new
I read
your comments regarding the Israeli lobby that's so active in our nation's
capital.
It was
truly revealing and I found it disturbing, as an American. I've taken the liberty
of copying it from the www.Pravda.ru
site and
have sent it to many of my correspondents.
It's a
shame this information isn't all over our media here in the United States. A
shame, but not surprising.
Capt. B.
Horn (USA)
____________
Reply by R. T.:
It amazes me also that such news, as the AIPAC's
president's declaration that each candidate, Republican or Democrat, must pass
a test before having a chance of being elected, is not made known to the
American people. One would think that a serious journalist would be asking any
candidate -first, if he or she had to write a policy paper for AIPAC, and, if
yes, -second, would he or she have any objection of making it public. Only then
would the people know for whom they are voting.
Maybe you should drop a note to your candidates in Arizona
to ask them the question.
R. T.
new
Canada and the Israeli
Lobby
You are 100% right in everything you
write. I'm also a great admirer of Quebec. The fierce determination of Quebecers
to protect their culture and independence has prevented the Israeli lobby from
taking over in Quebec as it did in the US and are doing right now in English
Canada.
As in the United States, one of their
methods is taking control of the news media. The English CBC has been already
"conquered". If someone doubts it, he/she should compare how the
Israel's barbaric bombing of Lebanon was covered by the English CBC compared
with the French CBC (Radio Canada).
For instance, the www.cbc.ca
website made hardly any mention of the world-wide outrage and the condemnation
of these crimes against humanity by reputed organizations such as Amnesty
International. Also, the highly-regarded "CounterSpin" show has been
cancelled because it was possibly the only international politics TV show in
North America that invited advocates from all sides and gave them equal time.
Incidentally, Mr. Rabinovich, the CEO of CBC Canada was apparently appointed by
Prime Minister Chrétien (go figure!). If a TV channel that supposedly
belongs to the Canadian people does that, what can you expect from
privately-owned TV networks, some of which are outright owned by Zionists? In
Toronto at least, all political discussion forums are hosted by fierce
pro-Israeli supporters. This includes the "Diplomatic Immunity" on
TVO, the Michael Coren show and so on. The same goes with the printed media.
The Toronto Sun and National Post are outright owned by Zionists.
The Toronto Star is no longer an
objective source of information (as it used to be). Mr. Harroon Siddiqui,
the former Editorial Page editor, has been demoted (although he is still
employed in a minor capacity), and since then the Toronto Star has become a
brainwashing tool like other newspapers. I think that the situation is even
worse outside Ontario (excluding Quebec, of course). I believe that the
electoral victory of Mr. Harper is partly due to the takeover of the English
Canadian news media by the Israeli Lobby. A very sad situation, indeed, for
people who believe in freedom of the press, democracy and respect for human
rights.
I'd like to add that this is not about
the Jews. Many Jewish people are as outraged as the rest of us. This includes
Amy Goodman, Uri Avneri, Noam Chomsky (voted recently the most influential
intellectual in the world), Norman Finkelstein and many others. However, the
Israeli Lobby denies them access to the mainstream media outlets, so they are
unknown to the general public.
__________
Reply:
My blog is mainly about the U.S. and
international geopolitics, and follows in the footsteps of my book "The
New American Empire".
This does
no mean that I do not follow with grave apprehension what is going on in
Canada. The previous liberal goverment opened the door to media concentration
when it allowed the Asper family from Winnipeg to own most English-language
newspapers in Vancouver, Calgary, Winnipeg, Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal and
Halifax, and to launch the TV Global network. This has resulted in a tremendous
concentration of propaganda political power in many Canadian urban areas.
As to Mr. Rabinovich's CBC, I noticed
that even on Radio Canada, reports on the Israeli attacks on Lebanon, last July
2006, became gradually less critical as the war went on. I suspect that some
orders were conveyed downstream.
As to Quebec, to which you refer, you
have probably witnessed the seemingly concerted campaign of denigration that
the National Post and the Ottawa Israeli Embassy has orchestrated against
Quebecers who publicly opposed this immoral war.
There seems to be a pattern here.
However, money still does not play as an important role in politics in Canada
as in the U.S. But Media
propaganda in Canada is important, as the Harper's victory of last January demonstrates.
Nevertheless, with public financing of political parties and with, for some
time, more diversity in information outlets, Canada could probably avoid the
sad fate of Americans who are facing an oligarchy of two political parties
dominated by the same money interests. If Canadians are not vigilant, there is
a good chance that they could also lose the substance of their democracy.
If you read French, here is a good news
site worth visiting: www.vigile.net/
R. T.
___________
new
Confirmation
Thu, 24 Aug 2006 09:05:01 -0400
Here is a 2001 article that confirms your assessment of the Israel-US
relationship:
Occupied Jerusalem: 3 October, 2001 (IAP) -- According to Israel radio
(in Hebrew) Kol Yisrael, [Shimon] Peres warned [Ariel] Sharon Wednesday that refusing to heed incessant American
requests for a cease-fire with the Palestinians would endanger Israeli
interests and "turn the US against us."
At this point, a furious Sharon reportedly turned toward Peres, saying
"every time we do something you tell me Americans will do this and will
do that. I want to tell you something very clear, don't worry about American
pressure on Israel, we, the Jewish people control America, and the Americans
know it."
The radio said Peres and other cabinet ministers warned Sharon against
saying what he said in public because "it would cause us a public
relations disaster."
Gerhart (USA)
new
Posted Wednesday August 23, 2006, 20:05 pm
Further Thoughts
My apologies. The
way I read that part of the article it sounded like you were saying that
Jefferson drafted the First Amendment.
I do share your
concern about the government subsidizing religious organizations, albeit for different
reasons most likely. When a government controls the purse strings of religious
organizations we run the danger having state sanctioned churches a la Red
China, no government should have that kind of leverage over private religious
groups. At the same time, lobbyists such as AIPAC or Christians United For
Israel ought to be kept out of the halls of Congress and the White House, the
only lobby our government should have is the American people. All Americans
should heed the words of George Washington in his farewell address;
"The
nation which indulges toward another an habitual hatred or an habitual fondness
is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection,
either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest.
Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer
insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty
and intractable when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur.
So,
likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety
of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an
imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and
infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a
participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate
inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite
nation of privileges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the nation
making the concessions by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been
retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill will, and a disposition to retaliate in
the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld; and it gives to ambitious,
corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation)
facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country without
odium, sometimes even with popularity, gilding with the appearances of a
virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a
laudable zeal for public good the base or foolish compliances of ambition,
corruption, or infatuation....
Against
the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me,
fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake,
since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most
baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy, to be useful, must be
impartial, else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided,
instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation
and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger
only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the
other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to
become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and
confidence of the people to surrender their interests."
I think
we can agree that those words are more true now than ever before. Keep up the
good fight.
Keith T. Ressa (USA)
Reply by R. T.:
Thank you for your thoughts about the infuence of special interest
lobbies in a democracy.
Thank you very much also for reminding us all of the wise words of President
George Washington.
The United States was very fortunate to have so many great men who
presided at its independence and who crafted probably the best constitution in
the world. Men like Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Adams, Franklin and a host
of others were truly exceptional.
R. T.
new
Posted Wednesday August 23, 2006, 16:32 pm
Arguments for Lobbies
There is
widespread, across the board support for Israel in the USA. It cuts across party
lines and is found in virtually every sector of US society.
It’s
not just rabid Zionists and Christian kooks. It’s not just slick marketing.
People
just don’t buy into the “Israel is the source of all evil in the
universe” argument. It’s never been a seller. Most people in the
USA have favorable attitudes toward Jews. That is transferred to Israel.
Arab/Muslim terrorism has never sold here. It obliterated any goodwill.
The
reason that the AARP and NRA are also powerful is frankly because everyone has
retired Moms and Dads and most people support gun ownership.
No lobby
has the power to go against the overwhelming opposition of the majority.
Talk
about lobbies; the Gulf State Arabs spend tens of millions. Look at the Dubai
Port deal.
Scott J. Fields (USA)
Reply by R. T.:
Thanks for your input.
My humble blog is read all over the world. I am proud to
welcome many diverse points of view.
There is nothing wrong with liking a foreign country, especially when
one's relatives originate from that country. However, as the commentator above
indicates, quoting President George Washington from his farewell address, there
is always the danger of becoming the "slave to one's affection" and to "sacrifice the interests
of [one's] country." I wonder if you agree with George
Washington on that.
Special interest lobbies, such as AARP and
NRA, are also O.K., provided their lobbying is done in the open, in the
sunshine of public knowledge. It is when such special interests exert such a secret
control on government that it becomes tantamount to subverting democracy.
R. T.
new
Posted Wednesday August 23, 2006, 01:39 am
Clarification
I enjoyed your article "AIPAC, the religious right and American
foreign policy". As a
born again Christian who does not share Mr. Bush's or the "Christian"
Zionists eschatological beliefs, I am deeply concerned about the direction they
are taking American foreign policy.
I thought though that I would clarify a statement you made in the
article, you wrote "Such a state agency would seem to run contrary to
the "wall of separation" between church and state that President
Thomas Jefferson thought he had erected with the First Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution." Thomas
Jefferson did not erect anything, he was not present at the Constitutional
Convention of 1787, he was in France serving as U.S ambassador to that country.
The letter in which Jefferson coined the phrase "wall of separation"
was actually Jefferson giving his opinion of what he thought the Framers of the
Constitution had intended.
It should be noted that Jefferson was philosophically at odds with the
vast majority of the Framers in terms of philosophy of government and religious
beliefs. The non-establishment clause in the First Amendment he references
nowhere mention a "wall of separation", all it says is that Congress
shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" or in layman's
terms Congress will not pick a national denomination for the whole country.
It is also important to remember that while Congress may not establish
a so-called national denomination, the States of the Union retained that right
for themselves and exercised it as such throughout the early history of the
United States. I thought this historical context is important, opposition to
Bush should not have to be a secularists vs. religionists debate, but rather a
debate built on respect for law and civilized society vs. lawlessness and
barbarism. Thank you for your contribution and your time.
Keith T. Ressa (USA)
Reply from R. T.:
Dear Mr. Ressa,
Your point is well taken. I was referring to Jefferson's interpretation
of the no official religion clause as meaning that government should not get
involved in the private religious affairs of citizens.
But let us not play with words here. When a government, such as the
Bush-Cheney administration, starts subsidizing religious organizations with tax
dollars levied on everybody, it usually does not do so for all religious
organizations, but finds ways to subsidize only those it supports or those of
its political allies. I would be most surprised, for example, to know how much
money of the "faith-based" government initiatives have gone to Muslim
organizations. Therefore, when public money is directed towards some religions,
it is equivalent to financing the "establishment of religion" through
the back door. In law, as you know, what is not allowed directly, cannot be
accomplished indirectly.
Also, keep in mind that religious organizations are tax-exempted, so to
subsidize them directly means that they are doubly supported by the state. May
I also point out that there is a law which states that a tax-exempt religious
organizations cannot get involved in partisan politics without losing its
privileged tax-exempt status. This law is obviously not applied presently.
That is why I share Jefferson's view that in a diverse democratic
society, the apparatus of government should not be used by the people in office
to promote one or many religious agendas and reap the electoral rewards in a
partisan way. That is tantamount to demagoguery and it is very divisive.
As to the "war of religion" disguised as a "war of
civilization" that some are presently promoting, it is truly a return to
barbarism and primitivism.
Thank you very much for your nice comment.
R. T.
(Home: TheNewAmericanEmpire.com)