian Retailing Magazine that he did not believe that Allen being in the movie will “present a problem for Christian viewers.” He said, "After someone told me that Chad appeared on the cover of the gay and lesbian magazine The Advocate, we just felt, 'Hey, he's still the best actor.' If anything, he was more concerned when he found that we found out -- not that he has been hiding his sexuality.” He’s “available to tell our story of faith and forgiveness in the best way possible…Our position is we’re making quality films that tell faith-based stories, so we hire the best.” 17
4. Why Christians should be concerned.
First, we must be careful about who we allow to have a platform of influence in the Christian community.
Chad Allen already has a substantial fan base due to his successful acting career. However, this movie will by far be one of his biggest splashes on the screen. No doubt, his fan base will explode, especially among Christian kids. Every email that is sent from evangelical teens will go through his hands. You cannot go to Chad’s website and spend any time there without seeing his homosexuality on display. At several points, kids can learn about gay publications, online magazines, and support groups for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and trans-gendered teens. To demonstrate his fan appeal, I will quote a response from a magazine interview regarding people contacting him. Interviewer: “Have you experienced more people reaching out to you since your coming-out? Chad Allen: “Absolutely. There's a fan Web site, and that's become the epicenter for people, especially gay kids, who want to communicate and know about my story. Every E-mail that gets sent there eventually gets passed on to me. I spend a lot of time, more time than ever, working with young people, especially in the arena of drug abuse and dependency, people in chemical recovery programs-those issues and sexuality, and the way that those two go hand in hand so often, especially in our community.” 18
Second, we are going to get the level of society that we are willing to tolerate. I have no great visions that we will ever transform this decadent society. However, I am not a pessimist who simply thinks the world is already going to hell in a hand basket and thus will sit and watch it burn. I care about people. I care about my kids. I care about my church. I care about the Gospel. I care about upholding the Word of God. Therefore, I cannot sit by and watch the evangelical left take one more bite out of Christian conviction.
Third, we must realize that the Christian message and the messenger are intricately related.
In the New Testament, when a believer’s life did not match up to the Christian message, there was serious censure and discipline. Now, Chad Allen makes no claim to be a believer, but he portrayed one – a Gospel-proclaiming one. And his lifestyle is not hidden. In fact, he’s one of the foremost voices in Hollywood for the gay agenda. Every Tribe Productions seems to believe that there would never be a case where someone’s public and known behavior would ever disqualify him from playing a Christian missionary in a film. Does anyone really believe that Chad Allen was the best possible actor for Nate Saint? This would be like Madonna playing the virgin Mary. I propose that the Christian film-making community come up with a code of ethics that will show the difference between a Christian film company and a secular film company. If you are going to ask for our loyalty and support, you need to be willing to hear our concerns and let us know that you will protect our beliefs, not muddy the waters. Some will bring up the fact that I am making a big deal out of this just because of the gay issue. However, it’s not just his homosexuality. It’s what he does and has done with it. If someone’s sin problem was drunkenness instead, I would have just as big of an issue with it. If he promoted drunkenness, created movies promoting drunkenness, starred in a play as a drunk Jesus character, went on television and debated the rights of drunks, and then saw this movie as a chance to bring agreement between Christians and drunks, I’d be just as mad.
Fourth, we must be careful that we continue to hold to the Biblical position that homosexual practices are a sin.
This year, several denominations are having key votes regarding their stance on homosexuality. With compromise on every side, it is important to continue to state the position of the Word of God clearly on the issue. According to Romans 1, God said that homosexuality is a sin.
Fifth, we must reach gay people with the Gospel, but this is not the way. When the people starring in the film do not understand the message of the film, this should cause us to pause. I personally believe that more churches should reach out to the gay community with the Gospel. It’s going to be difficult. You will be misunderstood by believers and unbelievers alike. However, whatever we do, they must understand that we love them, care for them, and desire for them to come to a knowledge of the truth.
5. What Christians should do?
1. Communicate with Every Tribe Entertainment and let them know of your disappointment with their decision. Whatever you say, do it with meekness (Galatians 6:1).
2. Explain to your congregation the dangers of this choice so that they are aware of the issue regardless of whether or not they attend the movie or rent it later on.
3. Forward this article to as many people as possible so that they are made aware of the issue.
4. Have your pastor email me at jasonjanz@sharperiron.org to sign his name to the following letter I am sending to Mart Green and Every Tribe Entertainment. If your church has assistant pastors, I will add them to the list as well.
Dear Mart Green and Every Tribe Entertainment,
We are writing to you to express our deep disappointment in your selection of a gay activist to play the role of Nate Saint in the movie, The End of the Spear. We believe it is our biblical responsibility to confront a fellow believer when he makes a mistake. We have been asked over the last several months to aggressively promote this film to our congregations, however, we cannot do so because of this issue.We look forward to hearing how you plan to rectify this unfortunate situation.
In Him, (pastors)
Should we discourage anyone from seeing the film?
Personally, I have conflicting feelings about the viewing of the film. On the one hand, I do not want to send the message to Every Tribe Entertainment and the rest of the Christian film-making community that this is acceptable. This would make me lean towards discouraging anyone to view it in the theatre or to rent it on video. On the other hand, for those familiar with the story, the movie is powerful and could be edifying to the believer. (Don’t worry about it being a tool of evangelism. The Gospel is so hidden in the film that the chances of people getting saved are slim to none. But, that’ll be talked about in a post next week.) So, I think I will do my best to let people know of the problems with the movie and it’s production. Second, if they desire to view it, wait until it comes out on video and have lots of people over to see it in their home. That way, Every Tribe Entertainment doesn’t get as much income.
Disclaimer #1
I’m aware of similar issues in Lord of the Rings, Chariots of Fire, and the Passion of the Christ. However, none were as bold and blatant as this one.
Disclaimer #2
I have no more of an ax to grind with the gay community than I do with any other group that is organized against Bible principles.
Disclaimer #3
I do not think every actor in every Christian film needs to be a Christian.
Disclaimer #4
I don’t think this is the end of the world. Just the end of my support for Every Tribe Entertainment unless an apology is made. If you desire to communicate with me on this, please email me at jasonjanz@sharperiron.org. If you desire to talk by phone, I will be checking my email at regular intervals and will call you back on my cell.
Reference Notes:
1 http://www.chadallenonline.com/press/advocate.htm
2 http://inlamag.com/816/features/816_chad.html
3 http://www.chadallenonline.com/press/advocate2003.htm
4 http://www.chadallenonline.com/press/scene.htm
5 http://www.chadallenonline.com/press/out_mag06.htm
6 http://www.chadallenonline.com/press/out_mag06.htm
7 http://www.chadallenonline.com/press/oia.htm
8 http://www.chadallenonline.com/press/advocate2003.htm
9 http://www.chadallenonline.com/press/gaywired.htm1
0 http://www.geocities.com/chadallenwebsite/interview4
11 http://www.chadallenonline.com/press/advocate2003.htm
12 http://www.chadallenonline.com/press/larrykinglive.htm
13 http://inlamag.com/816/features/816_chad.html
14 http://www.chadallenonline.com/press/out_mag06.htm
15 http://www.chadallenonline.com/press/advocate2005.htm
16 http://www.chadallenonline.com/pres...-missionary.htm
17 Christian Retailing, Tuesday, October 18, 2005
18 http://www.chadallenonline.com/press/advocate2003.htm
______________________________________________
Copyright © 2000 - 2006, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
