This is serious stuff, folks! Please pay attention.
The US Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and The Declaration of Independence may be accessed at the links to the left. Become familiar with them. Print them out. But if caught with them, you will be labeled a "terrorist" by the Homeland Security.
Monday, June 29, 2009
Communist U.N. Boss Praises "Mother Earth"
By Cliff Kincaid
Armed with a new sex scandal that can further damage Republican opponents of the Obama Administration, our media haven't found much time to cover the U.N. Conference on the World Financial and Economic Crisis underway at the world organization's headquarters in New York. But the Obama White House is working hand-in-glove with a Communist Catholic Priest who gave a bizarre speech on Wednesday devoted to saving "Mother Earth" from evil capitalists.
A performance as gripping as that of South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford admitting to adultery was turned in by Miguel D'Escoto, the President of the U.N. General Assembly, when he declared that "There is a growing awareness that we are all sons and daughters of Earth and that we belong to her." He urged "a planetary civilization" that is "more respectful of Mother Earth, more inclusive of all people and with more solidarity with the poorest, which is more spiritual and full of reverence for the splendor of the universe and which is much happier."
D'Escoto, who was suspended from his priestly functions by the anti-communist Pope John Paul II, is an advocate of Marxist-oriented Liberation Theology and received the Lenin Peace Prize.
He said the U.N. must become a Noah's Ark to save humanity.
D'Escoto is the same U.N. figure who recently dismissed the Iranian president's threat to wipe Israel off the map by saying, "Words don't kill."
But words do mean something, and D'Escoto masked his call for global socialism in fancy and flowery words and phrases. He made it clear with his talk of protecting "Mother Earth" that environmentalism would be the ticket to the creation of the new international socialist order.
D'Escoto declared that "We still need to recognize that the globalized means of production, in their industrial voracity, have in large measure devastated the Earth and thus have also damaged the common good of Earth and humanity. We must urgently seek other paths that are more humane and more favorable towards life: the paths of justice and solidarity which lead to peace and happiness."
Capitalism cannot be reformed, he said, adding that "…controls and corrections of the existing model, while undoubtedly necessary, are insufficient in the medium and long term. Their inherent ability to address the global crisis has proven to be weak. Stopping at controls and corrections of the model would demonstrate a cruel lack of social sensitivity, imagination and commitment to the establishment of a just and lasting peace. Egotism and greed cannot be corrected. They must be replaced by solidarity, which obviously implies radical change. If what we really want is a stable and lasting peace, it must be absolutely clear that we must go beyond controls and corrections of the existing model to create something that strives towards a new paradigm of social coexistence."
The solution, he went on, involves the affirmation of a "global ethic" for "safeguarding the common good of the Earth and humanity."
He explained, "We will start with the assumption that the community of peoples is simultaneously a community of common goods. These cannot be appropriated privately by anyone and must serve the life of all in present and future generations and the community of other living beings."
The reference to being "appropriated privately" was, of course, a dig at global capitalism and the concept of private property.
If we don't replace capitalism with international socialism, he said that "we could arrive at the same destiny which has already befallen the dinosaurs."
In fact, Soviet-style communism went the way of the dinosaurs but its adherents, such as D'Escoto, are very much alive, and working with the Obama Administration through the U.N. That was evident in the opening remarks to the conference provided by Obama's very good friend and close adviser, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan E. Rice.
She said that the United States had "placed the highest priority" on the conference and that "President Obama understands that our collective response to the crisis will make up an important moment in world history."
Committing to more foreign aid from hard-pressed U.S. taxpayers, Rice went on to say that "the United States understands that we have an economic, security, and moral obligation to extend a hand to the countries and the people who face the greatest risks today. That is why we have supported substantial increases in resources to boost the emergency lending capacity of the IMF. That is why we have backed increases to help regional development banks accelerate lending of their own."
The theme of a new international socialist order was predictably echoed by Rodrigo Malmierca Diaz of Communist Cuba, who said that the U.N. conference "must define the mandates, duties, governance structure, and management procedures of the new international monetary and financial institutions" that are supposed to come into being.
Making it clear that the U.S. would lose its sovereignty and standing in this process, he added that "…it must lead us to a pattern of monetary reference not depending on the economic stability, legislation or political decisions of only one country." He called for "an international economic order based on sustainable development and the generation of wealth on the basis of justice." This new system will have institutions "subordinated to the United Nations system," he said.
Almost as bizarre as some of the opening remarks, the United Nations University has produced a special "conversation series" in connection with the conference with such notables as American leftist Professor Noam Chomsky, a leader of the Communist Party spin-off group, the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism. The United Nations University describes Chomsky as being among "the most important intellectual and policy voices from around the globe."
The "conversation" with Chomsky consists of links to his various media appearances, including on the far-left "Democracy Now!" radio program hosted by Amy Goodman, and Iranian television.
Cliff Kincaid is the Editor of Accuracy in Media, and can be contacted at cliff.kincaid@aim.org.
Armed with a new sex scandal that can further damage Republican opponents of the Obama Administration, our media haven't found much time to cover the U.N. Conference on the World Financial and Economic Crisis underway at the world organization's headquarters in New York. But the Obama White House is working hand-in-glove with a Communist Catholic Priest who gave a bizarre speech on Wednesday devoted to saving "Mother Earth" from evil capitalists.
A performance as gripping as that of South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford admitting to adultery was turned in by Miguel D'Escoto, the President of the U.N. General Assembly, when he declared that "There is a growing awareness that we are all sons and daughters of Earth and that we belong to her." He urged "a planetary civilization" that is "more respectful of Mother Earth, more inclusive of all people and with more solidarity with the poorest, which is more spiritual and full of reverence for the splendor of the universe and which is much happier."
D'Escoto, who was suspended from his priestly functions by the anti-communist Pope John Paul II, is an advocate of Marxist-oriented Liberation Theology and received the Lenin Peace Prize.
He said the U.N. must become a Noah's Ark to save humanity.
D'Escoto is the same U.N. figure who recently dismissed the Iranian president's threat to wipe Israel off the map by saying, "Words don't kill."
But words do mean something, and D'Escoto masked his call for global socialism in fancy and flowery words and phrases. He made it clear with his talk of protecting "Mother Earth" that environmentalism would be the ticket to the creation of the new international socialist order.
D'Escoto declared that "We still need to recognize that the globalized means of production, in their industrial voracity, have in large measure devastated the Earth and thus have also damaged the common good of Earth and humanity. We must urgently seek other paths that are more humane and more favorable towards life: the paths of justice and solidarity which lead to peace and happiness."
Capitalism cannot be reformed, he said, adding that "…controls and corrections of the existing model, while undoubtedly necessary, are insufficient in the medium and long term. Their inherent ability to address the global crisis has proven to be weak. Stopping at controls and corrections of the model would demonstrate a cruel lack of social sensitivity, imagination and commitment to the establishment of a just and lasting peace. Egotism and greed cannot be corrected. They must be replaced by solidarity, which obviously implies radical change. If what we really want is a stable and lasting peace, it must be absolutely clear that we must go beyond controls and corrections of the existing model to create something that strives towards a new paradigm of social coexistence."
The solution, he went on, involves the affirmation of a "global ethic" for "safeguarding the common good of the Earth and humanity."
He explained, "We will start with the assumption that the community of peoples is simultaneously a community of common goods. These cannot be appropriated privately by anyone and must serve the life of all in present and future generations and the community of other living beings."
The reference to being "appropriated privately" was, of course, a dig at global capitalism and the concept of private property.
If we don't replace capitalism with international socialism, he said that "we could arrive at the same destiny which has already befallen the dinosaurs."
In fact, Soviet-style communism went the way of the dinosaurs but its adherents, such as D'Escoto, are very much alive, and working with the Obama Administration through the U.N. That was evident in the opening remarks to the conference provided by Obama's very good friend and close adviser, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan E. Rice.
She said that the United States had "placed the highest priority" on the conference and that "President Obama understands that our collective response to the crisis will make up an important moment in world history."
Committing to more foreign aid from hard-pressed U.S. taxpayers, Rice went on to say that "the United States understands that we have an economic, security, and moral obligation to extend a hand to the countries and the people who face the greatest risks today. That is why we have supported substantial increases in resources to boost the emergency lending capacity of the IMF. That is why we have backed increases to help regional development banks accelerate lending of their own."
The theme of a new international socialist order was predictably echoed by Rodrigo Malmierca Diaz of Communist Cuba, who said that the U.N. conference "must define the mandates, duties, governance structure, and management procedures of the new international monetary and financial institutions" that are supposed to come into being.
Making it clear that the U.S. would lose its sovereignty and standing in this process, he added that "…it must lead us to a pattern of monetary reference not depending on the economic stability, legislation or political decisions of only one country." He called for "an international economic order based on sustainable development and the generation of wealth on the basis of justice." This new system will have institutions "subordinated to the United Nations system," he said.
Almost as bizarre as some of the opening remarks, the United Nations University has produced a special "conversation series" in connection with the conference with such notables as American leftist Professor Noam Chomsky, a leader of the Communist Party spin-off group, the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism. The United Nations University describes Chomsky as being among "the most important intellectual and policy voices from around the globe."
The "conversation" with Chomsky consists of links to his various media appearances, including on the far-left "Democracy Now!" radio program hosted by Amy Goodman, and Iranian television.
Cliff Kincaid is the Editor of Accuracy in Media, and can be contacted at cliff.kincaid@aim.org.
Armed with a new sex scandal that can further damage Republican opponents of the Obama Administration, our media haven't found much time to cover the U.N. Conference on the World Financial and Economic Crisis underway at the world organization's headquarters in New York. But the Obama White House is working hand-in-glove with a Communist Catholic Priest who gave a bizarre speech on Wednesday devoted to saving "Mother Earth" from evil capitalists.
A performance as gripping as that of South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford admitting to adultery was turned in by Miguel D'Escoto, the President of the U.N. General Assembly, when he declared that "There is a growing awareness that we are all sons and daughters of Earth and that we belong to her." He urged "a planetary civilization" that is "more respectful of Mother Earth, more inclusive of all people and with more solidarity with the poorest, which is more spiritual and full of reverence for the splendor of the universe and which is much happier."
D'Escoto, who was suspended from his priestly functions by the anti-communist Pope John Paul II, is an advocate of Marxist-oriented Liberation Theology and received the Lenin Peace Prize.
He said the U.N. must become a Noah's Ark to save humanity.
D'Escoto is the same U.N. figure who recently dismissed the Iranian president's threat to wipe Israel off the map by saying, "Words don't kill."
But words do mean something, and D'Escoto masked his call for global socialism in fancy and flowery words and phrases. He made it clear with his talk of protecting "Mother Earth" that environmentalism would be the ticket to the creation of the new international socialist order.
D'Escoto declared that "We still need to recognize that the globalized means of production, in their industrial voracity, have in large measure devastated the Earth and thus have also damaged the common good of Earth and humanity. We must urgently seek other paths that are more humane and more favorable towards life: the paths of justice and solidarity which lead to peace and happiness."
Capitalism cannot be reformed, he said, adding that "…controls and corrections of the existing model, while undoubtedly necessary, are insufficient in the medium and long term. Their inherent ability to address the global crisis has proven to be weak. Stopping at controls and corrections of the model would demonstrate a cruel lack of social sensitivity, imagination and commitment to the establishment of a just and lasting peace. Egotism and greed cannot be corrected. They must be replaced by solidarity, which obviously implies radical change. If what we really want is a stable and lasting peace, it must be absolutely clear that we must go beyond controls and corrections of the existing model to create something that strives towards a new paradigm of social coexistence."
The solution, he went on, involves the affirmation of a "global ethic" for "safeguarding the common good of the Earth and humanity."
He explained, "We will start with the assumption that the community of peoples is simultaneously a community of common goods. These cannot be appropriated privately by anyone and must serve the life of all in present and future generations and the community of other living beings."
The reference to being "appropriated privately" was, of course, a dig at global capitalism and the concept of private property.
If we don't replace capitalism with international socialism, he said that "we could arrive at the same destiny which has already befallen the dinosaurs."
In fact, Soviet-style communism went the way of the dinosaurs but its adherents, such as D'Escoto, are very much alive, and working with the Obama Administration through the U.N. That was evident in the opening remarks to the conference provided by Obama's very good friend and close adviser, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan E. Rice.
She said that the United States had "placed the highest priority" on the conference and that "President Obama understands that our collective response to the crisis will make up an important moment in world history."
Committing to more foreign aid from hard-pressed U.S. taxpayers, Rice went on to say that "the United States understands that we have an economic, security, and moral obligation to extend a hand to the countries and the people who face the greatest risks today. That is why we have supported substantial increases in resources to boost the emergency lending capacity of the IMF. That is why we have backed increases to help regional development banks accelerate lending of their own."
The theme of a new international socialist order was predictably echoed by Rodrigo Malmierca Diaz of Communist Cuba, who said that the U.N. conference "must define the mandates, duties, governance structure, and management procedures of the new international monetary and financial institutions" that are supposed to come into being.
Making it clear that the U.S. would lose its sovereignty and standing in this process, he added that "…it must lead us to a pattern of monetary reference not depending on the economic stability, legislation or political decisions of only one country." He called for "an international economic order based on sustainable development and the generation of wealth on the basis of justice." This new system will have institutions "subordinated to the United Nations system," he said.
Almost as bizarre as some of the opening remarks, the United Nations University has produced a special "conversation series" in connection with the conference with such notables as American leftist Professor Noam Chomsky, a leader of the Communist Party spin-off group, the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism. The United Nations University describes Chomsky as being among "the most important intellectual and policy voices from around the globe."
The "conversation" with Chomsky consists of links to his various media appearances, including on the far-left "Democracy Now!" radio program hosted by Amy Goodman, and Iranian television.
Cliff Kincaid is the Editor of Accuracy in Media, and can be contacted at cliff.kincaid@aim.org.
Armed with a new sex scandal that can further damage Republican opponents of the Obama Administration, our media haven't found much time to cover the U.N. Conference on the World Financial and Economic Crisis underway at the world organization's headquarters in New York. But the Obama White House is working hand-in-glove with a Communist Catholic Priest who gave a bizarre speech on Wednesday devoted to saving "Mother Earth" from evil capitalists.
A performance as gripping as that of South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford admitting to adultery was turned in by Miguel D'Escoto, the President of the U.N. General Assembly, when he declared that "There is a growing awareness that we are all sons and daughters of Earth and that we belong to her." He urged "a planetary civilization" that is "more respectful of Mother Earth, more inclusive of all people and with more solidarity with the poorest, which is more spiritual and full of reverence for the splendor of the universe and which is much happier."
D'Escoto, who was suspended from his priestly functions by the anti-communist Pope John Paul II, is an advocate of Marxist-oriented Liberation Theology and received the Lenin Peace Prize.
He said the U.N. must become a Noah's Ark to save humanity.
D'Escoto is the same U.N. figure who recently dismissed the Iranian president's threat to wipe Israel off the map by saying, "Words don't kill."
But words do mean something, and D'Escoto masked his call for global socialism in fancy and flowery words and phrases. He made it clear with his talk of protecting "Mother Earth" that environmentalism would be the ticket to the creation of the new international socialist order.
D'Escoto declared that "We still need to recognize that the globalized means of production, in their industrial voracity, have in large measure devastated the Earth and thus have also damaged the common good of Earth and humanity. We must urgently seek other paths that are more humane and more favorable towards life: the paths of justice and solidarity which lead to peace and happiness."
Capitalism cannot be reformed, he said, adding that "…controls and corrections of the existing model, while undoubtedly necessary, are insufficient in the medium and long term. Their inherent ability to address the global crisis has proven to be weak. Stopping at controls and corrections of the model would demonstrate a cruel lack of social sensitivity, imagination and commitment to the establishment of a just and lasting peace. Egotism and greed cannot be corrected. They must be replaced by solidarity, which obviously implies radical change. If what we really want is a stable and lasting peace, it must be absolutely clear that we must go beyond controls and corrections of the existing model to create something that strives towards a new paradigm of social coexistence."
The solution, he went on, involves the affirmation of a "global ethic" for "safeguarding the common good of the Earth and humanity."
He explained, "We will start with the assumption that the community of peoples is simultaneously a community of common goods. These cannot be appropriated privately by anyone and must serve the life of all in present and future generations and the community of other living beings."
The reference to being "appropriated privately" was, of course, a dig at global capitalism and the concept of private property.
If we don't replace capitalism with international socialism, he said that "we could arrive at the same destiny which has already befallen the dinosaurs."
In fact, Soviet-style communism went the way of the dinosaurs but its adherents, such as D'Escoto, are very much alive, and working with the Obama Administration through the U.N. That was evident in the opening remarks to the conference provided by Obama's very good friend and close adviser, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan E. Rice.
She said that the United States had "placed the highest priority" on the conference and that "President Obama understands that our collective response to the crisis will make up an important moment in world history."
Committing to more foreign aid from hard-pressed U.S. taxpayers, Rice went on to say that "the United States understands that we have an economic, security, and moral obligation to extend a hand to the countries and the people who face the greatest risks today. That is why we have supported substantial increases in resources to boost the emergency lending capacity of the IMF. That is why we have backed increases to help regional development banks accelerate lending of their own."
The theme of a new international socialist order was predictably echoed by Rodrigo Malmierca Diaz of Communist Cuba, who said that the U.N. conference "must define the mandates, duties, governance structure, and management procedures of the new international monetary and financial institutions" that are supposed to come into being.
Making it clear that the U.S. would lose its sovereignty and standing in this process, he added that "…it must lead us to a pattern of monetary reference not depending on the economic stability, legislation or political decisions of only one country." He called for "an international economic order based on sustainable development and the generation of wealth on the basis of justice." This new system will have institutions "subordinated to the United Nations system," he said.
Almost as bizarre as some of the opening remarks, the United Nations University has produced a special "conversation series" in connection with the conference with such notables as American leftist Professor Noam Chomsky, a leader of the Communist Party spin-off group, the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism. The United Nations University describes Chomsky as being among "the most important intellectual and policy voices from around the globe."
The "conversation" with Chomsky consists of links to his various media appearances, including on the far-left "Democracy Now!" radio program hosted by Amy Goodman, and Iranian television.
Cliff Kincaid is the Editor of Accuracy in Media, and can be contacted at cliff.kincaid@aim.org.
Armed with a new sex scandal that can further damage Republican opponents of the Obama Administration, our media haven't found much time to cover the U.N. Conference on the World Financial and Economic Crisis underway at the world organization's headquarters in New York. But the Obama White House is working hand-in-glove with a Communist Catholic Priest who gave a bizarre speech on Wednesday devoted to saving "Mother Earth" from evil capitalists.
A performance as gripping as that of South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford admitting to adultery was turned in by Miguel D'Escoto, the President of the U.N. General Assembly, when he declared that "There is a growing awareness that we are all sons and daughters of Earth and that we belong to her." He urged "a planetary civilization" that is "more respectful of Mother Earth, more inclusive of all people and with more solidarity with the poorest, which is more spiritual and full of reverence for the splendor of the universe and which is much happier."
D'Escoto, who was suspended from his priestly functions by the anti-communist Pope John Paul II, is an advocate of Marxist-oriented Liberation Theology and received the Lenin Peace Prize.
He said the U.N. must become a Noah's Ark to save humanity.
D'Escoto is the same U.N. figure who recently dismissed the Iranian president's threat to wipe Israel off the map by saying, "Words don't kill."
But words do mean something, and D'Escoto masked his call for global socialism in fancy and flowery words and phrases. He made it clear with his talk of protecting "Mother Earth" that environmentalism would be the ticket to the creation of the new international socialist order.
D'Escoto declared that "We still need to recognize that the globalized means of production, in their industrial voracity, have in large measure devastated the Earth and thus have also damaged the common good of Earth and humanity. We must urgently seek other paths that are more humane and more favorable towards life: the paths of justice and solidarity which lead to peace and happiness."
Capitalism cannot be reformed, he said, adding that "…controls and corrections of the existing model, while undoubtedly necessary, are insufficient in the medium and long term. Their inherent ability to address the global crisis has proven to be weak. Stopping at controls and corrections of the model would demonstrate a cruel lack of social sensitivity, imagination and commitment to the establishment of a just and lasting peace. Egotism and greed cannot be corrected. They must be replaced by solidarity, which obviously implies radical change. If what we really want is a stable and lasting peace, it must be absolutely clear that we must go beyond controls and corrections of the existing model to create something that strives towards a new paradigm of social coexistence."
The solution, he went on, involves the affirmation of a "global ethic" for "safeguarding the common good of the Earth and humanity."
He explained, "We will start with the assumption that the community of peoples is simultaneously a community of common goods. These cannot be appropriated privately by anyone and must serve the life of all in present and future generations and the community of other living beings."
The reference to being "appropriated privately" was, of course, a dig at global capitalism and the concept of private property.
If we don't replace capitalism with international socialism, he said that "we could arrive at the same destiny which has already befallen the dinosaurs."
In fact, Soviet-style communism went the way of the dinosaurs but its adherents, such as D'Escoto, are very much alive, and working with the Obama Administration through the U.N. That was evident in the opening remarks to the conference provided by Obama's very good friend and close adviser, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan E. Rice.
She said that the United States had "placed the highest priority" on the conference and that "President Obama understands that our collective response to the crisis will make up an important moment in world history."
Committing to more foreign aid from hard-pressed U.S. taxpayers, Rice went on to say that "the United States understands that we have an economic, security, and moral obligation to extend a hand to the countries and the people who face the greatest risks today. That is why we have supported substantial increases in resources to boost the emergency lending capacity of the IMF. That is why we have backed increases to help regional development banks accelerate lending of their own."
The theme of a new international socialist order was predictably echoed by Rodrigo Malmierca Diaz of Communist Cuba, who said that the U.N. conference "must define the mandates, duties, governance structure, and management procedures of the new international monetary and financial institutions" that are supposed to come into being.
Making it clear that the U.S. would lose its sovereignty and standing in this process, he added that "…it must lead us to a pattern of monetary reference not depending on the economic stability, legislation or political decisions of only one country." He called for "an international economic order based on sustainable development and the generation of wealth on the basis of justice." This new system will have institutions "subordinated to the United Nations system," he said.
Almost as bizarre as some of the opening remarks, the United Nations University has produced a special "conversation series" in connection with the conference with such notables as American leftist Professor Noam Chomsky, a leader of the Communist Party spin-off group, the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism. The United Nations University describes Chomsky as being among "the most important intellectual and policy voices from around the globe."
The "conversation" with Chomsky consists of links to his various media appearances, including on the far-left "Democracy Now!" radio program hosted by Amy Goodman, and Iranian television.
Cliff Kincaid is the Editor of Accuracy in Media, and can be contacted at cliff.kincaid@aim.org.
Armed with a new sex scandal that can further damage Republican opponents of the Obama Administration, our media haven't found much time to cover the U.N. Conference on the World Financial and Economic Crisis underway at the world organization's headquarters in New York. But the Obama White House is working hand-in-glove with a Communist Catholic Priest who gave a bizarre speech on Wednesday devoted to saving "Mother Earth" from evil capitalists.
A performance as gripping as that of South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford admitting to adultery was turned in by Miguel D'Escoto, the President of the U.N. General Assembly, when he declared that "There is a growing awareness that we are all sons and daughters of Earth and that we belong to her." He urged "a planetary civilization" that is "more respectful of Mother Earth, more inclusive of all people and with more solidarity with the poorest, which is more spiritual and full of reverence for the splendor of the universe and which is much happier."
D'Escoto, who was suspended from his priestly functions by the anti-communist Pope John Paul II, is an advocate of Marxist-oriented Liberation Theology and received the Lenin Peace Prize.
He said the U.N. must become a Noah's Ark to save humanity.
D'Escoto is the same U.N. figure who recently dismissed the Iranian president's threat to wipe Israel off the map by saying, "Words don't kill."
But words do mean something, and D'Escoto masked his call for global socialism in fancy and flowery words and phrases. He made it clear with his talk of protecting "Mother Earth" that environmentalism would be the ticket to the creation of the new international socialist order.
D'Escoto declared that "We still need to recognize that the globalized means of production, in their industrial voracity, have in large measure devastated the Earth and thus have also damaged the common good of Earth and humanity. We must urgently seek other paths that are more humane and more favorable towards life: the paths of justice and solidarity which lead to peace and happiness."
Capitalism cannot be reformed, he said, adding that "…controls and corrections of the existing model, while undoubtedly necessary, are insufficient in the medium and long term. Their inherent ability to address the global crisis has proven to be weak. Stopping at controls and corrections of the model would demonstrate a cruel lack of social sensitivity, imagination and commitment to the establishment of a just and lasting peace. Egotism and greed cannot be corrected. They must be replaced by solidarity, which obviously implies radical change. If what we really want is a stable and lasting peace, it must be absolutely clear that we must go beyond controls and corrections of the existing model to create something that strives towards a new paradigm of social coexistence."
The solution, he went on, involves the affirmation of a "global ethic" for "safeguarding the common good of the Earth and humanity."
He explained, "We will start with the assumption that the community of peoples is simultaneously a community of common goods. These cannot be appropriated privately by anyone and must serve the life of all in present and future generations and the community of other living beings."
The reference to being "appropriated privately" was, of course, a dig at global capitalism and the concept of private property.
If we don't replace capitalism with international socialism, he said that "we could arrive at the same destiny which has already befallen the dinosaurs."
In fact, Soviet-style communism went the way of the dinosaurs but its adherents, such as D'Escoto, are very much alive, and working with the Obama Administration through the U.N. That was evident in the opening remarks to the conference provided by Obama's very good friend and close adviser, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan E. Rice.
She said that the United States had "placed the highest priority" on the conference and that "President Obama understands that our collective response to the crisis will make up an important moment in world history."
Committing to more foreign aid from hard-pressed U.S. taxpayers, Rice went on to say that "the United States understands that we have an economic, security, and moral obligation to extend a hand to the countries and the people who face the greatest risks today. That is why we have supported substantial increases in resources to boost the emergency lending capacity of the IMF. That is why we have backed increases to help regional development banks accelerate lending of their own."
The theme of a new international socialist order was predictably echoed by Rodrigo Malmierca Diaz of Communist Cuba, who said that the U.N. conference "must define the mandates, duties, governance structure, and management procedures of the new international monetary and financial institutions" that are supposed to come into being.
Making it clear that the U.S. would lose its sovereignty and standing in this process, he added that "…it must lead us to a pattern of monetary reference not depending on the economic stability, legislation or political decisions of only one country." He called for "an international economic order based on sustainable development and the generation of wealth on the basis of justice." This new system will have institutions "subordinated to the United Nations system," he said.
Almost as bizarre as some of the opening remarks, the United Nations University has produced a special "conversation series" in connection with the conference with such notables as American leftist Professor Noam Chomsky, a leader of the Communist Party spin-off group, the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism. The United Nations University describes Chomsky as being among "the most important intellectual and policy voices from around the globe."
The "conversation" with Chomsky consists of links to his various media appearances, including on the far-left "Democracy Now!" radio program hosted by Amy Goodman, and Iranian television.
Cliff Kincaid is the Editor of Accuracy in Media, and can be contacted at cliff.kincaid@aim.org.
Saturday, June 27, 2009
'Ark of the Covenant' about to be unveiled?
Posted: June 24, 2009
9:35 pm Eastern
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
Ark of the Covenant as depicted in 'Raiders of the Lost Ark' (Paramount Pictures)
The patriarch of the Orthodox Church of Ethiopia says he will announce to the world Friday the unveiling of the Ark of the Covenant, perhaps the world's most prized archaeological and spiritual artifact, which he says has been hidden away in a church in his country for millennia, according to the Italian news agency Adnkronos.
Abuna Pauolos, in Italy for a meeting with Pope Benedict XVI this week, told the news agency, "Soon the world will be able to admire the Ark of the Covenant described in the Bible as the container of the tablets of the law that God delivered to Moses and the center of searches and studies for centuries."
The announcement is expected to be made at 2 p.m. Italian time from the Hotel Aldrovandi in Rome. Pauolos will reportedly be accompanied by Prince Aklile Berhan Makonnen Haile Sellassie and Duke Amedeo D'Acosta.
Revelation 11
1. And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein.
2. But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months. (3 1/2 yrs)
3. And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days (3 1/2 yrs), clothed in sackcloth.
This is John the Revelator measuring the tribulation temple. This begins the 3 1/2 yrs prophecying of the two witnesses that will be martyred, just prior to the rapture.
MARANATHA LORD JESUS!
Since that post:
Posted: June 26, 2009
4:16 pm Eastern
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
The leader of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church today backed off on a much-anticipated announcement about the Ark of the Covenant -- the ancient container holding the Ten Commandment -- which he claims to have seen.
For the entire story, please click the main title of this post.
9:35 pm Eastern
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
Ark of the Covenant as depicted in 'Raiders of the Lost Ark' (Paramount Pictures)
The patriarch of the Orthodox Church of Ethiopia says he will announce to the world Friday the unveiling of the Ark of the Covenant, perhaps the world's most prized archaeological and spiritual artifact, which he says has been hidden away in a church in his country for millennia, according to the Italian news agency Adnkronos.
Abuna Pauolos, in Italy for a meeting with Pope Benedict XVI this week, told the news agency, "Soon the world will be able to admire the Ark of the Covenant described in the Bible as the container of the tablets of the law that God delivered to Moses and the center of searches and studies for centuries."
The announcement is expected to be made at 2 p.m. Italian time from the Hotel Aldrovandi in Rome. Pauolos will reportedly be accompanied by Prince Aklile Berhan Makonnen Haile Sellassie and Duke Amedeo D'Acosta.
Abuna Pauolos, patriarch of the Orthodox Church of Ethiopia
"The Ark of the Covenant is in Ethiopia for many centuries," said Pauolos. "As a patriarch I have seen it with my own eyes and only few highly qualified persons could do the same, until now."
According to Pauolos, the actual Ark has been kept in one church, but to defend the treasure, a copy was placed in every single church in Ethiopia.
He said a museum is being built in Axum, Ethiopia, where the Ark will be displayed. A foundation of D'Acosta will fund the project.
The Ark of the Covenant is the sacred container of the Ten Commandments as well as Aaron's rod and a sample of manna, the mysterious food that kept the Israelites alive while wandering in the wilderness during their journey to the promised land.
The Bible says the Ark was built to the specifications of God as He spoke to Moses. It was carried in advance of the people and their army by priests. It was also carried in a seven-day procession around the walled city of Jericho.
Sketch of Ark of the Covenant based on a description by the late explorer Ron Wyatt (wyattmuseum.com)
The idea that the Ark is presently in Ethiopia is a well-documented, albeit disputed, tradition dating back to at least 642 B.C. The tradition says it was moved to Elephantine Island in Egypt, then to Tana Kirkos Island in Ethiopia and finally to its present site at St. Mary's of Zion Church in Axum.
Ethiopians believe it is destined to be delivered to the Messiah when He reigns on Mount Zion – the Temple Mount in Jerusalem.
Jeremiah 3:16 points to a time when the Ark will vanish not only physically, but from the minds of the people: "And it shall come to pass, when ye be multiplied and increased in the land, in those days, saith the LORD, they shall say no more, The ark of the covenant of the LORD: neither shall it come to mind: neither shall they remember it; neither shall they visit it; neither shall that be done any more."
The Book of Revelation says the Ark is in the temple of God in heaven (Rev. 11:19). Muslim scholars say it will be found near the end of times by the Mahdi – a messianic figure in Islam.
If this actually exists and is brought to light...AND if Israel can get their hands on it, will it be possible to NOT rebuild a Jewish temple on the mount? Will not this be seen as the way to achieve peace, allow Israel to rebuild the temple as pay off for allowing Jerusalem to be the capital of two nations?!?
1. And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein.
2. But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months. (3 1/2 yrs)
3. And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days (3 1/2 yrs), clothed in sackcloth.
This is John the Revelator measuring the tribulation temple. This begins the 3 1/2 yrs prophecying of the two witnesses that will be martyred, just prior to the rapture.
MARANATHA LORD JESUS!
Since that post:
Posted: June 26, 2009
4:16 pm Eastern
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
The leader of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church today backed off on a much-anticipated announcement about the Ark of the Covenant -- the ancient container holding the Ten Commandment -- which he claims to have seen.
For the entire story, please click the main title of this post.
Know Your Rights or You Will Lose Them
by John W. Whitehead, The Rutherford Institute
“It astonishes me to find… [that so many] of our countrymen… should be contented to live under a system which leaves to their governors the power of taking from them the trial by jury in civil cases, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of commerce, the habeas corpus laws, and of yoking them with a standing army. This is a degeneracy in the principles of liberty… which I [would not have expected for at least] four centuries.”
–Thomas Jefferson, 1788
“Most citizens,” writes columnist Nat Hentoff, “are largely uneducated about their own constitutional rights and liberties.”
The following true incident is a case in point for Hentoff’s claim. A young attorney, preparing to address a small gathering about the need to protect freedom, especially in the schools, wrote the text of the First Amendment on a blackboard. After carefully reading the text, a woman in the audience approached the attorney, pointed to the First Amendment on the board and remarked, “My, the law is really changing. Is this new?” The woman was a retired schoolteacher.
For more than 200 years, Americans have enjoyed the freedoms of speech, assembly, and religion, among others, without ever really studying the source of those liberties, found in the Bill of Rights–the first ten amendments to our U. S. Constitution.
Yet never has there been a time when knowing our rights has been more critical and safeguarding them more necessary. Particularly telling is the fact that even under the Obama presidency, most of the Bush administration policies and laws that curtailed our freedoms have remained intact–all of which have drastically altered the landscape of our liberties.
Thus, it is vital that we gain a better understanding of what Thomas Jefferson described as “fetters against doing evil.” If not, I fear that with each passing day, what Jefferson called the “degeneracy” of “the principles of liberty” will grow worse until, half asleep, Americans will lose what our forefathers fought and died for.
A short summary of the first ten amendments shows how vital these freedoms are.
The First Amendment protects the freedom to speak your mind and protest in peace without being bridled by the government. It also protects the freedom of the media, as well as the right to worship and pray without interference. In other words, Americans cannot be silenced by the government.
The Second Amendment guarantees “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.” This is one of the most controversial provisions of the Bill of Rights. Indeed, there are those who claim that gun ownership in America should be restricted solely to the police and other government officials.
In many countries, owning a firearm is a mere privilege, reserved for the rich and powerful. Self-protection, however, is not a privilege in America. It is an individual citizen right which the U.S. Supreme Court has now recognized.
America was born during a time of martial law. British troops stationed themselves in homes and entered property without regard to the rights of the owners. That is why the Third Amendment prohibits the military from entering any citizen’s home without “the consent of the owner.” Even though today’s military does not threaten private property, this amendment reinforces the principle that civilian-elected officials are superior to the military. But increasingly, even under the Obama presidency, the threat of martial law being imposed is a clear and present danger.
There’s a knock at the door. The police charge in and begin searching your home. They invade your privacy, rummaging through your belongings. You may think you’re powerless to stop them, but you’re not. The Fourth Amendment prohibits the government from searching your home without a warrant approved by a judge. But what about other kinds of invasions? Your telephone, mail, computer and medical records are now subject to governmental search.
Even though they’re all personal and private, they are increasingly at risk for unwarranted intrusion by government agents. The ominous rise of the surveillance state threatens the protections given us by this amendment.
You cannot be tried again after having been found innocent. The government cannot try you repeatedly for the same crime, hoping to get the result they want. It’s one of the legal protections of the Fifth Amendment. Moreover, you cannot be forced to testify against yourself. You can “plead the Fifth.”
This means that if you are accused of committing a crime, it is up to the state to prove its case against you. You are innocent until proven guilty, and government authorities cannot deprive you of your life, your liberty or your property without following strict legal codes of conduct.
The Sixth Amendment spells out the right to a “speedy and public trial.” An accused person can confront the witnesses against him and demand to know the nature of the charge. The government cannot legally keep someone in jail for unspecified offenses.
Moreover, unlike many other countries, Americans also have the right to be tried by a jury of ordinary citizens and to be represented by an attorney. Our fates in criminal proceedings are not decided by panels of judges or unaccountable politicians.
Property ownership is a fundamental right of free people. In a legal dispute over property, the Seventh Amendment guarantees citizens the right to a jury trial.
Like any other American citizen, those accused of being criminals have rights under the Constitution as well. In some countries, the government abuses what they see as disloyal or troublesome citizens by keeping them in jail indefinitely on trumped-up charges. If they cannot pay their bail, then they’re not released. The Eighth Amendment is, thus, similar to the Sixth–it protects the rights of the accused. These are often the people most susceptible to abuse and who have the least resources to defend themselves. This amendment also forbids the use of cruel and unusual punishment.
The framers of our Constitution were so concerned about civil liberties that they wished to do everything conceivable to protect our future freedom. Some of the framers opposed a bill of rights because it might appear that these were the only rights the people possessed. The Ninth Amendment remedied that by providing that other rights not listed were nonetheless retained by the people.
Our rights are inherently ours, and our government was created to protect them. The government does not, nor did it ever, have the power to grant us our rights. Popular sovereignty–the belief that the power to govern flows upward from the people rather than downward from the rulers–is clearly evident in this amendment and is a landmark of American freedom.
Ours is a federal system of government. This means that power is divided among local, state and national entities. The Tenth Amendment reminds the national government that the people and the states retain every authority that is not otherwise mentioned in the Constitution.
Congress and the President have increasingly assumed more power than the Constitution grants them. However, it’s up to the people and the state governments to make sure that they obey the law of the land.
Having stood the test of time, there is little doubt that the Bill of Rights is the greatest statement for freedom ever drafted and put into effect. In the end, however, it is the vigilance of “we the people” that will keep the freedoms we hold so dear alive. Therefore, know your rights, exercise them freely or you’re going to lose them.
Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His latest book The Change Manifesto (Sourcebooks) is now available.
“It astonishes me to find… [that so many] of our countrymen… should be contented to live under a system which leaves to their governors the power of taking from them the trial by jury in civil cases, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of commerce, the habeas corpus laws, and of yoking them with a standing army. This is a degeneracy in the principles of liberty… which I [would not have expected for at least] four centuries.”
–Thomas Jefferson, 1788
“Most citizens,” writes columnist Nat Hentoff, “are largely uneducated about their own constitutional rights and liberties.”
The following true incident is a case in point for Hentoff’s claim. A young attorney, preparing to address a small gathering about the need to protect freedom, especially in the schools, wrote the text of the First Amendment on a blackboard. After carefully reading the text, a woman in the audience approached the attorney, pointed to the First Amendment on the board and remarked, “My, the law is really changing. Is this new?” The woman was a retired schoolteacher.
For more than 200 years, Americans have enjoyed the freedoms of speech, assembly, and religion, among others, without ever really studying the source of those liberties, found in the Bill of Rights–the first ten amendments to our U. S. Constitution.
Yet never has there been a time when knowing our rights has been more critical and safeguarding them more necessary. Particularly telling is the fact that even under the Obama presidency, most of the Bush administration policies and laws that curtailed our freedoms have remained intact–all of which have drastically altered the landscape of our liberties.
Thus, it is vital that we gain a better understanding of what Thomas Jefferson described as “fetters against doing evil.” If not, I fear that with each passing day, what Jefferson called the “degeneracy” of “the principles of liberty” will grow worse until, half asleep, Americans will lose what our forefathers fought and died for.
A short summary of the first ten amendments shows how vital these freedoms are.
The First Amendment protects the freedom to speak your mind and protest in peace without being bridled by the government. It also protects the freedom of the media, as well as the right to worship and pray without interference. In other words, Americans cannot be silenced by the government.
The Second Amendment guarantees “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.” This is one of the most controversial provisions of the Bill of Rights. Indeed, there are those who claim that gun ownership in America should be restricted solely to the police and other government officials.
In many countries, owning a firearm is a mere privilege, reserved for the rich and powerful. Self-protection, however, is not a privilege in America. It is an individual citizen right which the U.S. Supreme Court has now recognized.
America was born during a time of martial law. British troops stationed themselves in homes and entered property without regard to the rights of the owners. That is why the Third Amendment prohibits the military from entering any citizen’s home without “the consent of the owner.” Even though today’s military does not threaten private property, this amendment reinforces the principle that civilian-elected officials are superior to the military. But increasingly, even under the Obama presidency, the threat of martial law being imposed is a clear and present danger.
There’s a knock at the door. The police charge in and begin searching your home. They invade your privacy, rummaging through your belongings. You may think you’re powerless to stop them, but you’re not. The Fourth Amendment prohibits the government from searching your home without a warrant approved by a judge. But what about other kinds of invasions? Your telephone, mail, computer and medical records are now subject to governmental search.
Even though they’re all personal and private, they are increasingly at risk for unwarranted intrusion by government agents. The ominous rise of the surveillance state threatens the protections given us by this amendment.
You cannot be tried again after having been found innocent. The government cannot try you repeatedly for the same crime, hoping to get the result they want. It’s one of the legal protections of the Fifth Amendment. Moreover, you cannot be forced to testify against yourself. You can “plead the Fifth.”
This means that if you are accused of committing a crime, it is up to the state to prove its case against you. You are innocent until proven guilty, and government authorities cannot deprive you of your life, your liberty or your property without following strict legal codes of conduct.
The Sixth Amendment spells out the right to a “speedy and public trial.” An accused person can confront the witnesses against him and demand to know the nature of the charge. The government cannot legally keep someone in jail for unspecified offenses.
Moreover, unlike many other countries, Americans also have the right to be tried by a jury of ordinary citizens and to be represented by an attorney. Our fates in criminal proceedings are not decided by panels of judges or unaccountable politicians.
Property ownership is a fundamental right of free people. In a legal dispute over property, the Seventh Amendment guarantees citizens the right to a jury trial.
Like any other American citizen, those accused of being criminals have rights under the Constitution as well. In some countries, the government abuses what they see as disloyal or troublesome citizens by keeping them in jail indefinitely on trumped-up charges. If they cannot pay their bail, then they’re not released. The Eighth Amendment is, thus, similar to the Sixth–it protects the rights of the accused. These are often the people most susceptible to abuse and who have the least resources to defend themselves. This amendment also forbids the use of cruel and unusual punishment.
The framers of our Constitution were so concerned about civil liberties that they wished to do everything conceivable to protect our future freedom. Some of the framers opposed a bill of rights because it might appear that these were the only rights the people possessed. The Ninth Amendment remedied that by providing that other rights not listed were nonetheless retained by the people.
Our rights are inherently ours, and our government was created to protect them. The government does not, nor did it ever, have the power to grant us our rights. Popular sovereignty–the belief that the power to govern flows upward from the people rather than downward from the rulers–is clearly evident in this amendment and is a landmark of American freedom.
Ours is a federal system of government. This means that power is divided among local, state and national entities. The Tenth Amendment reminds the national government that the people and the states retain every authority that is not otherwise mentioned in the Constitution.
Congress and the President have increasingly assumed more power than the Constitution grants them. However, it’s up to the people and the state governments to make sure that they obey the law of the land.
Having stood the test of time, there is little doubt that the Bill of Rights is the greatest statement for freedom ever drafted and put into effect. In the end, however, it is the vigilance of “we the people” that will keep the freedoms we hold so dear alive. Therefore, know your rights, exercise them freely or you’re going to lose them.
Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His latest book The Change Manifesto (Sourcebooks) is now available.
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Council on Foriegn Relations
America's Unelected Rulers-by Kent and Pheobe Courtney
a Conservative Society of America publication-1962
pg.13
Now that the deception of Foreign Aid being used to fight Communism
has been exposed, the Foreign Aid promotors have switched
to a new line, which is, according to the Council on Foreign Relations
Study No . 7, to "assist the less-developed areas throughout
the world ." This new foreign policy switch, strangely, follows
an instruction from the late Joseph Stalin, dictator of the Soviet
Union, who stated in "Marxism and The National Colonial Question,"
(pages 115-116) :
It is essential that the advanced countries should render aid --
real and prolonged aid -- to the backward countries in their cultural
and economic development . Otherwise it will be impossible to
bring about peaceful coexistence of the various nations and peoples
-- within a single economic system, which is so essential for the
final triumph of Socialism .
It should be noted that when Stalin used the world "Socialism"
he actually means Communism, inasmuch as in Communist jargon,
the words "Socialism" and "Communism" are interchangeable.
Still trust the members of the Council of Foriegn Relations to run our government? This should be a litmus test for election. If you are of their mindset, we don't want you in power! Both Democrat and Republican parties get their running-mates from this private club. They've been stacking the deck against the US Constitution for decades. It's time for it to stop! If you elect a Democrat or a Republican, generally you elect a committed socialist (communist). Notice the government takeovers of big business...this is socialism.
Please read "None Dare Call it Conspiracy"
a Conservative Society of America publication-1962
pg.13
Now that the deception of Foreign Aid being used to fight Communism
has been exposed, the Foreign Aid promotors have switched
to a new line, which is, according to the Council on Foreign Relations
Study No . 7, to "assist the less-developed areas throughout
the world ." This new foreign policy switch, strangely, follows
an instruction from the late Joseph Stalin, dictator of the Soviet
Union, who stated in "Marxism and The National Colonial Question,"
(pages 115-116) :
It is essential that the advanced countries should render aid --
real and prolonged aid -- to the backward countries in their cultural
and economic development . Otherwise it will be impossible to
bring about peaceful coexistence of the various nations and peoples
-- within a single economic system, which is so essential for the
final triumph of Socialism .
It should be noted that when Stalin used the world "Socialism"
he actually means Communism, inasmuch as in Communist jargon,
the words "Socialism" and "Communism" are interchangeable.
Still trust the members of the Council of Foriegn Relations to run our government? This should be a litmus test for election. If you are of their mindset, we don't want you in power! Both Democrat and Republican parties get their running-mates from this private club. They've been stacking the deck against the US Constitution for decades. It's time for it to stop! If you elect a Democrat or a Republican, generally you elect a committed socialist (communist). Notice the government takeovers of big business...this is socialism.
Please read "None Dare Call it Conspiracy"
Monday, June 8, 2009
Thomas Paine: Bicentennial of a Patriot
Editor’s Note: June 8, 2009 marks the 200th anniversary of the death of a hero. Thomas Paine was actively involved in both the American and French Revolutions and is best known for his major works Common Sense, The Rights of Man and The Age of Reason.
But, Paine was more than just a pamphleteer for the cause of freedom. He was a serious political philosopher, as the following excerpt from The Rights of Man demonstrates.
Society is a Blessing, But Government is Evil
by Thomas Paine
A great part of that order which reigns among mankind is not the effect of government. It had its origin in the principles of society, and the natural constitution of man. It existed prior to government, and would exist if the formality of government was abolished. The mutual dependence and reciprocal interest which man has in man and all the parts of a civilized community upon each other create that great chain of connection which holds it together.
The landholder, the farmer, the manufacturer, the merchant, the tradesman, and every occupation prospers by the aid which each receives from the other, and from the whole. Common interest regulates their concerns, and forms their laws; and the laws which common usage ordains, have a greater influence than the laws of government. In fine, society performs for itself almost everything that is ascribed to government.
To understand the nature and quantity of government proper for man it is necessary to attend to his character. As nature created him for social life, she fitted him for the station she intended. In all cases she made his natural wants greater than his individual powers. No one man is capable, without the aid of society, of supplying his own wants; and those wants acting upon every individual impel the whole of them into society, as naturally as gravitation acts to a center.
But she has gone further. She has not only forced man into society by a diversity of wants, which the reciprocal aid of social affections, which, though not necessary to his existence, are essential to his happiness. There is no period in life when this love for society ceases to act. It begins and ends with our being.
If we examine, with attention, into the composition and constitution of man, the diversity of talents in different men for reciprocally accommodating the wants of each other, his propensity to society, and consequently to preserve the advantages resulting from it, we shall easily discover that a great part of what is called government is mere imposition.
Government is no further necessary than to supply the few cases to which society and civilization are not conveniently competent; and instances are not wanting to show that everything which government can usefully add thereto, has been performed by the common consent of society, without government.
For the entire article, please click on the title of this post...
But, Paine was more than just a pamphleteer for the cause of freedom. He was a serious political philosopher, as the following excerpt from The Rights of Man demonstrates.
Society is a Blessing, But Government is Evil
by Thomas Paine
A great part of that order which reigns among mankind is not the effect of government. It had its origin in the principles of society, and the natural constitution of man. It existed prior to government, and would exist if the formality of government was abolished. The mutual dependence and reciprocal interest which man has in man and all the parts of a civilized community upon each other create that great chain of connection which holds it together.
The landholder, the farmer, the manufacturer, the merchant, the tradesman, and every occupation prospers by the aid which each receives from the other, and from the whole. Common interest regulates their concerns, and forms their laws; and the laws which common usage ordains, have a greater influence than the laws of government. In fine, society performs for itself almost everything that is ascribed to government.
To understand the nature and quantity of government proper for man it is necessary to attend to his character. As nature created him for social life, she fitted him for the station she intended. In all cases she made his natural wants greater than his individual powers. No one man is capable, without the aid of society, of supplying his own wants; and those wants acting upon every individual impel the whole of them into society, as naturally as gravitation acts to a center.
But she has gone further. She has not only forced man into society by a diversity of wants, which the reciprocal aid of social affections, which, though not necessary to his existence, are essential to his happiness. There is no period in life when this love for society ceases to act. It begins and ends with our being.
If we examine, with attention, into the composition and constitution of man, the diversity of talents in different men for reciprocally accommodating the wants of each other, his propensity to society, and consequently to preserve the advantages resulting from it, we shall easily discover that a great part of what is called government is mere imposition.
Government is no further necessary than to supply the few cases to which society and civilization are not conveniently competent; and instances are not wanting to show that everything which government can usefully add thereto, has been performed by the common consent of society, without government.
For the entire article, please click on the title of this post...
Monday, June 1, 2009
France: Jerusalem should be capital of two states
By Haaretz Service May 5, 2009
France accused Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Friday of prejudicing the outcome of the Middle East peace process by declaring that Jerusalem would forever be Israel's undivided capital.
"Jerusalem is the eternal capital of the Jewish people, a city reunified so as never again to be divided," Netanyahu said on Thursday at a ceremony to mark Jerusalem Day in the city's Mercaz Harav yeshiva.
Our people's unparalleled affinity to Jerusalem has spanned thousands of years, and is at the basis of our national renaissance. It has united our people, secular and religious people alike."
Foreign Ministry spokesman Frederic Desagneaux said Friday, "The declaration made by the Israeli prime minister yesterday in Jerusalem prejudices the final status agreement," according to AFP.
Desagneaux also said the "Middle East road map" to peace calls on both parties to negotiate an agreement on Jerusalem.
"In France's eyes, Jerusalem should, within the framework of a negotiated peace deal, become the capital of two states," he said, adding that French President Nicolas Sarkozy had told Israeli lawmakers this in a speech last year.
"Actions such as the destruction of Palestinian homes or the transformation of Arab districts risk provoking an escalation in violence. They are unacceptable and contrary to international law," Desagneaux said.
"In broad terms, France condemns the ongoing settlement, including in East Jerusalem. We reiterate the need for a freeze on colonization activities, including those linked to natural population growth," he added.
Netanyahu said he had made the same declaration during his recent visit to Washington, where he met with United States President Barack Obama over the peace process and Iran's nuclear program.
"Only under Israeli sovereignty will united Jerusalem ensure the freedom of religion and freedom of access for the three religions to the holy places," he said.
If part of the deal to get this accomplished shows to be the allowance of the rebuilding of the Temple, sharing the site with the Dome of the Rock...know that we are getting ready to witness the "abomination that maketh desolate." Look up, for your redemption draweth nigh!
France accused Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Friday of prejudicing the outcome of the Middle East peace process by declaring that Jerusalem would forever be Israel's undivided capital.
"Jerusalem is the eternal capital of the Jewish people, a city reunified so as never again to be divided," Netanyahu said on Thursday at a ceremony to mark Jerusalem Day in the city's Mercaz Harav yeshiva.
Our people's unparalleled affinity to Jerusalem has spanned thousands of years, and is at the basis of our national renaissance. It has united our people, secular and religious people alike."
Foreign Ministry spokesman Frederic Desagneaux said Friday, "The declaration made by the Israeli prime minister yesterday in Jerusalem prejudices the final status agreement," according to AFP.
Desagneaux also said the "Middle East road map" to peace calls on both parties to negotiate an agreement on Jerusalem.
"In France's eyes, Jerusalem should, within the framework of a negotiated peace deal, become the capital of two states," he said, adding that French President Nicolas Sarkozy had told Israeli lawmakers this in a speech last year.
"Actions such as the destruction of Palestinian homes or the transformation of Arab districts risk provoking an escalation in violence. They are unacceptable and contrary to international law," Desagneaux said.
"In broad terms, France condemns the ongoing settlement, including in East Jerusalem. We reiterate the need for a freeze on colonization activities, including those linked to natural population growth," he added.
Netanyahu said he had made the same declaration during his recent visit to Washington, where he met with United States President Barack Obama over the peace process and Iran's nuclear program.
"Only under Israeli sovereignty will united Jerusalem ensure the freedom of religion and freedom of access for the three religions to the holy places," he said.
If part of the deal to get this accomplished shows to be the allowance of the rebuilding of the Temple, sharing the site with the Dome of the Rock...know that we are getting ready to witness the "abomination that maketh desolate." Look up, for your redemption draweth nigh!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
LinkWithin
