Students Of Success

In May, 1978, one of the Major American Television Networks put on a broadcast in celebration of the 30th Anniversary of the Founding of the State of Israel. The show was hosted by Barbra Streisand who, at the time, I guess, was deemed to be a well-known enough entertainer and “Jewish” enough to carry off the show, credibly.

The finale of the show consisted of a live (via satellite) interview between Streisand and Prime Minister Golda Meir, everyone’s favorite chicken-soup with matzo balls Jewish grandmotherly type. (She was, in reality, to those who know her, ANYTHING but that person). After the interview, Streisand sang Hatikvah, and brushed a tear from her eye.

Oy!

There was, of course, only one flaw in the idea behind the show, and its ultimate execution: Golda Meir was not the Prime Minister of Israel; in fact, some months before, she and the Labor Party had been unceremoniously booted out of office, for the first time in Israel’s history, having finally paid the price for Israel’s complete military unpreparedness for the Yom Kippur War back in October, 1973. A disillusioned Israeli public had put the ultimate Opposition-party outsider, Menachem Begin, into power.

Unfortunately for Network executives, who had probably been planning the show for many months, nobody outside Israel, except, perhaps for students of Zionist and Israeli history, knew who Begin was (though the world would certainly come to know him quite well). The radio broadcasters had not yet learned how to pronounce his name, and their mangled attempts verged on hilarity. Begin…as in Begin the Beguine. I don’t know whether Streisand knew anything about Begin, but if she did, it’s probably a safe bet she wouldn’t have liked his politics.

Why is any of this relevant now? Because, in an act of misguided utter desperation, the Bush Administration is pushing the newly elected Israeli Government to begin peace negotiations with an individual who is NOT the democratically-elected Prime Minister of the Palestinians. You see, in a Democracy, you have to take the leaders you are given, and play the cards you are dealt. The Israelis (and President Bush, for that matter), were dealt Hamas. We don’t negotiate with Hamas, since it is a terrorist organization, which calls for suicide bombings and the destruction of the State of Israel. But because it seems somehow unacceptable either to allow Israel to make unilateral decisions affecting Palestinians, or not to move the (Middle East Peace Process) ball forward at all, the clueless foreign policy mavens have decided on a middle course: let’s negotiate with Mahmoud Abbas. After all, goes the rationale, he’s “moderate.” While Abbas may (certainly by contrast to Hamas) be considered a “moderate,” he does suffer from one considerable deficiency: a complete and utter lack of authority to speak for the Palestinians. That prerogative, alas, is given to the sponsors of suicide bombs and Jihad.

The policy is doomed to failure, for a very simple reason. Any agreement reached with Abbas is subject to total deniability and undermining by the real powers in the Palestinian territories: Hamas. Today’s New York Times reported a statement by the State Department Spokesman, Sean McCormack, as follows:

“While not suggesting Israel could work out a peace agreement at this point with Abbas, McCormack, in promoting “back channel” negotiations with Abbas said, ‘He is a political leader within the Palestinian political context.’” [NY Times, May 23, 2006]

What, on earth does that mean? Even by the standards of State Department Foggy Bottom doublespeak, that’s a real doozie!

It all seems like utter nonsense, doesn’t it? But just a minute. There may, in fact, be method in the apparent madness.

According to the same report, Ehud Olmert’s primary purpose in visiting President Bush is to test the waters on the President’s willingness to allow Israel to continue to pursue Ariel Sharon’s previous policy of unilateral disengagement. In other words, will Olmert have Bush’s tacit agreement to allow Israel to create borders and retreat behind them, without the consent of a political entity that will not negotiate? Sharon’s experience was, as we now know, that the Bush Administration was (pretty overtly) on board with that policy. But that was Gaza. Now, we are talking about the West Bank–Judea, Samaria and yes, Jerusalem–an infinitely more complicated and emotional issue for both sides to this endless dispute.

In the meantime, as Olmert is just beginning his tenure, Bush, by virtue of his increasing unpopularity occasioned by the War in Iraq, his indecisiveness on immigration policy and $3-plus per gallon gasoline prices, not to mention the mere passage of time leading to inevitable lame duck impotence, is rendered less and less relevant to the process. Not completely, of course. After all, Bill Clinton participated in negotiations at Sharm-el-Sheikh until virtually hours before George W. Bush’s inauguration. But before we know it, the American Presidential sweepstakes will be beginning in earnest (right after this fall’s midterm elections, we can assume), while Israel will have to make life and death decisions. Does having Bush largely on the sidelines help or hurt Israel’s cause in this respect? It’s hard to say, because American “prestige” or status as an “honest broker” in peacemaking can hardly be of any real value when the U.S. is also boycotting Hamas (as well it should). Can Israel, therefore, conduct some sort of unilateral disengagement “under the radar screen?” Doubtful. Nothing Israel does is EVER allowed to remain under the radar screen.

But European dithering and Arab impotent rage notwithstanding, the only opinion valued by the Israelis comes from inside the Beltway. And the real reason Olmert needs Bush’s support is to give him cover in the treacherous waters of Israeli politics, where the U.S. President’s imprimatur still matters. Let’s see whether he gets it. And if the price for it is that Olmert has to negotiate with a powerless Palestinian figurehead, so that bilateral discussion can fail and Israel and the U.S. can fall back on the tried and true “Well, we tried, but there was nobody to talk to,” I, for one, am satisfied to have Olmert meet with Abbas, sing a chorus of Hatikvah and brush away a tear.

Warren R Graham
Copyright 2006

Warren R. Graham is a New York attorney with the Firm of Cohen Tauber Spievack & Wagner LLP. He is a frequent writer on a variety of topics, including legal matters, political and religious affairs. His opinions are his own and do not necessarily reflect the views of his firm or its members. Additional information on him may be found at either http://www.ctswlaw.com/templates/page3_attorney.asp?docid=667 or http://warrenrgrahamlegal.blogspot.com.

British historian, David Irving, was convicted in an Austrian court recently for the “crime” of denying the Holocaust. Irving pled guilty to the charge since he faced upward of ten years in jail. He will serve three years.
Some people will say this is a good thing since the Holocaust was such a terrible thing. While there is no denying the Holocaust was a terrible thing, locking someone up for an opinion is a bad thing as well. It is also something that will come back to haunt Europe. Fascism equals fascism, and these “anti-hate-speech” laws are fascist.
One can label Mr. Irving a “jerk” or “insensitive.” But should the guy be locked up for three years for an opinion? He was not even calling for violence of any kind against any group. No, just the fact he had issues with the authenticity of the Holocaust placed him in jail. Scary stuff.
Austria is certainly not the only place in Europe with these draconian laws. They are all over Europe. In Britain, British National Party Chairman, Nick Griffin, was recently put on trial for the crime of “incitement to commit racial hatred.” In other words, he said politically incorrect things. He spoke of a need to cut back on immigration and fears that Britain would become a non-white nation. Well, half of America would be in jail if such things were a crime here. Luckily, he was found not guilty on some charges and the jury deadlocked on others. He still has to face a re-trial on the other charges. Again, no violent calls for assaults, murders, etc. Just a “right-wing” guy with views.
In Germany, a guy was recently sentenced to a year in jail for printing the word “Koran” on toilet paper and then distributing it, some to mosques. What’s next? Two years in jail for cartoons?
Which of course brings us to the “infamous” cartoons. The cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammad by a Danish newspaper has actually led to riots and death. Do you have any doubt arrests will occur for “anti-Mohammad” comments or publications?
Europe had better come out of its politically correct period. They are making up for the Hitler era with Hitler policies. This cannot go on forever. Repression is always fought against, even if little by little. To lock up people for opinions and views not to the current liking of the government is fascism. There is no other way around it. To quote Mr. Irving, who will do three years for his opionion, “The law is an ass.” No doubt. And one that simply will not be tolerated.

Robert Carberry is a freelance writer from New York

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act Was created on July 30th 2002, by Senator Paul Sarbanes and Representative Michael Oxley, who drafted the bill. It followed a series of high profile scandals. Its objective is to protect investors by improving the accuracy and reliability of corporate disclosures made pursuant to the securities laws.

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act is mandatory every organization small and large must comply.

Sarbanes-Oxley is a direct result of Enron, WorldCom and various other accounting scandals of the 1990’s.

In essence, Sarbanes-Oxley gives corporate boards far less flexibility than they once had while simultaneously leaving executives with far fewer reasons to want to be a board member. If you are a successful executive late in your career, the benefits of lending your considerable expertise as a board member no longer outweigh the risks to your net worth.

Without a doubt, the intent of Sarbanes-Oxley is admirable, and sorely needed. However, the practical functioning of this legislation leaves much to be desired.

In far too many companies, the board of directors consists of “yes” men and woman who parrot the will of the Chairman and CEO. Most board members have been in their positions for considerable periods of time, and forums do not exist that encourage both an active participation in the business matters of the firm and the investigation and questioning of critical risk management processes.

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act is split in to a number of sections each highlighting the different rules and regulations each organization must implement.

John Parsons is founder of http://CorporateNarc.Com. The mission of http://www.CorporateNarc.Com is to educate the public in consumer affairs and to provide consumers with up-to-date business information. In addition we hope to ensure better services for the consumer by exposing business fraud and corruption, as well as unfair and deceptive business practices.

This article my be reproduced as long as the author’s name and url to http://www.Corporatenarc.com are present at the end of the article.

Is America ready for Hillary Clinton as President of the United
States?

I, for one, am NOT, as I am sure many others are in agreement.
But then we have the shallow-minded intransigents, of whom fail
to deem beyond what they consider, their own indubitable
intellect. They are too busy looking within themselves to see
what is before them. Therefore, eagerly leaping onto the
Political jackass, they blindly err as a Steed…Or should we
say “Mare”.

I have nothing personally against Mrs. Clinton, other than I
have little respect for her. Although against Democratic
conviction, I am still unconvinced that she did not seek the
Senate seat in New York for use as a catapult into the
presidency. She was never satisfied behind the scenes telling
her husband how to run the nation, she wants to be the one
behind locked doors of the Oval office with her cigars.

I accept the rise in Mrs. Clinton’s approval rating in the
polls, even more so after the presidential election of which she
had refrained from running, that is as it should be. She had to
prove to New York and the nation of her pledge to serve a full
term and not a seek higher office. She kept a low profile during
the presidential election, although many democrat’s believe she
would have won her party’s nomination easily. No matter how
comfortable she is becoming with many of the Republican or the
Democratic party, if she had ran at that time, it is my belief
that would inevitably have been her down fall. It would have
destroyed the trust she had worked for and given proof to the
suspicions within our nation.

Undoubtedly, we all know why she wanted the seat in the New York
Senate, argue all you want, it is still visibly fact. No matter
how many of the male liberal, democrat and republican party’s
shout out her good deeds and honor, I don’t believe we are ready
for Hillary Clinton as President.

The Palestinian Fatah Movement is doing whatever it can to brush up its image in the run up to this Summer’s parliamentary elections, including the appointment of young blood into the ranks. The outcome of the elections is going to be of crucial importance for the chances of peace with Israel as well as the country’s division of power. What would be the implications for a Palestine under more Islamicised rule, should Hamas achieve a much feared majority? And will the electoral map show that Islamists are on the rise mainly as a result of corruption and poverty?

The happenings in Palestine are going eerily exactly according to a master plan drawn up two years ago by the murdered Hamas founder Sheikh Ahmed Yassin. This leader drew out his vision for power sharing and legitimization of the Hamas organisation, starting by condoning to a ceasefire and subsequently by readying the organization for participation in mainstream politics. Next on the plan is slowly eating away power remaining in the hands of the Fatah movement. More on the bright side; Yassin also did not exclude acceptance of a two state solution. But, his condition is nevertheless worrisome – only as an interim solution.

It is not sure whether the Hamas movement would have found its way to the political arena had Fatah been enjoying a deeper political clout and a popularity akin to Hamas among the Palestinians. Some say it would have, because there is an ongoing collaboration between the two groups in attacks on Israel. But the fact that the political Fatah movement is losing its grip over the political reality in Palestine might in some sense be not only very convenient for the Hamas movement, it might also indicate that reality on the ground doesn’t just change overnight and that it takes a troop of bandits a lot of guts to organize themselves, steer clear of its former methods of communication and get a country going at the same time.

This, combined with Yassin’s ability to mastermind his future plan so indicates sharply how the land lies in Palestine. It is estimated that around 40 percent of Palestinians support Hamas but support is disproportionately strong in the Gaza Strip where some 1.3 million Palestinians live.

One positive side effect from having seen the Fatah movement struggle is that Hamas knows what kind of trouble it’s up for. This might already be evident from the January 2004 adoption of a more moderate stance by Yassin, months before he was killed, when he reduced the area he wished to see reclaimed from the whole of Israel to the West Bank and Gaza Strip. “We are leaving the rest of the occupied territories for history,” Yassin said in an interview with the London-based Arabic language newspaper al-Quds al-Arabi.

Some see this as the most significant item on Yassin’s master plan. “[Yassim implicitly acknowledges] the PLO’s 1988 decision to endorse the two-state solution,” says Mahdi Abdul Hadi, the head of the Palestinian Academic Society for the Study of International Affairs. The two state solution includes a Palestinian state on all territory occupied in 1967, with East Jerusalem as its capital, and a solution to the issue of refugees to be found according to international law based on UN General Assembly Resolution 194.

“Regardless of whether or not this is explicitly acknowledged by Hamas as a permanent or temporary solution, it will become the movement’s operational political guideline”, predicts Mahdi Abdul Hadi. That in itself is quite an evolution for a movement that refused to take part in the last elections in 1996 saying they objected to Oslo Accords because these condoned the existence of Israel.

One can’t help but get a sense that any potential Hamas leaders will likely go about things in a way swifter manner than the Fatah stumblings have shown Palestinian leadership to be so far. Throughout the Middle East the fact that subversive to the state groupings have been forced underground has given them a chance to organize themselves really well. They also tend to endear themselves to populations in times of severe duress and hardship by well funded relief efforts and other charitable initiatives, which make them look incredibly social compared to corrupted governments.

The Hamas movement set to benefit from its popularity for a while to come, while incumbent leaders have seen to have become increasingly entrapped in a downward spiral. As the elections are nearing, true panic is setting in among the participant of the Palestinian Legislative Council in Ramallah, where the day to day infighting between old and new guard will soon have to make way for some pragmatism - if they want to hold on to any majority in the PLO whatsoever. Policy makers are doing their utmost in trying to delay the elections or even change the rules to the disfavor of Hamas, which are schuduled for July 17, almost coinciding with the date the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza will take place, purportedly to take political advantage of this.

Ironically, the Israeli Prime Minister Sharon, faced with what’s an almost surely record historical amount of disloyalty at home, is also putting difficult things off. He has put back the withdrawal from Gaza by another three weeks for pretty much opposite reasons. Some even believe that Sharon is moving the date back in case Hamas comes out so strongly in the elections that he will abandon the settlement closure altogether.

Whatever will be the outcome of the Palestinian elections, or however violent the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza will prove to be, will largely determine the chances for any the direct peace talks to be restarted. The outlook on this issue now is very bleak.

“If the nationalist Fatah is defeated — or seriously challenged — by Islamist Hamas, the chance of getting a state could be set back by decades. Nationalists would be too intimidated to make the compromises needed to achieve peace or, even worse, the opportunists among them could see an alliance with Hamas as the way to gain power for themselves. Hamas itself would believe it can take over the entire movement, making it more violent against Israel and aggressive toward other Palestinians”, says Barry Rubin in a commentary on UPI.

The incumbent leadership has recently started serious efforts to counter the notion that is very much alive among the Palestinian population that its supporting Fatah party is in a total mess. The Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas’ recent drastic reorganization of the national security is one sign to this effect. Furthermore, on Tuesday, the movement announced the names of younger generation of leaders who would probably be chosen to run in the election, replacing the old guard that has been accused of corruption and mismanagement. “We consider this as a correct start to rebuild (Fatah) on a democratic base,” said Ahmed Deek, a senior Fatah official to Reuters.

The the old guard, who have nearly all been chosen directly by Yassir Arafat, are heavily criticized for corruption and their weak efforts to build the Palestinian economy. These issues are more long term and it is likely that the Palestinian voters are more forgiving here than on the more immediate threats they face every day through dangerous militancy. This militancy is alive in both Hamas factions as well as the Fatah movement. It is of crucial importance for the Fatah movement to pull itself together and deliver a credible message to voters if the current leadership is going to outcompete the Hamas message, which Palestinians are believed to favor momentarily.

Somehow, the old trick of blaming all Palestinian misfortunes of the Israelis is not going to work as well for Mr Abbas as it did for Yasser Arafat. What’s more, Mr Abbas also has a lot less clout than Mr Arafat in organizing his support. “Arafat, who was unchallengeable, could get away with anything. Abbas has no such luxury”, Hadi believes.

Political analysts differ over the chances that Hamas might become a majority party in Palestine. Should the party be successful however, more or less similar bleak realities will await it as were bestowed on the incumbent leaders. People talking about a ‘price’ that politicizing the movement will have, mostly are concerned with two things; peacetalks with Israel (Yassin’s plan was to steer clear of any Oslo principles) and democratization and reform.

Even though it is enticing to think that the surfacing of this organization is going to be a healthy thing both for the Palestinian society and for the grouping as such, these worries remain significant because of their potential long term impact. The classic example of things getting completely out of hand in a democratic context is Algeria, where in 1992, the incumbent Islamist rulers canceled free elections when it became clear they would not win outright. This example is quoted very often, but given the ensuing violence in this country it is not overstating just how dangerous and inhumane a system can get.

“There is always a question mark over whether Islamists who take power by democratic means are committed to maintaining parliamentarian democracy, or to changing the system to an Islamic regime, which is a different proposition”, says Hassan Ghatib.

The Algerian situation followed the regime change in Iran in the 1970s, which itself somewhat tested the limits to autocratic rule and given the fact that in every situation where there is a chance of extremism this gets overt attention and analysis there is a lot of scope for prominent thinkers from within the Islamic movements to shape their ideas.

The most prominent issue is how to share power, remain loyal to a constitution without imposing social rules that contradict this. This is an area of friction, because the very idea around which Hamas’ ideology revolves does not naturally imply that it will steer away from wanting to establish a completely Islamicised state, rather than a democracy as the constitution stipulates. Even though there is consensus that Islamic movements also can bend their party manifestos around the idea of democracy, it is a means to an end.

“It is possible that Hamas, which so far maintains a fundamentalist ideological and extreme political position, will become a pragmatic movement if it has the chance to be part of official politics, locally, regionally and internationally”, says Ghassan Khatib, the Palestinian Authority minister of planning.

The question really is what kind of powerbase the group will be able to build. Should the inclusion of the party in the mainstream sector immediately be on the basis of majority rule, it would be most dangerous, because it then has a chance to help shape a democracy according to possibly less democratic but more Islamist principles. It is not immediately obvious how that would improve the internal Palestinian situation or, more like, how it would move forward the democratization and reform process which the country is crying out for. But then, who knows, perhaps real change, Islamist style, is even possible.

Angelique van Engelen is a freelance writer working for http://www.contentClix.com. She specialises in content creation. For tailormade reports, brochures, research or feature articles, contact her on angeliqueve@contentclix.com.

These days, speaking with most Democrats is like being “Alice, In Wonderland”. Most of them seem to be going under the old saying “Don’t Confuse Me With The Facts”, it seems that many of their statements are based on emotions instead of reality. I used to enjoy discussing politics, especially with people that disagreed with me (I felt that I might learn something new or different.). I still do, but lately I have found that, while I still enjoy discussing politics with Independents and Republicans, I no longer enjoy discussing politics with most Democrats. They almost all say the same things and they sound as if they are reading from a script.

Numerous Democrats that I have spoken with have stated, to paraphrase, “I don’t like Bush (They never say President Bush), he’s a thief and a liar and he is owned by the oil companies. He only cares about the rich. Nothing he says or does can be any good. Additionally, he is not smart enough to be President.”. The words they actually use are much worse, I just don’t wish to repeat them here.

The first thing that they all say is “Bush and his cronies stole the presidency from Vice-President Gore (They say President or Vice-President when speaking about President Clinton or Vice-President Gore.) in 2000.”. They say “Bush lied about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction.”. They say “Bush has ruined our economy”. They say “Bush was too slow in handling the Katrina disaster because he is prejudiced against blacks.” They say, “Bush has turned the world against us.”. Some are now even saying, “Bush knew that 9/11 was going to happen and did nothing to stop it so he would have an excuse for invading Iraq.”. When I ask them how they know these things they quote David Letterman, Jay Leno, Susan Sarandon, Alec Baldwin, Edward Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean, Barbara Streisand and numerous other far left politicians, celebrities and newscasters.

I attempt to discover all sides of the issues so I watch NBC News, Fox News and CNN, I read the Los Angeles Times, the Wall Street Journal, Time Magazine, Forbes and other magazines and newspapers. When I ask my Democrat acquaintances if they watch Fox News, they all say “No, it’s too right wing.”. When I ask if they read the Wall Street Journal, Most say “No, it’s too biased.”, and even the ones that do admit to reading the Journal say, “I only read the financial pages.”. When I ask if they read or watch any conservative media at all, they say “No, all that you find in the conservative media are lies and cover ups.”.

When I try to counter some of their anti Bush statements with facts, they usually become upset and say “I don’t want to hear your facts, they are all lies spread by ‘big business’ and ‘right wing religious groups’, and even if they are true, I don’t care.”. “I don’t like Bush and that’s all that matters.”. When I ask them for proof of their allegations against President Bush, they usually either quote someone on the far left or say “Everyone knows it’s true.”. If I push them further they get upset and refuse to discuss the matter further. I have found that if you just listen to them and don’t disagree with them, they can talk forever about how bad President Bush and the Republican Party are. However, if you disagree with any part of anything they say, they will usually end the conversation immediately by changing the subject.

I don’t necessarily agree with, or even care for, everything that President Bush says or does, but the strident clamoring of the Democrats is forcing me to, more and more, side with him and the Republican Party. I am a Republican, but used to consider myself an Independent and voted my conscience rather than for a political party. Now, the blatant partisanship and lack of reason displayed by the Democratic Party has forced me to become an ardent Republican. The Republican Party, at least, still embraces some liberals and moderates. The Democratic Party appears to be trying to silence anyone who doesn’t agree with the far left.

David G. Hallstrom, Sr. is a retired private investigator and currently publishes several internet directories including www.resourcesforattorneys.com a legal and lifestyle resources directory for attorneys, lawyers and the internet public. For more lifestyle information see lifestyle.resourcesforattorneys.com, the Lifestyle directory from Resources For Attorneys.

Many people who suffer from low self-esteem would give
anything to escape their painful feelings of inferiority.
Almost anything, that is.

People are reluctant, even obstinate, when it comes to
giving up their illusions of an idyllic childhood.

And yet, if we are to break free from our mental prisons,
we must become willing to honor the truth of our personal
history. This is the key to removing our invisible
psychological and emotional chains.

Lack of Self-Worth Does Not Develop in a Vacuum

There is just no getting around the fact that our core
beliefs about the world and ourselves and our place in this
world are pretty firmly established by the time we are three
or four years old.

Lack of parental approval in early childhood exacts a heavy
toll. Low self-esteem, the root of all self-sabotaging
behavior, hangs heavy around our necks for life

“I Left All That Behind a Long Time Ago”

People are quick to grasp at a simple “Out of sight, out of
mind” escape. Sadly, this is a fantasy. While you can,
indeed, leave home and leave your family life behind, their
influence does not leave you.

Negative parental messages carry enormous weight. It is
through these concepts that everything else later on, (i.e.,
for the rest of our lives) is filtered.

Clearly then, if these basic messages are more negative than
positive, it is not surprising that we would wind up with a
badly mangled sense of self-worth.

A life of self-sabotage and perpetual dissatisfaction is
what results, because we simply do not believe, at a
SUBCONSCIOUS level, that we are worth anything better.

Traditional Morality Would Have Us Turn Away

People recoil at the idea of finding fault with their
parents. We have many religious, social and cultural
injunctions to honor, obey, respect, forgive, and worship
our elders.

These commandments prevent us from looking upon our
caretakers in a less than adoring way without incurring a
tremendous sense of guilt, betrayal and ingratitude. So we
remain unaware.

What people fail to appreciate is that it is only by
shattering our ignorance and examining our formative years
that we can come to understand what makes us tick. This
awareness will, in turn, allow us to process any distress so
that we may finally release it. Not ignore it, not
camouflage it, but finally release it.

This is all done in a spirit of healing, not one of
self-pity, and certainly not one of denunciation. As a
result of discovering and embracing our emotions rather than
squelching them, we can finally come alive.

Not only do we gain a new sense of vitality, but we gain a
new source of wisdom. And our awareness allows us to cut
negative patterns off at their source. You see, we cannot
let go of something if we don’t allow ourselves to
acknowledge what we are hanging on to.

Rational Justifications Do NOT Penetrate the Subconscious
Mind

Many well-intentioned people and spiritual mentors will
agree that while injurious things may have been said and
done, we should be mature or evolved enough to understand
that our caretakers were doing the best they could.

After all, they didn’t mean to hurt us with their harshness
or neglect. Why don’t we just rise above it and move on?
Surely we are noble and generous-hearted enough to forgive
them, yes?

Well, no, actually. And for two very important reasons.

First, this is an attempt to reason things out consciously.
It is a fruitless activity, because it does nothing to reach
and alter the core beliefs and distress that are stuffed
down BEYOND conscious access.

And second, the person whose body and/or emotions were
assailed was NOT an adult capable of reasoning things out so
rationally. The early distress lives on unabated.

We Cannot Live With the Results

We may be able to carry on, but we cannot really live and
flourish while those negative core beliefs remain frozen in
time. The tragedy for so many of us is that they remain
lodged firmly in place today, without our consent and
without our conscious awareness.

Down With the Taboo Against Knowing Who We Are

Rather than continue to justify our ignorance, we must dare
to bring the unconscious to conscious light. There are
compelling reasons for doing so.

• To heal a mutilated sense of self-worth.
• To process our present moments through fresh eyes.
• To avoid becoming subtly mean, cruel or sarcastic.
• To prevent ourselves from unwittingly passing on our damage.

And finally, and perhaps most compelling of all, if
traditional morality continues to deny us knowledge of
ourselves and our history, our bodies will end up speaking
for us. And this it will do by erupting into disease.
Witness the alarming number of people who suffer from
depression today.

Our psychological and emotional disturbances must eventually
surface as some type of physical or mental malady. Or as I
heard somewhere along the way, “If your mouth won’t say it
straight, your body will say it crooked.”

And according to the title of Dr. Alice Miller’s most recent
book on the victimization of children, The Body Never Lies.
Time spent digesting any of Dr. Miller’s books is time well
spent, indeed.

The greatest healing contribution any of us can make to
world is to heal our own wounds, not hide from them or deny
them or justify them. After all, we do want to live and not
just survive, don’t we?

About the author:

Rosella Aranda is the author of Sabotage Thyself No More,
an excellent guide to raising your sense of personal worth
and getting rid of self-defeating behaviors.
Free Mini-Course at http://www.SabotageThyselfNoMore.com/

Ehud Olmert, acting prime minister of Israel (whom I met briefly in 1995 at the grand opening of the Eucalyptus Restaurant in Jerusalem when he was mayor), is running in the Israeli elections on the treacherous platform to Auschwitz borders: the corrupt Kadima party, rotten to the core. Will the Kadima train to Auschwitz borders of self-destruction and death be stopped? Don’t get on the Kadima train because there’s no turning back!

Ehud Olmert was out for Jewish blood in Amona to perversely raise his election standing among the secular swine (the worst of the secular who love to hate the Jews of faith). Ehud Olmert is out for Jewish blood and Auschwitz borders! May Israel throw him out of political office and into prison for such a hateful and murderous campaign!

Aliza Karp shares how historically some have sought personal gain at Jewish expense, how massive amounts of Jewish blood paid the high price for such insatiable greed, and accurately applies the principle to what horrors we see unfolding in Israel today, whether the Judenrein policies enforced upon Gush Katif or the pogrom against Amona. Aliza Karp exposes how the leftist slogans have merely changed but the murderous hatred of the Left remains a clear and present danger.

May all beware and act accordingly, and return to God Most High to avenge such blood and save the nation from such traitors or Jerusalem will soon suffer under a German-Jesuit occupation that will show no mercy to either the religious or the secular, men or women, child or babe, ugly or beautiful, Arab or Jew (Daniel 9:11, 2 Chronicles 7:14).

David Ben-Ariel
***************

DEMONIZATION OF THE RIGHT WING EXTREME FANACTICAL FRINGE ELEMENTS
By Aliza Karp (with permission)

In his book Perfidy, while retelling the trial of Dr. Rudolf Kastner in 1955, Ben Hecht records the testimony of Joel Brand, who was given a strange and rare opportunity to save literally millions of Hungarian Jews from the ovens of the Holocaust. Amongst the tragedies that this testimony reveals, is the devastating effect that can result from the marginalization of upright individuals who do not submit to foul policies of a given establishment.

The calamity at Amona could only be carried out after the general public in Eretz Yisroel, and in America, have been convinced, to the point of being brainwashed, of the unlawfulness of the “extreme-right-fanatical-fringe-element” know as settlers.

In Perfidy, the establishment being discussed is the Jewish Agency of that time. Hecht explains that the British government founded the Jewish Agency and he refers to them as “A Jewish front for British policy in Palestine.” [1]

Brand’s story takes place in 1944. He has been given a proposal to save millions of Jews and must garner international support. Brand turns to the Jewish Agency. The Jewish Agency insists he travel to Aleppo, but Brand knows this is British soil and he risks arrest.

A Jewish Agency representative, Ehud Avriel, is assigned to Brand, to convince him that everything has been arranged for his safety in Aleppo, where in fact everything was arranged … for his arrest and detention by the British.

This tragic story holds a timely lesson.

I quote from Perfidy, “Aleppo-bound Joel Brand sits in his compartment with his friend Avriel, who smiles and chats like a parent calming a troubled child.

“The train stops in Ankara and fate comes aboard. A young Jabotinsky disciple from Palestine, Joseph Klarman, finds Brand in his compartment and speaks to him. He warns Brand. The British are waiting to arrest him in Aleppo. He begs Brand not to go on.

“Jewish Leader Avriel sneers upon hearing of the intruder. He knows him – one of the toughs from Tel Aviv, a Jabotinsky hothead.

“Unknowing, the million Hungarian Jews, still alive, wait for the outcome of this talk on the train at Ankara. If Joel Brand will believe what this “troublemaker” from Palestine tells him, the million may escape the German ash barrels. What a moment this is, a moment that could change history.

“But it changes nothing. Joel Brand does not believe the “troublemaker.” Brand is as Jew trained to believe only in respectability …” [2]

Those whom Hecht refers to as “troublemakers,” have now evolved into the “right-wing-extreme-fanatical-fringe-element.”

The marginalization and demonization of Jews who defend their right to live in Eretz Yisroel has tremendous power. It is what allowed the brutality at Amona to happen. In fact, it sparked the violence.

The misguided hatred for the right is so deep-rooted that many have said that PM Olmert’s orders for Amona stemmed from his desire to gain popularity by proving he is unyielding towards the “right-wing-extreme-fanatical-fringe-element.” Sadly enough, his followers derive satisfaction from the sight of Jewish blood.

Speaking on Purim of 5747 – 1987 the Lubavitcher Rebbe said, “G-d does everything for the good; what could be positive in this development of extremes, when there are also extremely negative results? The reason is that when evil remains concealed, it cannot be repaired. In fact, the person might even be unaware of its existence. Once this evil is revealed, however, it becomes possible to improve and elevate it.” [3]

Joel Brand was facing an evil that was concealed. When Brand tried to tell his story, his listeners “sighed, and turned away. There were too many Jews in Palestine babbling a little madly about what happened in Europe. About Germans… The incinerator smoke that hung in the sky all day and all night. Better to forget those things. Better, also, not to think wrong things about Palestine’s great Jews. What other Jews were there for the world to admire?” [4]

In contrast to Brand’s frustration to convey his experience, the attack on Amona has been widely publicized through pictures and videos. Breaking through the layers of conditioning that the unprotected settlers deserved to be beaten will not be easy, but an effort has to be made to convince people that what happened at Amona is in fact evil.

In order to do this the right wing camp has to be careful not to reinforce the stigma placed upon it by submitting to it. Right wingers are afraid to be labeled extremists. Self-incrimination by the right led to many reports marginalizing the rock throwing by protesters at Amona. The right should not be on defensive. They are the victims, not the aggressors! Even when rocks are being thrown… and let us not judge the rock throwers until we know the facts. If boys were throwing rocks on police who were abusing the girls, morality rests on the side of the defenders.

Either way, a few rocks do not justify trampling and savagely beating hundreds of unprotected, unarmed protestors. It justifies arresting the perpetrators, that’s it! But very few arrests were made, and very few vehicles were on location to take away arrestees. Clearly the intent of the police campaign was not to enforce the law requiring building permits. To find the intent, we can look at the outcome. Immediately following the Amona invasion, PM Olmert made a statement about the violent settlers. He staged the event, including the flow of blood, in order to make that statement. To once again besmirch the settlers and thereby control the blindfolded public.

To disassociate with “right-wing-extreme-fanatical-fringe-element” reinforces the deadly tactic that has been in place since 1944. Fearing the title strengthens the enemy. Denying its power strengthens the righteous.

This is clear from Jewish history. The right wing in Eretz Yisroel is in the position of being the Jew of the Jews (meaning the Jew of the Israelis). When Jews attempt to deny their true identity and present themselves as cosmopolitan, moderate, even handed, and open-minded, they are eventually mistreated.

When a Jew stands proud, he is respected. Mordechai HaTzadik – the “right-wing-extreme-fanatical-fringe-element” of his time – would not bow down. When Mordechai is first introduced in the story of Purim he is referred to as ‘Eish Yemini.’ Although this is generally translated as a man from the tribe of Benjamin, the literal meaning is man of the right. The commentary Tiferes Shlomo explains that to mean that Mordechai never swerved to the left. [5]

The process of unraveling the demonization of settlers and their supporters is slow. But it should be pursued. Silence is a stamp of approval. I will turn to Perfidy again for a suitable quote to make my point, “It is always a losing battle, this trying to out-shout the authority. Those who have been in one are left with the conviction that it is easier to waken the dead than the living. But what a hopeless world it would be without this record of lost battles.” [6] Letters to media and faxes to authorities, rallies and meetings may not change anything over night, but they can erase the stamp of approval of silence. When Jewish blood becomes cheap, silence is not an option.

——————————————————————————–

[1] Perfidy by Ben Hecht, Gefen Publishing House, 1999, page 234
[2] Ibid, page 239-240
[3] Sichos in English, Volume 35, page 8
[4] Perfidy, page 226
[5] The Megillah, Published by Mesorah Publications, page 55
[6] Perfidy, page 190

David Ben-Ariel is a Christian-Zionist writer in Ohio and author of Beyond Babylon: Europe’s Rise and Fall. With a focus on the Middle East and Jerusalem, his analytical articles help others improve their understanding of that troubled region. Check out Beyond Babylon.

The “supreme” law of our land is a severely defective document in many areas. It could never win approval in a faith based society. It was drafted and marketed by a faith adverse body of self interested men; we accurately call our founding fathers. The first offense of note is the self proclamation of supremacy. How does a conclave of obviously inferior men write supreme law, while refusing to open their daily proceedings with prayer? They don’t create supremacy of any sort, but do not hesitate to proclaim it so in the text of their own creation. Am I the only one troubled by a long history of political arrogance that persists into a new age? The common does not become superior by convocation, proclamation or repetition.

The “supreme” law forbids cruel and unusual punishment. A faith based society would disallow cruel punishment altogether and allow unusual punishments which could be far superior to traditionally cruel ones. No crueler punishment than imprisonment was ever devised by mankind. Isolate people from society, strip them of their dignity. Make them dependent as children on people hostile to them by the nature of continuous survival - security needs of all who live under these conditions. When they have learned to survive in a more threatening environment than the ones most came from, they are turned loose, destitute, without bankroll or economic and social skills. No social support and a record to deter most employers. It is like domesticating an eagle for years and then turning it loose. Good luck birdie!

A convenience society sweeps the problems and criminals it creates under the rug, thinks itself superior and locks people in cages regardless of the crime. No victim restitution, no family support, no good thing at all. Anti social behavior is to be met with radical, cruel anti social punishment - one size fits all. Look into America’s prison and “just us” systems. You will know what a cruel joke the cry of faith and family is in America today.

When society disables a person by locking her in a cage, it acquires the responsibilities the free person had committed to and society has made impossible for that person to fulfill. Society also becomes responsible for a prisoner’s well being, healing and rehabilitation. To simply release wizened, often sickened criminals without resources is to beg them to re-offend. A vicious cycle is created. This is the most care less and unloving behavior toward our neighbors. Who should pat us on the back and say, “well done thou good and faithful servant”? Universal imprisonment will forever be bad social medicine. Because we have accepted the outrageous economic cost of convenience justice, no one dares calculate the social costs.

Most anti social behavior comes from growing up in anti social environments. If I am anti social, there is an excellent chance I will produce anti social children. A loving society would choose to break the cycle. A selfish, short sighted society will never take responsibility for anything. What punishment does justice demand for the likes of us?

About the Author

Freelance writer published in newspapers and many websites.
justanotherview.com

Introduction:

Although politicians and so-called “Intelligence Experts” are the ones appearing on TV, discussing and relaying the news on the War or Terror, they are far from the ones who actually have anything to do with the war on terror. As in the past so it is today, the real planning in the war on terror goes on in covert ops-rooms by the real “Spooks” from the three letter agencies: CIA, MIA, ISI, MI-5, MI-6, GRU and the FSB, just to name a few of the major players.

The sad truth is that these spook agencies are in the large, responsible for the effectiveness’ of the major Islamic terrorist groups. The tactical planning, the CQB skills and the weapon and explosive knowledge of these Islamic terrorists, are largely courtesy of the spook agencies.

I am not arguing that the spook agencies are directly responsible for the terrorist acts, carried out by these Islamic terror groups. But that with a bit of common sense and forward planning, they should have realized the future evils they where helping to create. Old wisdom say it all, “When you lie with dogs, you get fleas” translated into modern languages that even a mission-oriented spook should be able to understand, the old wisdom says “When you train terrorists, innocent civilians get killed”

Afghanistan:
Prior to and during the Russian occupation of Afghanistan, the US spook agencies saw in their infinite wisdom the Mujahadeen, as a means to an end. The support of the Mujahadeen forces were initiated by the Carter administration, prior to the Soviet invasion and was increased by the Reagan administration. During both administrations, intelligence agents from the CIA and MIA went to Afghanistan by way of the Pakistani intelligence agency ISI, to make secret contributions in forms of funds, weapons and training to the Afghani resistance fighters.

The strategic plan was to stir up a rebellion against the Afghan government, which would result in the influx of Soviet troops. After the “Soviet Invasion” the purpose was to help the Afghani resistance fighting the Soviet forces. The objective of the plan was to ensure that the occupation would be very costly, for the Soviet army in funds and life’s. This wisdom of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” was arguably not a new idea as it has been an ideology of warfare, from the dawn of time. Training and supporting your enemies enemy, was the big thing during the cold war, from Asia to Africa, from the Middle East to South America, is was the tactic favoured by the Super Powers, their allies and their foes.

However, the Intelligence agents were soon to discover that, the Afghanis where in general a untrustworthy ally, who would only follow a set plan as long as they did not have other plans on the sideline. Unfortunately, they always had plans on the side which had a tendency to become the most important plan, plans that at least most of the time came ahead of fighting the Russians. Inter-Tribal feuds where constantly flaring, this in turn led to an unstable situation where military and political alliances changed faster than a “prostitute” did sheets.

This is where the “spooks” came up with a solution which still haunts us today, they decided to direct the Pakistani ISI, to focus most of their training and supplies on the Arab Mujahadeen or jihadist’s, who had more zeal for the fight against the Russians.

The Afghan warlords continued to receive the majority of the cash flowing from the spook agencies, but it was the radical Islamic Arabs that got the real training and in return they delivered. The mighty Red Army was forced to retreat in shame and defeat. Russia had met its Afghanistan, as Napoleon had met his Waterloo and the US had met its Vietnam; the spooks of the west had won the decade.

The Spooks success caused a stir in the Soviet “Empire of Evil”, within a few years the Soviet Empire where defeated by stratagem and replaced by a “democratic” Russia. So one might say we owe the spooks congratulations on such a worthy contribution to human history. Had it not been for the minor fact, that the CIA/ISI trained Mujahadeen turned into the infamous terror groups, associated with Osama Bin Laden’s Al Qaeda Group.

The Al Qaeda group has in its relatively short terrorist lifespan, turned into the “Olympic Champion” of terror. The Al Qaeda group has staged very few attacks compared to other known terrorist groups, however Al Qaeda has blown the scale when it comes to fatalities and injures caused by terrorist attacks. From January 1998 to December 2003, Al Qaeda only caused a measly 0,1% of all terrorist incidents, grotesquely though the 0,1% of attacks caused 29% of the fatalities and 22% of the injuries inflicted by all terrorist acts in the same time span!

Chechnya:
One would think that Russia’s experience in the Soviet-Afghan war, would have taught it that radical Islamic fighters are neither just the enemy of your enemy, but also your enemy. However the GRU (Russia’s military intelligence unit) fell prey to the same short sightedness as the CIA did, in 1994 they trained and funded mercenaries to fight in Abkhazia, among them where a number of militant Islamic Chechens. The purpose of the clandestine operation were to destabilize the Abkhazian region, in order to weaken the Government of Georgia who sought total separation from Russia. Among those militants were Shamil Basayev, a name the Russians will never again forget although they are more than willing to forget that they trained him.

Shamil Basayev started his guerrilla/terrorist campaign in 1991, when he masterminded the hijacking of a passenger plane from the town of Mineralnye Vody, the plane was flown to Turkey where the hostages where freed. An agreement ensured the Chechens free passage back to Chechnya. Bolstered by his hijacking success Basayev started his guerrilla campaign, gaining combat experience by fighting in the regions many conflicts with the Azerbaijanis in Nagorno-Karabakh, against the Georgians in Abkhazia and against the Russians in Chechnya. In between the fighting,Basayev received training in terrorist camps in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

However, Basayevs real terror campaign began with the 1995, attack at the Budennovsk militia headquarters which evolved into the hospital siege. Shamil Basayev appears to be the mastermind behind all of the major Chechen terrorist attacks, carried out since 1995. His network of guerrilla/terrorist groups has several names, the Abkhaz battalion, Sword of Islam, Movsar Barayev Gang and Riyadh-as-Saliheen, the latter being the most notorious group. Since 1995, the network has carried out at least 13 successful terrorist attacks which has caused ca. 949 fatalities and injured a minimum of 1147. This is an enormously high fatality and injury rate for a single terrorist network.

The Shamil Basayev terrorist network has proven itself far more efficient and deadly, than other well-known terrorist groups, such as FARC, HAMAS and ETA. Although the Shamil Basayev network has not yet reached the horrific scale of the Al Qaeda attacks, the future may prove to be different.

Osama Bin Laden and Shamil Basayev are both Islamic militants, who not only fight with a religious zeal but also with sound tactics, learned through training provided by the CIA and GRU. These tactics combined with actual combat experience, has made a mock of the best of both US and Russia’s elite forces. It is a tragic irony that these two most infamous terrorists where in part created by the superpowers, who now find them as their fiercest enemies. Mockingly, both carry out their operations dressed in US military uniforms and using Russian assault rifles as their primary weapons.

Guantanamo:
Lately, the US has been releasing several enemy combatants from the Guantanamo prisoner camp, this has been done due to mounting international pressure, to either convict or release the prisoners, of the original 680 enemy combatants who were brought to Guantanamo, only 4 have been charged so far. However, the choice of which prisoners to release clearly remains with the CIA and MIA, who are in charge of the investigations and interrogations. As in the past so in the present, the three-letter agencies seems incapable of understanding the absolute commitment to jihad, by the Islamic militants.

Slimane Hadj Abderrahmane, a half Danish, half-Algerian enemy combatant who was caught on the Afghan Pakistani border, was recently released from the Guantanamo camp. He had no sooner arrived in Denmark before he publicly stated that the Danish government where a legitimate target of Islamic terrorism, due to the Danish involvement in the war in Iraq. Subsequently, he publicly stated that the US “can use [my promise not to engage in warfare] as toilet paper.” He next stated that he intends to continue Jihad by joining the Chechen militants in their fight against the Russian military.

Abdullah Mahsud, a Pakistani enemy combatant caught in Afghanistan, were also recently released from the Guantanamo camp. As soon as he arrived in the Waziristan region in Pakistan, he immediately reconfirmed his commitment to Jihad and met with his former Taliban allies, he planned and carried out a kidnapping of two Chinese engineers. The subsequent attempt by the Pakistani Special Forces to free the hostages, resulted in the death of one of the hostages and five of the kidnappers. Abdullah Mahsud, however managed to escape and is wanted by the Pakistani forces, obviously for more than just neglecting to keep his promise,to the US of not “to engage in warfare”, hopefully a promise to not engage in terrorism was also included in his release conditions.

Conclusions:
The real problem with making agreements with Islamic militants is that they are devout Muslims, who have dedicated their life to Jihad which brings us to a problem, that the Israelis knows only to well. A Muslim does not have to honour his word, or even his signature as Muslims are permitted to lie to non-Muslims and break agreements with them, under the Koranic law of Hudaibiya.

The four examples of Osama Bin Laden, Shamil Basayev, Slimane Hadj Abderrahmane and Abdullah Mahsud should prove beyond doubt that, the consequences of dealing and negotiating with Islamic militants committed to Jihad, is not only foolish but also outright disastrous. For decades the Official stance by western Governments regarding terrorism, has been a firm strategy of “No negotiations with terrorists”, a controversial strategy but clearly it is about time that someone explained to the Spook Agencies, that no negotiations also means no funds, weapons and training. They should also be reminded that the end does not justify the means.

When it comes to dealing with Islamic guerrillas and terrorists, the so-called counter intelligence operations undertaken during the last three decades, by the three-letter intelligence agencies have proven to be anything but intelligent, with hindsight these operations have proved to be absolutely “Counter Intelligent”.

Dan Sommer is the author of the SD Agent, a Surveillance Detection Manual, he has been part of the process of designing, implementing and training a SD team for a European Embassy. His 17 years security career started in 1986 and he has active experience from military, security, close protection, counter assault team and surveillance detection operations. Since 1994 the author has been writing training material’s for security companies and police departments. He has been instructing courses world-wide for security officers, bodyguards, police officers, counter assault teams and surveillance detection units. Dan currently acts as the International Director of the World Federation of Bodyguards and has a private business as a Security & Protection Consultant. His work can be viewed at his website http://www.DanSommer.Biz