A former Russian spy who died in an apparent poisoning signed a statement on his deathbed blaming Russian President Vladimir Putin for his death, friends said Friday.

The statement, read to reporters outside the hospital where Alexander Litvinenko died late Thursday, accused the Russian leader of having "no respect for life, liberty or any civilized value."

"You have shown yourself to be unworthy of your office, to be unworthy of the trust of civilized men and women," Litvinenko said in a statement read by his friend Alex Goldfarb.

"You may succeed in silencing one man but the howl of protest from around the world will reverberate, Mr. Putin, in your ears for the rest of your life."

Goldfarb said Litvinenko had dictated the statement before he lost consciousness on Tuesday, and signed it in the presence of his wife, Marina.

Full story.

More on this story at MensNewsDaily from Liberty Letters http://mensnewsdaily.com/2006/11/22/litvinenko-unveiled-fsb-dirty-work-putin-eus-batten-players/

http://mensnewsdaily.com/2006/11/22/attempt-on-dissident-litvivenkos-life-was-kremlin-sponsored-kgb-defector/

 Print This Post | Other posts by Steve Farrell

It might seem excessive to invoke a term as a harsh as “Bankrupt” to characterize the nature of the modern Democrat Party, and thus it is a tall order to defend that descriptor. Yet from the opening pages of his new book to its close, best selling author David Limbaugh incontrovertibly makes just such a case.With the depth of thoroughness for which he has become well known (he has previously authored two best-sellers), he pursues an all-encompassing examination of the blinding lust for power that totally consumes the American left. This latest work affords the reader with not only an insightful current analysis of today’s Democrats, but the scope of research with which it is written will make this book a veritable library of resource material for years to come.

In what may have been a valiant effort to avert disaster by forewarning the public as to the dangers it would face in the hands of a Democrat controlled Congress, “Bankrupt” was released a few months prior to the election. Of course America did not listen, and the country now faces at least two years of languishing in the “wilderness” under the corrosive influence of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

Yet, far from rendering this work futile, the current grim circumstances cause the importance of reading Limbaugh’s book to be more, and not less of a necessity.

Though America would not heed his clarion call, the gravity of the consequences about which he forewarned make it essential to thoroughly understand the dark, liberal forces that now dominate our nation’s government. In order for conscientious Americans with heartfelt concerns for the country and its future to be intellectually armed, this book is an absolute must.

During the past few days, the nightly news has been replete with alarming stories regarding the possible pursuit of Democrats’ radical and unquestioningly leftist ideology, followed shortly by the total refutation of any intention to implement those policies. In some cases, the necessity for “damage control” has been so acute that notable Democrat mouthpieces are being employed to counter any claims of an ultra-liberal agenda being promoted by the Democrats.

None other than Nancy Pelosi herself has had to officially deny rumors that the Democrat-controlled Congress will now press forward with plans to impeach the President. Ditto for “cut and run,” threats of reinstituting the draft, and Hillary’s twisted dreams of socialized “health care.” The number of such proposals that have been floated in the past few days, only to be hastily renounced and abandoned, is truly surprising. But it is also revealing.

Democrats are slowly coming to the painful realization that being an opposition party, which merely catcalls and criticizes those who are actually governing, is far easier than being a leadership party that must formulate and implement ideas, and which is henceforth held accountable for them. For the past several years, Democrats have basked in the luxury of “Monday morning quarterbacking,” without ever needing to present substantive alternatives to the Republican actions they relentlessly attack.

With seemingly prophetic accuracy, David Limbaugh made his case prior to the elections that this is exactly the realm in which the Democrat Party operates. Yet his insight was not the product of political clairvoyance, but rather the result of a meticulous case built from an enormous and thoroughly researched database of Democrat commentary.

By their own words, Limbaugh establishes the Democrat Party as a cabal of political animals, devoid of any interest other than their own advancement within the power structure of government.

Admittedly it is a severe indictment, but one which he willingly and capably supports. From the terror war, to the decimation of the courts (and thus, the Constitution), to the manipulation of the electorate through such abominable means as “race baiting,” Limbaugh portrays a Democrat Party with the potential to inflict enormous harm on the nation.

And this is by no means a comprehensive list. The topics mentioned here give but a glimpse into the wealth of information and analysis contained in “Bankrupt.”

Hopefully, a sufficient number of Americans will read his book and become informed as to the dangers they face in the hands of the upcoming Congress. Only by so doing can the disastrous consequences of shortsighted and self-serving behavior, now the core of the modern Democrat Party, be averted.

Perhaps, if enough people become so informed, and word gets out to a sufficient degree between now and 2008, the advancement of liberalism through abominable and fraudulent tactics can be stopped in its tracks in the next election, and thereby neutralized for the foreseeable future.

The “earthquake” that engulfed Capitol Hill after Election Day, and the current resulting chaos and confusion that is the “new order” there, clearly proves the Democrats to be “Bankrupt” of any worthy guiding principles. For a comprehensive education as to what is really going on within the bowels of the Democrat Party, David Limbaugh's “Bankrupt” is essential reading.

Christopher G. Adamo is a freelance writer and staff writer for the New Media Alliance. He lives in southeastern Wyoming with his wife and sons. He has been active in local and state politics for many years.

 Print This Post | Other posts by Steve Farrell

Every communist is in fact liable at any moment to alter his most fundamental convictions, or leave the party. The unquestionable dogma of Monday may become the damnable heresy of Tuesday, and so on.

- George Orwell, quoted in "Orwell and Catholicism"

Liberty Letters Comment: The Bush Administration, as it did with China, now hopes to open up the Capitalist floodgates of 'free trade' advantages to Vietnam, because of Capitalist styled reforms that strike against the old dogma or Communism. This is deception. There never was any dogma to Communism other than this, "It's all about power." Thus the unquestionable dogma of Monday is the damnable heresy of Tuesday, and so on, until, by the way, it is the unquestionable dogma again by Saturday. Anyone who does not understand this, and come clean with Americans about on so serious an issue, is either an ignoramus or a liar, or both.

 Print This Post | Other posts by Steve Farrell

Speaking in "Perestroika," which our media intentionally misled America into believing was an abandonment of Communism, Mikhail Gorbachev tells the truth straight out: "Those who treat Marxism dogmatically and pedantically cannot understand its central point: its revolutionary dialectic. … Does perestroika mean that we are giving up socialism or at least some of its foundation? Some ask this question with hope, others with misgiving … Perestroika is closely connected with socialism as a system."
Mikhail Gorbachev, "Perestroika," p. 36.

And again in his 70th Anniversary of the Russian Revolution speech in 1987, titled, "Perestroika" he adds this blatant warning that our leftist press and establishment controlled State Department ignored: "In October 1917 we parted with the old world, rejecting it once and for all. We are moving towards a new world, the world of communism. We shall never turn off that world."

Interestingly, Mr. Gorbachev became an instrument of radical environmentalism, a strong advocate of the U.N., and even took up resident in San Francisco on a U.S. military base that had been one of many shut down - ironically, because the Russians were "no longer our enemies," and the Cold War was over - after stepping down from the Presidency in Soviet Union. Conscious of the power of symbolic gestures, such as the above, Gorbachev's first two visits to the U.S. were scheduled for December 7th, though weather or some other event ran interference on the second occasion, forcing him to show up a few days later.

 Print This Post | Other posts by Steve Farrell

An enlightened people, who have once attained the blessings of a free government, can never be enslaved until they abandon virtue and relinquish science [the science of government and of laws]. These are the nurses of infant liberty and its fostering genii when matured. To seek their favour is to secure its; to neglect it, is infallibly to lose it. … the ignorance of the people is the footstool of despotism … when ignorance is united with [moral inactiviity], liberty becomes lethargic, and despotism erects her standard without opposition.

- St. George Tucker, View of the Constitution of the United States, p. 14.

Liberty Letters Comment: Tucker's work is a much respected founding era source of study on the Constitution. George Tucker is the man who edited Blackstone's works to apply to the American situation. His point is vital to the entire constitutional and educational debate about the value of morality, and the freedom to inject the religious perspective in the public debate. Lose our moral foundation, lose a nation full of men and women who are willing to lay down their lives, whether figuratively or in reality, for moral principle, and how easy to defeat this people - and that's the point.

 Print This Post | Other posts by Steve Farrell

The Revolutionary Roots of Birth Control and Abortion

Birth control appeals to the advanced radical because it is calculated to undermine the authority of the Christian Church. I look forward to seeing humanity free someday of the tyranny of Christianity no less than Capitalism.

- Margaret Sanger, Founder of Planned Parenthood, “Birth Control and the Revolution,” 1917

Liberty Letters Comment: Few recognize it, but the roots to creating legislative, judicial, and classroom support in favor of that which is immoral, and against that which is moral, or consistent with that most inspired of moral system, the Judeo-Christian ethic (as expounded most clearly by Christ), are so very often calculated, not to liberate man in the spirit of the American Revolution, but to enslave him in the spirit of the Marxist Revolution. This confession by Margaret Sanger is but one of so many that are out there for our serious consideration, if we just open our eyes and stop pretending that it doesn’t matter. It does matter, it always has, and always will. We are in a war between good and evil, and we had better be up to it. Our civilization and our souls are on the line.

The Footstool of Despotism

An enlightened people, who have once attained the blessings of a free government, can never be enslaved until they abandon virtue and relinquish science [the science of government and of laws]. These are the nurses of infant liberty and its fostering genii when matured. To seek their favour is to secure its; to neglect it, is infallibly to lose it. … the ignorance of the people is the footstool of despotism … when ignorance is united with [moral inactiviity], liberty becomes lethargic, and despotism erects her standard without opposition.

- St. George Tucker, View of the Constitution of the United States, p. 14.

Liberty Letters Comment: Tucker’s work is a much respected founding era source of study on the Constitution. George Tucker is the man who edited Blackstone’s works to apply to the American situation. His point is vital to the entire constitutional and educational debate about the value of morality, and the freedom to inject the religious perspective in the public debate. Lose our moral foundation, lose a nation full of men and women who are willing to lay down their lives, whether figuratively or in reality, for moral principle, and how easy to defeat this people - and that’s the point.

But What Can We Do?

“… nothing un-American can live in the sunlight.”

- Al Smith

Liberty Letters Comment: I often hear from my readers, a nearly helpless, “But what can we do?”

Here’s the simple answer: “Education is the key.” First educating yourself and your family, and from there , humbly, but evangelically, outwards to others, as you avail yourself of the opportunities placed before you.

And one more thing: live the standard you hope to spread, to the best of your ability, without hypocrisy (that is, though you as an imperfect being will sin; your heart, nevertheless, loves truth and virtue, not darkness and debauchery. The former is your quest, despite bumps and bruises along the way that are common to man).

Litvinenko unveiled FSB dirty work, Putin, EU’s Batten, players

In the book Blowing up Russia: Terror from Within, Litvinenko alleged that agents from the FSB co-ordinated the 1999 apartment block bombings in Russia that killed more than 300 people. Russian officials blamed the explosions on Chechen separatists and in that year the Kremlin launched a new military offensive on Chechnya. In the book Gang from Lubyanka (Лубянская преступная группировка), Litvinenko alleged that Vladimir Putinwas personally involved in organized crime during his work in FSB.

In a July 2005 interview with Polish newspaper Rzeczpospolita, Litvinenko alleged that Ayman al-Zawahiri, along with other al-Qaeda leaders, was trained by the FSB in Dagestan (a republic neighbouring Chechnya) in 1998.^[1]

In April 2006, a British MEP for London, Gerard Batten (UKIP), cited allegations by Litvinenko that Romano Prodi, the Italian Centre-Left leader (now Prime Minister) and former President of the European Commission, had been the KGB’s “man in Italy”. Batten demanded an inquiry into the allegations. He told the European Parliament that Litvinenko had been informed by FSB deputy chief, General Anatoly Trofimov (who was shot dead in Moscow in 2005,^[2]) that “Romano Prodi is our man (in Italy)”. According to Brussels-based newspaper the EU Reporter on 3 April 2006, “another high-level source, a former KGB operative in London, has confirmed the story”. Among Litvinenko’s most serious claims is that Prodi assisted in the protection of KGB operatives allegedly involved in the assassination attempt on Pope John Paul II in 1981.^[3]

On 26 April 2006, Batten repeated his call for a parliamentary inquiry, revealing that “former, senior members of the KGB are willing to testify in such an investigation, under the right conditions”. He added, “It is not acceptable that this situation is unresolved, given the importance of Russia’s relations with the European Union”.^[4]

Sudden critical illness

On 1 November 2006, Litvinenko fell suddenly ill while investigating the death of journalist Anna Politkovskaya. He had had lunch at Itsu, a sushi restaurant in Piccadilly, with an Italian acquaintance, Mario Scaramella, to whom he made the allegations regarding Prodi.^[5] Scaramella, attached to the Mitrokhin Commission investigating KGB penetration of Italian politics, claimed to have information on the murder of Politkovskaya, 48, the journalist who was killed at her Moscow apartment in October 2006. He passed Litvinenko papers on the Russian journalist’s fate. On 20 November, it was reported that Scaramella had gone into hiding and was in fear for his life.^[6]

Oleg Gordievsky, another former KGB colonel who defected to the UK (and a longtime acquaintance of Litvinenko), told the BBC he believed Litvinenko was poisoned at the flat of an old Russian friend with whom he had tea before going to the meeting at the sushi restaurant.

Scotland Yard is investigating claims that Litvinenko was poisoned by thallium. Preliminary tests appeared to confirm the presence of the poison, which is colourless, odourless, and completely water-soluble. It was once a common ingredient in rat poison, but its use was restricted in the 1970s, and it is now difficult to obtain. Litvinenko is said to have ingested a potentially fatal dose^[7][8] but his specialists consider that they may never know what the poisoning agent was. Among the distinctive effects of thallium poisoning are hair loss and damage to peripheral nerves,^[9] and a photo released of Litvinenko in the hospital indeed shows his hair to have fallen out. Litvinenko attributed his survival to his cardiovascular fitness and swift medical treatment.^[10] Following a deterioration of his condition on 20 November, Litvinenko was moved into intensive care. It has been reported that his doctors have given him a 50/50 chance of survival over the three- to four-week period following the poisoning.^[9]

The incident was widely covered in the British media on 19 November 2006, with much speculation that he may have been poisoned by Russian secret service. Comparisons have been made to the 2004 poisoning of Viktor Yushchenko and the 1978 poisoning of the journalist Georgi Markov by the Bulgarian State Security. The incident with Litvinenko has also attracted comparisons to the poisoning by radioactive thallium of KGB defector Nikolay Khokhlov and journalist Yuri Schekochikhin of Novaya Gazeta (the Novaya Gazeta interview with the former was prepared by Anna Politkovskaya).^[11] Like Litvinenko, Yuri Schekochikhin had investigated the Russian apartment bombings (he was a member of Kovalev Commission that hired Litvinenko’s friend Mikhail Trepashkin as a legal counsel).

Dmitry Petrov, a Kremlin spokesperson, dismissed the idea of Putin’s involvement as “pure nonsense”.^[12]

Source: Wikipedia. Sent to Liberty Letters by Steve Montgomery

Attempt on Dissident Litvivenko’s Life Was Kremlin Sponsored - KGB Defector

Alexander Litvinenko was poisoned on the direct orders of the Kremlin because of his biting mockery of President Putin, according to a former Soviet spy now living in Britain, The Times wrote Monday.

Oleg Gordievsky, the most senior KGB agent to defect to Britain, said that the attempt to kill Alexander Litvinenko had been state-sponsored.

It was carried out by a Russian friend and former colleague who had been recruited secretly in prison by the FSB, the successor to the KGB. The Italian who allegedly put poison in Litvinenko’s sushi “had nothing to do with it”.

“Of course it is state-sponsored. He was such an obvious enemy. Only the KGB is able to do this. The poison was very sophisticated. They have done this before — they poisoned Anna Politkovskaya (the campaigning journalist murdered on October 7) on a plane last year. Who else would know where she was sitting and could poison her food? Probably also it was the KGB that shot her.”

Read the full story.

Contributed by Steve Montgomery

Liberty Letters Comment: It has been long suspected in some circles - with evidence - that the fall of the Soviet Union (and the Eastern European Block Nations) was a planned event, dating back to a 1950’s planning meeting (or earlier), a strategic advance (according to the dialectic), saved for a time where they believed it was safe to so do, and this in anticipation of a merger with the free world under a socialist/fascist United Nations, that would later turn on a dime to full communism. That during this ‘fall’ the communists would in actuality still maintain control while masking the democratic process and riping fantastic financial rewards from the free world for their ‘change.’ This editor has long believed the same, though on the other hand, that doesn’t mean that they will succeed, and it is my belief that they shall not — if we do our part to be ever vigilant. We are, however, wondering why our politicians continue to turn a blind eye to the truth?

 Print This Post | Other posts by Steve Farrell

Birth control appeals to the advanced radical because it is calculated to undermine the authority of the Christian Church. I look forward to seeing humanity free someday of the tyranny of Christianity no less than Capitalism.

- Margaret Sanger, Founder of Planned Parenthood, "Birth Control and the Revolution," 1917

Liberty Letters Comment: Few recognize it, but the roots to creating legislative, judicial, and classroom support in favor of that which is immoral, and against that which is moral, or consistent with that most inspired of moral system, the Judeo-Christian ethic (as expounded most clearly by Christ), are so very often calculated, not to liberate man in the spirit of the American Revolution, but to enslave him in the spirit of the Marxist Revolution. This confession by Margaret Sanger is but one of so many that are out there for our serious consideration, if we just open our eyes and stop pretending that it doesn't matter. It does matter, it always has, and always will. We are in a war between good and evil, and we had better be up to it. Our civilization and our souls are on the line.

 Print This Post | Other posts by Steve Farrell

"… nothing un-American can live in the sunlight."

- Al Smith

Liberty Letters Comment: I often hear from my readers, a nearly helpless, "But what can we do?"

Here's the simple answer: "Education is the key." First educating yourself and your family, and from there , humbly, but evangelically, outwards to others, as you avail yourself of the opportunities placed before you.

And one more thing: live the standard you hope to spread, to the best of your ability, without hypocrisy (that is, though you as an imperfect being will sin; your heart, nevertheless, loves truth and virtue, not darkness and debauchery. The former is your quest, despite bumps and bruises along the way that are common to man).

 Print This Post | Other posts by Steve Farrell

In the book Blowing up Russia: Terror from Within, Litvinenko alleged that agents from the FSB co-ordinated the 1999 apartment block bombings in Russia that killed more than 300 people. Russian officials blamed the explosions on Chechen separatists and in that year the Kremlin launched a new military offensive on Chechnya. In the book Gang from Lubyanka (Лубянская преступная группировка), Litvinenko alleged that Vladimir Putin was personally involved in organized crime during his work in FSB.

In a July 2005 interview with Polish newspaper Rzeczpospolita, Litvinenko alleged that Ayman al-Zawahiri, along with other al-Qaeda leaders, was trained by the FSB in Dagestan (a republic neighbouring Chechnya) in 1998.^[1]

In April 2006, a British MEP for London, Gerard Batten (UKIP), cited allegations by Litvinenko that Romano Prodi, the Italian Centre-Left leader (now Prime Minister) and former President of the European Commission, had been the KGB's "man in Italy". Batten demanded an inquiry into the allegations. He told the European Parliament that Litvinenko had been informed by FSB deputy chief, General Anatoly Trofimov (who was shot dead in Moscow in 2005,^[2]) that "Romano Prodi is our man (in Italy)". According to Brussels-based newspaper the EU Reporter on 3 April 2006, "another high-level source, a former KGB operative in London, has confirmed the story". Among Litvinenko's most serious claims is that Prodi assisted in the protection of KGB operatives allegedly involved in the assassination attempt on Pope John Paul II in 1981.^[3]

On 26 April 2006, Batten repeated his call for a parliamentary inquiry, revealing that "former, senior members of the KGB are willing to testify in such an investigation, under the right conditions". He added, "It is not acceptable that this situation is unresolved, given the importance of Russia's relations with the European Union".^[4]

Sudden critical illness

On 1 November 2006, Litvinenko fell suddenly ill while investigating the death of journalist Anna Politkovskaya. He had had lunch at Itsu, a sushi restaurant in Piccadilly, with an Italian acquaintance, Mario Scaramella, to whom he made the allegations regarding Prodi.^[5] Scaramella, attached to the Mitrokhin Commission investigating KGB penetration of Italian politics, claimed to have information on the murder of Politkovskaya, 48, the journalist who was killed at her Moscow apartment in October 2006. He passed Litvinenko papers on the Russian journalist's fate. On 20 November, it was reported that Scaramella had gone into hiding and was in fear for his life.^[6]

Oleg Gordievsky, another former KGB colonel who defected to the UK (and a longtime acquaintance of Litvinenko), told the BBC he believed Litvinenko was poisoned at the flat of an old Russian friend with whom he had tea before going to the meeting at the sushi restaurant.

Scotland Yard is investigating claims that Litvinenko was poisoned by thallium. Preliminary tests appeared to confirm the presence of the poison, which is colourless, odourless, and completely water-soluble. It was once a common ingredient in rat poison, but its use was restricted in the 1970s, and it is now difficult to obtain. Litvinenko is said to have ingested a potentially fatal dose^[7][8] but his specialists consider that they may never know what the poisoning agent was. Among the distinctive effects of thallium poisoning are hair loss and damage to peripheral nerves,^[9] and a photo released of Litvinenko in the hospital indeed shows his hair to have fallen out. Litvinenko attributed his survival to his cardiovascular fitness and swift medical treatment.^[10] Following a deterioration of his condition on 20 November, Litvinenko was moved into intensive care. It has been reported that his doctors have given him a 50/50 chance of survival over the three- to four-week period following the poisoning.^[9]

The incident was widely covered in the British media on 19 November 2006, with much speculation that he may have been poisoned by Russian secret service. Comparisons have been made to the 2004 poisoning of Viktor Yushchenko and the 1978 poisoning of the journalist Georgi Markov by the Bulgarian State Security. The incident with Litvinenko has also attracted comparisons to the poisoning by radioactive thallium of KGB defector Nikolay Khokhlov and journalist Yuri Schekochikhin of Novaya Gazeta (the Novaya Gazeta interview with the former was prepared by Anna Politkovskaya).^[11] Like Litvinenko, Yuri Schekochikhin had investigated the Russian apartment bombings (he was a member of Kovalev Commission that hired Litvinenko's friend Mikhail Trepashkin as a legal counsel).

Dmitry Petrov, a Kremlin spokesperson, dismissed the idea of Putin's involvement as "pure nonsense".^[12]

Source: Wikipedia.  Sent to Liberty Letters by Steve Montgomery

 Print This Post | Other posts by Steve Farrell

Alexander Litvinenko was poisoned on the direct orders of the Kremlin because of his biting mockery of President Putin, according to a former Soviet spy now living in Britain, The Times wrote Monday.

Oleg Gordievsky, the most senior KGB agent to defect to Britain, said that the attempt to kill Alexander Litvinenko had been state-sponsored.

It was carried out by a Russian friend and former colleague who had been recruited secretly in prison by the FSB, the successor to the KGB. The Italian who allegedly put poison in Litvinenko’s sushi “had nothing to do with it”.

“Of course it is state-sponsored. He was such an obvious enemy. Only the KGB is able to do this. The poison was very sophisticated. They have done this before — they poisoned Anna Politkovskaya (the campaigning journalist murdered on October 7) on a plane last year. Who else would know where she was sitting and could poison her food? Probably also it was the KGB that shot her.”

Read the full story.

Contributed by Steve Montgomery 

Liberty Letters Comment: It has been long suspected in some circles - with evidence - that the fall of the Soviet Union (and the Eastern European Block Nations) was a planned event, dating back to a 1950's planning meeting (or earlier), a strategic advance (according to the dialectic), saved for a time where they believed it was safe to so do, and this in anticipation of a merger with the free world under a socialist/fascist United Nations, that would later turn on a dime to full communism. That during this 'fall' the communists would in actuality still maintain control while masking the democratic process and riping fantastic financial rewards from the free world for their 'change.' This editor has long believed the same, though on the other hand, that doesn't mean that they will succeed, and it is my belief that they shall not — if we do our part to be ever vigilant. We are, however, wondering why our politicians continue to turn a blind eye to the truth?

 Print This Post | Other posts by Steve Farrell

NewsMax.com. China demonstrated its irresponsible and dangerous behavior over the last month.

The first example was a dangerous move by the Chinese navy, placing one of its Song class submarines directly behind the U.S. aircraft carrier Kittyhawk.

According to Adm. Fallon, the submarine incident could have led to shooting. However, China has done this kind of thing before. A People's Liberation Army (PLA) report from the Office of the Central Military Commission noted that China moved its submarines into a first strike mode during the 1996.

"During last crisis across the Taiwan Straits, the U.S. tried to blackmail us with their aircraft carrier(s), but when their spy satellites confirmed that our four nuclear submarines which used to be stationed at Lushun Harbor had disappeared, those politicians addicted to the Taiwan card could not imagine how worried their military commanders were," states the official 1999 report from the Chinese Army.

"We have built up the capability for the second and the third nuclear strikes and are fairly confident in fighting a nuclear war. The PCC [Party's Central Committee] has decided to pass through formal channels this message to the top leaders of the U.S.," states the report.

China also recently revealed a new version of its FH-7 naval strike bomber. The twin-engine supersonic bomber appeared at the recent Zhuhai air show in early November. The new version of the FH-7 was equipped with folding wings. The folding wing design is required to save space for aircraft stored on carriers.

The suggestion of the Chinese naval investment in a carrier based aircraft design, along with the recent purchase of two squadrons of a naval SU-27 Flanker jet fighters from Russia, indicates that China is close to deploying its first aircraft carrier.

The increase in Chinese naval assets now included the world's largest force of submarines and a growing fleet of modern surface warships.

The Chinese navy is expected to deploy an aircraft carrier, and a new ballistic missile submarine capable of striking the United States with nuclear warheads.

Another item of interest on sale at the recent Zhuhai air show is the QW-18 shoulder fired surface-to-air missile. The QW-18 is described in Chinese literature as having "the strongest anti-jamming capability in present similar models."

The anti-jamming capability is available during "the whole course before and after the missile is launched."

Another man-portable surface-to-air missile on display is the QW-11.

The QW-11 was developed specifically to counter cruise missiles while retaining the ability to engage low-flying targets such as helicopters, fighters, and ground attack aircraft.

These new classes of inexpensive man portable missiles have been introduced only months after U.S. law enforcement authorities broke up a smuggling ring trying to sell Chinese surface-to-air missiles to terrorists for use against civilian airliners inside America.

The ring included an unnamed Chinese General who was the source of these missiles for sale to any terrorist with money.

The U.S. has not been the only nation to feel the love coming from Beijing.

The Chinese ambassador to India, Sun Yuxi, raised a political storm in New Delhi by announcing China's claim to Arunachal Pradesh.

The claim to Indian territory came on the eve of president Hu Jintao's visit to India.

The Chinese ambassador, in an exclusive interview to CNN-IBN said, "In our position, the whole of Arunachal Pradesh is Chinese territory and Tawang is only one place in it. We are claiming whole of that [Arunachal Pradesh]. That is our position."

India, for its part, reacted sharply to the comments.

"Arunachal is an integral part of India and it is known the respective position of the countries with regards Arunachal," stated Indian External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee.

Arunachal Pradesh Governor S.K. Singh also commented on the Chinese ambassador's claims, stating that it was an "arrogant." "This is an arrogant way of negotiation from China. It's very inappropriate for an ambassador to make such a comment. Chinese have done this before; it is an odd way," stated Singh.

China and India fought a bloody 1926 war over the barren and icy terrain located on the Tibetan plateau.

All of this aggressive behavior has not gone unnoticed. The United States-China Economic and Security Review Commission, a bipartisan committee, said in its 2007 annual report that China had contributed at least indirectly to North Korea's nuclear weapons program and aided Iran's atomic activities.

The commission noted, "Chinese proliferation threatens U.S. security and potentially could place at risk U.S. troops" operating in East Asia and the Middle East.

The commission recommended that current sanctions against Chinese companies that proliferate equipment and technology related to weapons of mass destruction should be "broadened and harmonized for increased effectiveness."

"Chinese companies and government organizations continue to proliferate weapons, weapons components and weapons technology," the report stated.

"Some of these transfers violate China's international nonproliferation agreements, harm regional security in East Asia and the Middle East, and are a measure of China's failure to meet the threshold test of international responsibility in the area of nonproliferation," stated the commission of Democrats and Republicans.

Source: Charles R. Smith, NewsMax.com

 Print This Post | Other posts by Steve Farrell

"… he [who] disobeys the opinion and approval of the one, and regards the opinion of the many who have no understanding, will … suffer evil …"

- Socrates, "Crito"

Liberty Letters Comment: Keep this in mind every time you hear an opinion poll, or a clamor for democracy rather than a return to the balance and magnificence of our republican form of government, a governmental form intended to check the extremes of democracy we suffered through under the Articles of Confederation. Strangely enough, there are those in this country, particularly in the Libertarian movement, who have initiated an educational campaign promoting that very thing, a return to the anarchy, gross inequality, and destructive disunion of the Articles of Confederation. Buyer beware!

 Print This Post | Other posts by Steve Farrell

Remarkably, John McCain has commissioned an exploratory committee for another run White House run.

What's truly remarkable about this is that the Republican base have just booted out many of their own in response to the right-center governing policy of the Bush Administration - the equivalent of socialism in drag (a few concessions to moral conservatives - e.g. the right to life, offset by an aggressive turn to the left on nearly everything else ranging from education 'reform,' to illegal immigration, to the rampant internationalism under NAFTA, CAFTA, the FTAA, and his Wilsonian drive to "make the world safe for democracy") - and here comes John McCain, farther to the left, and equally duplicitous, daring to capture the moment as a conservative savior. Are we supposed to fall for this?

So here's but one of many reminders to follow: John McCain opposed Proposition 200, which would deny social welfare benefits to illegal aliens. Arizonians supported it in a landslide. The voters, the Constitution, and private property rights be damned. That's John McCain - the very definition of RHINO - move over President Bush.

 Print This Post | Other posts by Steve Farrell

Democrats in Drag: Third Way Fall From Grace, Part 5

Read Foreword, Part 1, 2, 3, 4

A half-century ago, in a classic exchange between two men on opposite ends of the moral and political spectrum, Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev bragged to American patriot and Secretary of Agriculture Ezra Taft Benson:

"Your grandchildren will live under communism!" To which Secretary Benson enthusiastically replied: "If I have it my way, your grandchildren will live free!" Khrushchev, undeterred, fired back: "Oh, you Americans! You’re so gullible! We’ll spoon-feed you socialism until you’re communists and don’t even know it. We’ll never have to fire a shot!" (1)

Ironically, history has to some degree vindicated both men. A greater degree of liberty has arisen, if only temporarily, behind the Iron Curtain, as was Benson’s hope; but nevertheless, Khrushchev was also on target – truth be told, more on target.

For socialism is still alive and well in Russia, throughout the old Soviet empire, on all seven continents, on the isles of the sea, at the U.N., in its regional arrangements, and, as Khrushchev predicted, in the United States.

Socialism is not in desperate retreat as falsely proclaimed by the establishment press, our state university professors, and our all-is-well, don’t-rock-the-boat political machines. On the contrary, it moves forward confidently, aggressively and, for the most part, uncontested everywhere in the world.

If Benson were alive today, he might have surmised that communism was the victor in this ironic twist of events. For despite communism’s "demise," Benson consistently held that communism was but a tool in a game of political blackmail whose purpose was not to communize the world but to frighten it into a comfortable merger under socialism. (2)

That comfortable merger is the very real threat of our day, and the ordained mediator of the final stages of that merger is the Third Way, whose mission it is to bellow such a merger as the only legitimate choice in politics, a place where social democracy and economic prosperity may safely meet.

It is among the Third Wayers today that we find people kooky enough to believe that mass-murdering communism has something as lofty as social democracy to bring to the bargaining table, and that the United States must of necessity bow before the economic clout of countries like Communist China – granting butchers, avowed enemies and proven deceivers privileges and political might that they do not deserve, which privilege and power will certainly be used not to enhance the economic freedom of their peoples, but to undermine the economic independence of the United States; not to enhance our national security, but to build up their military capability and political leverage against us.

It has been the unfortunate task of this series of articles to expose this, the Third Way, as a creature in hiding which has come forth out of the badlands of socialism and communism, masked and cloaked in futurism and social democracy. Evidence enough that this is true has been presented.

Yet proving the Third Way is a threat is the easy task. Convincing hands-over-their-eyes-don’t-tell-me-the-facts Republicans that it is not just the Democrats, not just Blair, Schroeder and the EU, and not just "reformed" communists in Russia and China, but their party – the 'conservative' Republican Party – which is knee deep in the Third Way, is the far more daunting task.

Nonetheless, the claim moves forward, with no shortage of evidence. Building the case for this claim, the last two articles in this series:

• Demonstrated that the most influential man of 1990’s Republicanism, Newt Gingrich, has of his own admission been for 30 years zealously involved with Alvin Toffler and the Third Way movement in a leadership capacity.
• Exposed the Marxist underpinnings of Toffler’s version of the Third Way, which so-called democratic philosophy Mr. Gingrich said was at the core of his own political ideology and the ideology of the Republican Revolution.
• Pointed to the bold revelation that a trashing of the outmoded U.S. Constitution is the grand key to implementing this strange democratic plan, a plan which is intent on replacing or radically reforming the U. S. Constitution with a totally ‘new’ and ‘improved’ 21st century democracy.

Before proceeding, a question worth the asking is just how vulnerable is the Republican Party to this socialist philosophy? Surprisingly, leftist Alvin Toffler singled out the Republican Party, not the Democratic Party, as the preferred Third Way party. Why? Because the Republican Party had the largest contingency of centrists and moderates – perfect fodder for a scheme which thrives on compromising politicians, rather than dedicated ideologues to the left or the right. (3)

Fittingly, although heaven rejects the lukewarm, the Third Way recruits them – for a moderate is someone who loves everybody and loves nothing. He is a servant of the world, not of high principle. He is a seeker of the dingy side of self-interest, and the Third Way has a sales pitch he can’t resist, a little bit of something for everyone: progressive thinking, democratic rhetoric, social welfare, "free" markets, corporatism, nationalism and, yet, internationalism – the kind of political plan which guarantees election or re-election but, deplorably, abandons the greatest system of government the world has ever known.

The Plan

The Third Way plan to eradicate or drastically alter the U.S. Constitution rests on three pillars: minority power, direct or semi-direct democracy, and decision division. (4)

Constitutional Eradicator #1 – Minority Power

Toffler writes: "The first heretical principle of Third Wave [Way] government is that of minority power. It holds that majority rule, the key legitimizing principle of the Second Wave era, is increasingly obsolete. It is not majorities but minorities that count. And our political systems must increasingly reflect that fact." (5)

This is so, he says, because American conservatives "[cloak] . . . anti-minority policies in the mantle of a mythical, rather than a real majority." Communists, too, are failing to meet the needs of minorities – but in their case, it is not by malicious intent but their failure to project their economic assumptions to a post-"industrial mass society." (6) The Third Way is the answer for both camps.

How Will the Minority Class Seize Power?

Minorities need to be put in charge, but how? Toffler offers this advice:
1. "We need new approaches for a democracy of minorities – with methods whose purpose is to reveal differences," or as Toffler puts it elsewhere, a plan whose methods "multiply the number of minorities," better organize them under one head into a "new majority" and which by design balkanize America (7) – as true to the old goals of Marxism as one can get.

In the Communist Manifesto, Marx wrote: "We have seen . . . that the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat (the minority class under capitalism) to the position of ruling class, to win the battle of democracy."

Probing for and proclaiming differences are indeed all about divisive leftist politics, and as such these self-appointed Third Way spokesmen for the people take the equally divisive stand that "true" minorities are never conservative minorities.

Fellow anticipatory democracy advocate Richard Flacks explains: "Where Negro representation exists, it operates in behalf of Negro middle-class interests and is highly dependent on the beneficence of white-dominated political machines." (8)

This must change. Thus, black conservatives like Clarence Thomas and Thomas Sowell are not black, and should be ignored. Revolutionaries Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are black, and should be icons. It also means that the poor, the unemployed, the uneducated, the emotionally ill, the homeless, or anyone else who is disenfranchised, alienated or sympathetic to the same are representative of minorities – and as such should be targeted, given precedence, drawn upon for political strength, and if necessary, called upon to perform acts of violence against the existing order. (9)

2. While the Third Way busies itself multiplying minorities, victims and agitators, they must be equally busy endeavoring to convince Americans that they have nothing to do with the very rabble-rousing they facilitate. Toffler writes: "The rising activism of minorities is not the result of a sudden onset of selfishness [or an elite conspiracy]; it is . . . a reflection of the needs of a new system of production which requires for its very existence a far more varied, colorful, open, and diverse society than any we have ever known." (10)

That is, it is – as it always is with communism – a "spontaneous uprising" will occur, the supposed creature of economic determinism.

3. Agitation is one thing; giving the agitators more voting power is yet another. Both Gingrich and Toffler advocate exploring radical new methods of making law, such as granting Congress only 50 percent power over any vote, with the other 50 percent coming from a random sample of citizens brought together via the Internet.

Other possibilities that ought to be considered include national referendums, policy by polls, drawing lots, creating transient electronic communities, forming "social planning assemblies" from coast to coast – and, believe it or not, setting up minority-run judicial systems, separate from the state, where minorities will judge the crimes of their youth according to their standards, which will, no doubt, make the rule of law irrelevant and racial divisions deeper. (11)

4. Meanwhile, minority power’s punch must be aided by a new, more civil, more compromising dialogue between the left and the right.

"In yesterday’s mass society . . . the 51 percent principle was a decidedly blunt, purely quantitative instrument. Voting to determine the majority tells us nothing about the quality of people’s views. It can tell us how many people, at a given moment, want X, but not how badly they want it. Above all, it tells us nothing about what they would be willing to trade off for X. . . .

"Instead of seeking simpleminded yes-or-no votes, we need to identify potential trade-offs with questions like: ‘If I give up my position on abortion, will you give up yours on nuclear power.’ "

Notably, Toffler makes it clear throughout each of his books that he despises intransigence when it comes to conservatives and conservative single-issue advocacy groups, but advocates a stubborn, "more than ordinary weight approach" to minority issues, which may understandably have "life or death significance." (12)

Yes, the definition of bipartisanship is as you may have suspected: ‘Conservatives must compromise! Liberals must fight to the death!’

Minority Power Spin-offs

5. Other Third Way policies to increase minority power include the following:

• Open immigration, full voting rights and social service access for all immigrants and migrant workers as part of free-trade agreements.
• Education vouchers exclusively for the poor, paid for, almost exclusively, by the middle class.
• Faith-based subsidies (more wealth transfers) for the benefit of inner city (mostly minority) churches, which mandate social "tolerance" and thus, religious acceptance for deviancy and socialism.
• Campaign-finance reform measures which target the elimination of negative political speech and single-issue advertising, even as they elevate the influence of the minority/socialist-promoting media.
• Tax cuts or tax increases which punish the middle class, while favoring the upper and lower classes.
• The creation of temporary "non-geographical" minority groups and organizations which cross state and/or national borders – and yet possess advisory and/or policy-making voting power.
• Regional primaries, which undercut the need to address small-state needs.
• And, don’t forget, the recently espoused plan in "The Economist" to set up a sovereign Mexican-American enclave in the Southwest.

Constitutional Eradicator #2 – Semi-direct Democracy

"The second building block of tomorrow’s political systems must be the principle of ‘semi-direct democracy’ – a shift from depending on representatives to representing ourselves. The mixture of the two is semi-direct democracy," says Toffler. (13)

Moving toward a more direct democracy is a key element when it comes to minority power because more direct forms of democracy ever have been and ever will be the preferred tool of choice of most all revolutionaries. Because this is so, the American Founders established a republic, not a democracy. Father of Constitution, Madison couldn’t have been more candid when he described democracy as violent, short lived, mob ruled, and communistic in its attitude toward property, religion, and social thought – being, in truth, the great "leveler," and "the worst of all forms of government." (14)

Ex-Marxist Toffler, and tough-minded conservative Gingrich make no mention of what the Founders saw as democracy’s most obnoxious attributes. Instead they hone in on a far less important issue – its impracticality in a low-tech era – that is, distance and low-tech communication systems made in person governing impossible. The Internet, they say, solves that problem.

Further, the only other objection the Founders had to direct or pure democracy, we are led to believe, is their fear about the emotional factor, which is a great fear indeed. Gingrich and Toffler’s solution? Random picks of citizens who will be given "10-hour courses," which will, in short order, make instant brilliant citizens, who make informed and reasoned decisions to decide the fate of the greatest nation on earth. (15)

Go figure.

Constitutional Eradicator #3 – Decision Division

Anti-gridlock decision division, or what Newt Gingrich and now George W. Bush refer to as decentralization, should never be confused with what the Founders described as federalism, or that freedom promoting belief that state and federal governments are completely separate and sovereign entities in delegated areas of responsibility – which system, in fact, left almost all decision making to the states, the local municipalities, and to the people themselves, and very few powers to the federal. Decentralization is not about that – at all.

Left-of-center Third Wayer Alvin Toffler spells out the truth.

"Incorporating larger and larger numbers in social decision-making, facilitates feedback. And it is precisely this feedback that is essential to control. To assume control over accelerating change, we shall need still more advanced – and more democratic – feedback mechanisms." (16) This is about efficient models of control, not "an unquenchable thirst for freedom." (17)

Howard Zinn, another fellow anticipatory democracy laborer, agrees, but takes it a step further, when he confirms that this flexible, futuristic approach to control is really what Marxist/Leninism is all about.

"I believe, in the spirit of Marxism – to declare what something is by declaring what it should be – Marxism assumes that everything – including an idea – takes on a new meaning in each additional moment of time, in each unique historical situation. It tries to avoid academic scholasticism, which pretends to dutifully record, to describe – forgetting to merely describe is to circumscribe.

"Marxism is not a fixed body of dogma, to be put into big black books or little red books, and memorized, but a set of specific propositions about the modern world which are tough and tentative, plus a certain vague and yet exhilarating vision of the future . . . Most of all it is a way of thinking which is intended to promote action." (18)

Quoting Marx, Lenin, and Mao – Zinn then proves a point that any real student of communism should know, communism will innovate and do whatever it takes to win over the forces of freedom, period. (19) Decision division/decentralization is part of what it takes in a high tech world. More decision makers, more networked individuals on the spot, so long as they are networked, equals better control – and equally important – accelerated change.

Toffler nods: "As the rate of change speeds up, the length of time that they [minority mandates] can be ignored shrinks to near nothingness. Hence: "Freedom Now!" (20)

Decision Division Specifics

Toffler laments: "Some problems cannot be solved on the local level. Others cannot be solved on a national level. Some require action at many levels simultaneously. Moreover, the appropriate place to solve a problem doesn’t stay put. It changes over time." (21)

The level that seems to be the most important, however, is the one that shifts power up, not down.

"Not enough decisions are being made at the transnational level, and the structures needed there are radically underdeveloped . . . Many of the problems that national governments are dealing with are . . . simply beyond their grasp – too big for any individual government. We desperately need, therefore, to invent imaginative new institutions at the transnational level." And these institutions must have enforcement mechanisms. (22)

More than a few decisions, powers, duties, and enforcement powers need to be moved up. Here are a few examples:

Corporate conduct codes

• Anti-bribery law
• Environmental policy
• Energy policy
• Anti-trust law
• Economic policy
• Labor law
• Transnational welfare, and food stockpiles
• Hot spot disaster relief
• Agricultural price supports
• Arms trade and control
• Currency regulation
• Technology welfare (to spread its advantages)
• Technology control (to limit its side effects)
• Outerspace governance
• Oceanic governance
• Non-geographical social oversight (23)

Just what is left to move down is not clear, while most of the above have the potential to effect and control every business, every property owner, every individual on earth. Environmental policy and international welfare alone do that. The next goal, and most important element in implementing the above, they feel, was Newt Gingrich’s and later George W. Bush’s call for fast track authority for the President (now the law of the land) – a power that permits the Chief Executive to negotiate international/regional treaties with minimal U.S. Senate input and debate permitted, and get this, only a simple majority vote required to make it the law of the land. Meaning the more level-headed, difficult to earn, two-thirds vote requirement has been thrust aside, radically rejecting this safeguard in the Constitution, and radically shifting power from the people's Congress, to the President, but even more alarmingly up to unelected and unaccountable international regulatory bodies (such as the WTO, or NAFTA, or CAFTA, or the FTAA) who will now, and have already begun to dictate internal domestic policy in the U.S. This is not about less government, therefore, but as Toffler says, about "reducing the load of national governments." (24) Indeed.

Toffler and Gingrich do, however, want to move some decision making down, and this is where "conservative" Republicans get excited. They shouldn’t.

Take for instance, corporate democracy, and for that matter the Third Way proposition that workers exercise democratic control over unions – the latter of which seems palatable. To begin with, the first mistake is to accept the notion that the federal government has the right to step in and tell, or pressure through tax laws and or regulations, how a company or a union must handle its employees or members. This is unconstitutional in a republic.

The next mistake is failing to think as Marxists think. Again, from Richard Flanks we read: "Participatory democrats take very seriously a vision of man as citizen; and by taking seriously such a vision, they seek to extend the conception of citizenship beyond the conventional political sphere to all institutions." (italics in original) (25)

Which is why Marxists love democracy. Democracy assumes the people have the right to tell a business owner how he must manage his own property – but no such right exists. More importantly, the communist definition of people control or democracy is, in fact, state control. Third Way decentralization, then, on the corporate level, is a bottom-up formula to assist top down elitists to seize control of all the means of production. It’s that simple – no matter what the rhetoric, no matter what the short-term benefits.

Other tactics of moving power downward are just as devious. Most especially: Welfare reform – via federal block grants. Education reform, via federal block grants. Restoring private charity – via federal block grants. Creating local spokesmen (liberal single issue advocacy groups) – via federal block grants. And most recently, the insane practice started by President William Clinton and taken to a new level by President George W. Bush of sponsoring Presidential consulting sessions with thugs. Clinton consulted with street gangs, Bush let Marxist radicals in Puerto Rico decide the fate of the US Navy’s most critical military training base. (26)

Putting Decision Division and Minority Power Together

You need to think like a Marxist – that is, lust for power – to figure out how the pieces of the puzzle fit together; if one can, the puzzle is simple. Thus, when one Balkanizes a corporation, a state, a nation, or a worldwide conglomerate of nations (such as thru the minority power scheme already explained), even while creating highly responsive, high tech tentacles everywhere (such as thru the feedback mechanisms of decision division) – you are capable of providing Johnny-on-the-spot solutions to racial, sexual, political, national, and economic divides, which in turn speed up and intensify the centralization of centralized power.
That's how one thinks like a Marxist.
Toffler doesn't hide this strategy; he only fails to call it Marxism. He does admit the success plan in pulling off this revolution is about creating pressure from above from "elites, sub-elites, and super elites," who share their vision; and "pressure from below," from the agitator, victim class, they inspire. Each will be utilized to "place strategic pressure on existing political systems to accelerate the necessary changes." (27)

It is the classic the pincer strategy, and it's working. In fact, it is working so well that this communist thinking elitist is willing to throw around threats at you and me as if he and his cabal were already the conquering gods, and we the mindless peons who had better kiss their royal rings.

The Warning of a True Revolutionary Brute

Toffler warns: "[In order to avoid a] blood-drenched drama . . . much depends on the flexibility and intelligence of today’s [defenders of Second Wave civilization, that is the defenders of our Constitutional, moral, and social order]. If these groups prove to be as shortsighted, unimaginative, and frightened as most ruling groups in the past, they will rigidly resist the Third Wave and thereby escalate the risks of violence and their own destruction." (28)

"To avoid violent upheaval we must begin now to focus on the problem of structural political obsolescence around the world . . . We must launch a public debate over the need for a new political system . . . [launch] a vast process of social learning – an experiment in anticipatory democracy in many nations at once." (29)

This is the thinking, this is the constitutional eradication plan, this is the tough guy threatening of the Third Way – the admitted "seminal" sourcebook of the Republican Revolution, the decoder for everything Newt (according to Newt, see previous articles in this series), and the game plan of the bipartisan, decentralist, internationalist, compassionate conservative, establishment Republican Party that followed. Is there such thing as a Democrat In Drag? You had better believe it.

Next, Steve begins to unveil the fine print Third Way provisions of the Contract With America, a contract that in many ways radically sought to alter our Constitution rather than return to its founding principles.
Footnotes

1. Benson, Ezra Taft. "An Enemy Hath Done This," Salt Lake City, Utah: Parliament Publishers, 1969, p. 320. Return
2. Ibid. pgs. 170-171. See also, the following Khrushchev quote: "It is not an army, but peace that is required to propagate communist ideas, disseminate them, and establish them in the hearts of men . . . We produce the hydrogen bomb with the sole object of cooling the ambitions of some excessively zealous politicians and generals in the Capitalist countries." Return
3. Toffler, Alvin and Heidi. "Creating a New Civilization: The Politics of the Third Wave," Atlanta: Turner Publishing, Inc. 1995, pp. 77-78. Return
4. Toffler, Alvin. "The Third Wave," New York, London, Toronto: Bantam Books, 1980, pp. 416-443. Return
5. Ibid., p. 419. Return
6. Ibid., p. 420. Return
7. Ibid., p. 422. Return
8.. Stolz, Matthew F. "Politics of the New Left," Beverly Hills, California: Gencoe Press (A Division of the Macmillan Company), pp. 27-28. Return
9. Ibid., pgs. 27-35, See also Toffler, Alvin. "The Third Wave," pp. 438-439. Return
10. Toffler, Alvin, "The Third Wave," p. 421. Return
11. Ibid., pgs. 424-427, See also Toffler, Alvin. "Future Shock," New York, London, Toronto: Bantam Books, 1970, pp. 478-479. Newt Gingrich said of "Future Shock," "If Future Shock had been their only work, the Tofflers would have been recognized as important commentators on the human condition." (from Newt’s forward to Toffler’s "Creating a New Civilization") Return
12. Toffler, Alvin, "The Third Wave," p. 423. Return
13. Ibid., p. 427. Return
14. Federalist 10, 48; Madison, James. "Journal of the Federal Convention," Vol 2, p. 746-747; Vol.1, pp. 81, 117-119, 181-183. Return
15. Toffler, Alvin, "The Third Wave," pp. 427-431. Return
16. Toffler, Alvin, "Future Shock," pp. 475-476. Return
17. Ibid., p. 475. Return
18. Stolz, Matthew F. "Politics of the New Left," p. 36. Return
19. Ibid., pp. 36-45. Return
20. Toffler, Alvin, "Future Shock," p. 477. Return
21. Toffler, Alvin, "The Third Wave," p. 431. Return
22. Ibid., pp. 431-433. Return
23. Ibid., pp. 431-433, 438. Return
24. Ibid., p. 434. Return
25. Stolz, Matthew F. "Politics of the New Left," p. 27. Return
26. See NewsMax stories: Bush's Pandering to Latinos on Vieques Backfires, Vieques Fallout: Navy Defies Bush and Vieques Decision Stuns Military. Return
27. Toffler, Alvin. "The Third Way," pp. 441-442. Return
28. Ibid., pp. 440-441. Return
29. Ibid., p. 443. Return

 Print This Post | Other posts by Steve Farrell

"… The right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty … 'The right of Colonists as Christians' … may be best understood by reading and carefully studying the institutes of the great Law Giver … which are to be found clearly written and promulgated in the New Testament."

- Samuel Adams, "Rights of Colonists," 1772

 Print This Post | Other posts by Steve Farrell

As men we have God for our King, and are under the Law of Reason: as Christians, we have Jesus the Messiah for our King, and are under the Law revealed by him in the Gospel.

- John Locke, "The Reasonableness of Christianity," 1695

 Print This Post | Other posts by Steve Farrell

WASHINGTON — Americans would have to sign up for a new military draft after turning 18 under a bill the incoming chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee says he will introduce next year.

Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., said Sunday he sees his idea as a way to deter politicians from launching wars.

"There's no question in my mind that this president and this administration would never have invaded Iraq, especially on the flimsy evidence that was presented to the Congress, if indeed we had a draft and members of Congress and the administration thought that their kids from their communities would be placed in harm's way," Rangel said.

Rangel, a veteran of the Korean War who has unsuccessfully sponsored legislation on conscription in the past, has said the all-volunteer military disproportionately puts the burden of war on minorities and lower-income families.

Read the full story.

Liberty Letters comment: The anti-war party? If Congressmen Rangel, and his party, were sincere about discouraging the President and his administration from going to War then he ought to begin with coming clean about the role of Congress, a Congress that gave the President a resolution of support for Iraq, and then authorized the funding for the war, repeatedly. They, not the President, hold the purse strings, and had they exercised that power in the negative, or their power to declare war, or not to declare war, this war never would have happened. But it did, and they share equal responsibility.

Yet, here's a better suggestion for Rep. Rangel, rather than reinstate the draft, propose legislation that requires such as yourself, and the President to lead the troops into battle as in days of old. That would slow down the war machine, guaranteed.

 Print This Post | Other posts by Steve Farrell

FORCED 60 to 100 hour work weeks are common (in violation of agreement with U.S. companies) at less than minimum wage (also a violation), in unsafe conditions (another violation) - and who knows what other violation and abuses of 'employees' (or are they slaves?) in a culture that is rife with false records and other forms of deception.

Free market capitalism? Think again. Read the full story at Business Week.

 Print This Post | Other posts by Steve Farrell

When Chinese President Hu Jintao arrives in New Delhi on Monday, I will protest. I do this because it is my moral obligation, as a person living in a free country, to speak out for my brothers and sisters who are suffering under Chinese rule.

Tibetans living in Tibet are forbidden from raising their voices against China’s illegal occupation of our country. Therefore, I must use mine. This is not a choice. It is my duty.

Every Chinese leader who has visited India in the past has been met with protests. But Hu Jintao, in particular, will provoke a strong and emotional response from Tibetans because of his role in the most brutal and bloody crackdown in our recent history.

Hu’s visit will stir memories of the repression and murder of 1989, a year when most people remember Tiananmen but Tibetans remember Lhasa. As the Party Secretary of the Tibetan Autonomous Region, Hu led a vicious attack on protesting Tibetans and imposed martial law. Hundreds were killed, imprisoned and tortured. For this effort, Hu was later rewarded with a promotion to the most senior levels of the Communist Party.

This is the man I will protest against on Monday. To me, he is not just the figurehead of a government that keeps my people in chains — he is himself personally responsible for immense suffering in my homeland.

Opportunities for Tibetans to speak out against Chinese leaders are few and far between. The powerbrokers of Beijing are shielded from any dissent or opposition to their policies. This is certainly true in Tibet and China and it is now mostly the case when they travel abroad. When Hu arrives in India, Tibetans will be kept out of sight and even earshot. We are not seen as freedom-fighters but merely a security concern and a potential embarrassment that must be contained at all costs.

Liberty Letters Comment: Why aren't we hearing about this in our news, nor from the moral PC cowards in the Bush Administration? Right now they are kissing the ring of the mass murderers of Communist Vietnam. Gee, if they can put their people to work in factories built by U.S. manufacturers, to take away job from American capitalists, for slave wages, with profits that help finance their military, why not?

 Print This Post | Other posts by Steve Farrell

According to Radio Free Asia China is enforcing a crackdown inside Lhasa following the shooting of Tibetan refugees by Chinese soldiers at Nangpa Pass last month. Additionally, Chinese police have detained two Tibetans and a Nepali for helping Tibetan refugees escape to Nepal.

First, on the detentions:

Chinese authorities in Lhasa have detained two Tibetans and one Nepalese ethnic Sherpa for allegedly escorting Tibetan asylum-seekers from China into India.

The detentions on Oct. 9 and 10 follow an incident on Sept. 30 in which Chinese guards opened fire on a group of Tibetans fleeing across the rugged border with Nepal, killing two people. Hundreds of Tibetans flee from China to Nepal and India every year seeking greater freedom of religion and expression.

Several sources told RFA’s Tibetan service that a team of Chinese Public Security Bureau (PSB) officials from the central Barkhor [in Chinese, Bagojie] area raided a home in Lophuk, in Lhasa city, late on Oct. 9. They detained two Tibetans there, the sources said.

“One of the Tibetans is named Tashi, from Chamdo [Changdu] county in the TAR [Tibetan Autonomous Region], and the other is named Yedor, from Dege Jomda [Dege Jiangda] county, also in the TAR,” said one source who asked not to be named.

“They also detained a Sherpa from Nepal in the Barkhor area on Oct. 10, but his name is unknown,” another source said. “He is also suspected of working as an escort for Tibetans [trying to] escape to Nepal.” One of the three men is being held in Gutsa prison in Lhasa, sources told RFA, but the whereabouts of the other two are unknown.

PSB officers took the precaution of ensuring no one witnessed the Oct. 9 raid, the Tibetan sources said.

“When they raided the Tibetan family where two Tibetans were living as tenants, they instructed them not to tell anything,” said one Tibetan. “Before arresting the two Tibetans, they made sure all the neighbors were inside their houses. It seems that nobody including the landlord knew that those two Tibetans were working as [border] escorts.”

Where are Tashi and Yedor being held? Have they been charged with anything? Apparently both are paid guides that help Tibetans escape into exile for a fee (apparently it’s greatly reduced for children). They were detained after the Nangpa Pass shooting, but there’s no implication that they were connected to that group of refugees. Since then other refugees have been stopped and Nangpa la and though not killed, prevented from finding freedom outside of Tibet.

Tibetan sources meanwhile report that 53 other Tibetans have been detained since September as they tried to flee to Nepal. These include groups of nine, 16, and 28 people, detained in the Dzonga area of Ngari [Ali] prefecture, Shigatse city in Shigatse [Rikaze] prefecture, and Lhatze county of Shigatse, respectively. Two monks detained with the group of 28 in Lhatze were released after explaining that they were making a pilgrimage rather than seeking asylum.

These detentions are coinciding with a crackdown inside the Tibetan capital of Lhasa.

In the wake of the shooting, which Chinese authorities have promised to investigate, “Many Tibetans are worried about [the possibility of arrest],” one source said. “There is tension among the Tibetans inside Lhasa city.”

Many Tibetans in Lhasa from the Amdo and Kham regions have felt compelled to leave Lhasa because Chinese authorities there-possibly in response to an international outcry over the shootings-are cracking down, source say.

Of course China is internationally shamed for getting caught murdering innocent Tibetans and their response is to make life harder for Tibetans ins