Jacob's Soap Box

By Mila

23 March, 2010

I used to be an anti-American liberal. I used to look at the “horrors” of American foreign policy and what I used to call “ignorance” of the average American citizen as the root causes for all the world’s problems.  Even though I didn’t have a remote idea of what its foreign policy entailed, this was my mindset and outlook then. Somehow I knew it was evil. Don’t ask me how though…

In retrospect, I never really considered its foreign policy to be the main problem. In  reality I saw the way the American people were in general as the biggest problem. I viewed Americans as unhappy people who thought they were happy, as people who had very little to no morals and who were misfortunate to have been born in a sort of capsule that prevented them from understanding how things came to be in the world.

I viewed them almost as part of a machine that worked in a very schematic system and as long as the machine was working then they would have no need to be concerned with the affairs of the world. I viewed them as uncultured and as slaves of a materialistic system that eroded humanity and emboldened pride and arrogance.

When the average American used to say “we are the best” it would infuriate me. Now I look back and realize that where I’m from we also used to say, “we are the best”. In short, for me, the United States, whether its people knew it or not, was the cause of all the materialism that lacked any humanity, promoted ignorance, lacked any sort of culture, and was an exporter of immorality throughout the world.

Because of this view, I then began to put blame on the United States for basically anything. Not only did I blame the US for things it didn’t do right, but for things that it didn’t do at all. I went as far as to construct this entire philosophy in my head where the central pillar of evil was the United States.

Furthermore, because I despised the American way of life and the mentality of the American people, I linked the United States with all the problematic regions in the world. So for example, if Africa was poor it was because the United States was stealing its resources and preventing it from developing as it used it as a war field, especially during the cold-war. If Latin America was corrupt, then it was because the United States needed it to be corrupt for its own interest and because it had put puppet governments in order to fight the Soviets during the cold-war. It was because the American elites needed a place to hide their corruptive transactions and so they used Latin America as a playground. And the list goes on and on….

My vision of reality was so twisted that I would somehow find some esoteric and totally unrelated evidence to support my theories and philosophies about how evil the United States was. I looked at everything through the lens of hate. I was conditioned by hate. Hate is an emotion, so I was plainly being emotional and not using a single neuron in my brain or my heart for that matter. In reality, I was simply being hormonal about the United States.

A few years passed since I’ve been living in the United States by the time I arrived at the university. At the university the professors agreed with me and my anti-American views, however when they would teach the history of my own country that faced 56 coup d’état, military dictatorships, hyperinflation, a guerrilla-style warfare, and Soviet puppets as leaders, they would not know minimal facts and would teach a fictional story about it. A story so far from what really happened that it sounded like a fairy tale to me. They taught a story that was fueled with victimhood and resentment and not based on what really happened. Most of my International Relations professors had never been to the country and were just spouting nonsense based on anti-American sentiment.

I was born amid guerrilla warfare. In fact, the guerrilla started the year I was born and continued until I was 8 years old. The dirty war was primarily fought in my city. And north of the city where I lived is where most of the Soviet driven violence via guerrilleros (or red fighters as we called them) occurred.

Honestly, I don’t remember much. I do, however, remember that those who people today refer to as the “disappeared ones” were the Soviet red driven guerrilla fighters that today people feel pity for and regard as victims.

Anyhow, these university professors here in the US were teaching their students how the US helped the military dictatorship in my country of birth kill its own people. But I knew better than these professors. One day I raised my hand and asked the professor of my Problems in US Foreign Policy class to talk about the Soviet driven guerrillas (militias) and the bombings and kidnappings they would do instead of focusing on some fictional story where the US was the aggressor. The professor knew nothing about the Soviet militias, but somehow he knew all about the US’s “help” to the so-called military dictatorship of my country. I was amazed that he knew nothing of the USSR’s involvement, but somehow it was the US’s (Reagan’s) fault.

Well, just six decades prior to the guerrilla, my country was one of the top 10 richest countries in the world. It had and it still has resources to sustain itself, the entire continent of America (South, Central, and North), and all of Africa combined. It has abundant oil, natural gas, and all sorts of minerals. Its agricultural industry is extremely rich and flowing with different resources.

It was once a country with the potential to be a super-power. It was going on the right path. Industries began to develop; infrastructure was being built around the country, its financial system had begun to boom and banks would lend large amounts of money, our monetary value was actually competitive in the world market, and investors from all over the world would come in and do business with us and even establish a branch of their own business in our country.
The country had a lot of potential and it was realizing its potential, however something happened and the country began to decline.

What happened?

What began as an inoffensive campaign strategy of a politician who played the populous game to win mass support with hollow promises to the poor, turned into the rule of an arrogant socialist full of resentment.

Soon after he assumed power changes did begin to take place. The financial system was quickly taken over by a central bank run by the government, property begun to be disappropriated from the “rich” and supposedly given to the poor, however this socialist didn’t give the poor anything. He just stole from the “rich” without any regards for the poor. It was the so-called rich (who were once poor themselves) that gave the poor an opportunity to work, get an education, travel around the country with great transportation and infrastructure so they could themselves become entrepreneurs and small business men and eventually get out of poverty as well, etc. If it wasn’t for the “rich” the poor would not have a chance to get out of poverty.

It was a fomentation of a class warfare that did not exist.

This socialist “leader” was evermore gaining power as industries began to be run by the government and so more labor unions were now part of the government body and the vicious cycle began. Without the capital to produce and severe financial barriers, fees, and taxes by the government for production, caused the producers not to produce as much and so the entire economic engine began to malfunction. Unemployment rate in the double digits was as common as the air we breathed. The ripple effect had begun.

Less production means fewer jobs. Less jobs means less consumers. Less consumers means less economic growth in every aspect. Less economic growth means more dependency. More dependency means more government.

The socialist leader who had assumed power under the banner of change and “healer” of a “great” socio-economic injustice managed to destroy not only the economic system, but the nation as a whole. This is where the ripple effect can be seen not just in the economic sphere.

When the false premise of some social injustice is inculcated into the minds of people then the country’s society becomes extremely divided. As a result of that division, the society becomes weak. As society becomes weak, so do individuals. And in a society where individuals become weak, progress is rare to non-existent. It turns into a society where corruption reigns.

In order to cope, survive, and have a chance in a system that is corrupt, people then become corrupt themselves. Corruption is a primordial side effect of socialism. With corruption comes distrust. With distrust comes the lack of any opportunity for citizens to form a significant political resistance to these destructive, false, and unsustainable socialist agendas. With the lack of an organized group of individuals fighting these socialist agendas, the government begins to take more and more and in less than a generation, the nation can become completely dependent on literally self-righteous corrupt thieves in power. It happens fast, but it could only happen after a society has been brainwashed to think that it’s a society in need of a revolution of some sort. Kind of like a defiance of the status quo. Only in an already sickened with division, hate, and resentment society can this happen successfully.

In the end, nations become so sick and its citizens so deep in a hole in the ground that they don’t know how to get out of it anymore.

The ripple effect of these nefarious agendas is so huge and so cyclical. In other words, it makes a society fall into a vicious cycle that throws it into an endless and hopeless abyss. A society keeps falling and falling until it no longer knows in which direction it must go in order to climb back up.

When I go back to my country I am extremely happy to see family and friends, but I see a huge sign at the airport that says “welcome, just make sure you leave all your hopes behind.”

By knowing this transgression of events that took place in my country I realized that the United States was a place where one could breathe fresh air and not the polluted air of corruption, hopelessness, and surrender.

I began to grow out of the childish phase that the United States was the cause of all the problems in the world. I began to look at the American people, not as a whole, but rather as individuals and that’s when I realized the great values of the American people. I was wrong to look at them collectively. I should have known that it was different here and not look at what Hollywood, the media, the TV, or the politically correct trends told me how the Americans were.

I began to feel a lot of respect and a great love for this country. One of the things that made me realize how ignorant I had been was when one day I watched a program on TV. The program showed scenes of the only war my country fought with a foreign power in modern history. When they showed young men from my country being shot in the battle field I was crushed with anger and felt such a degree of patriotism that I had never felt before. I have never watched that war that had taken place when I was 6 years old until I saw those scenes on TV. Those scenes didn’t just show me that patriotism and a great pride in one’s nation is a healthy thing to have in a world that is increasingly becoming “nationless”, but they also made me understand why the American people felt so patriotic and proud.

What I used to view as arrogance, turned out to be healthy patriotism and a sense of pride in one nation’s deeds. Here I was feeling the same sense of patriotism and pain for my own country while I watched scenes from one small war. The only war my country fought with a foreign power in modern history. I thought to myself, how insensitive and blind I was not to see how the American people had fought in so many wars spilling blood all over the world with cemeteries throughout the world and receiving more body bags than any other nation in the world since its short 200 year-old history.  And to think that I was one of those who viewed the United States as the only evil one who used nuclear bombs, but failed to see how Japan had killed millions of civilians. It was then that I realized how unjust I had been and how unfair the world was and is incrementally becoming towards the United States.

It was the United States that has virtually showed societies that had fallen into that endless abyss where the top of that abyss was so they could climb back up. It was the United States that showed by example that a better system of life could be adopted and individuals could flourish.

What happened yesterday is a huge wound into this nation’s health. It is as if an already weakened nation was given not a cure or even treatment, but rather an injection containing huge amounts of the same virus it had been infected with.

I have no words to describe how betrayed I feel and how hurt I am by the democrat’s insult with this bill. And I see them laughing and smiling full of arrogance that it makes me sick; literally sick. Definitely a sickness they could never cure. I don’t even think those Americans who are still defending this catastrophic monster plan only because it falls under the Obama presidency really know what the consequences of it are.

I just had time to finish reading most of the bill and my jaw dropped to the floor in disbelief. I still can’t comprehend how this could have happened in the United States.

I read the bill and it is worse than the nationalized healthcare system we had in a third-world country.  In fact, it is a lot worse. And to think this is just their first step.

This must be stopped. And I mean by any means necessary. The government has literally turned against its people. What are people supposed to do then?

Anyway, thanks for listening. I’m just in shock that this is happening and here.

© Copyrights Mila, all rights reserved

18 March, 2010

God, please safeguard me from my friends and leave me to take care of my enemies on my own.

(Anon)

Have no mistake, the recent diplomatic rift between Washington and Jerusalem is not about peace, it is not about settlements, and it certainly not about Jo Biden being “insulted” — it is about  Obama! the Obama Middle East Doctrine.

Firstly, let us dispose of some disinformation perpetrated by the Obama administration and his shrieking liberal media.

On or about 9 March 2010, the District Planning Committee of the Municipality of Jerusalem, not the government of Israel, approved the construction of 1,600 new residential units in Ramat Shlomo, an existing northern Jewish suburb of Jerusalem. Ramat Shlomo IS NOT in East Jerusalem as we know it, a term normally used describe the old city of Jerusalem and its immediately surrounding villages, it far from it, albeit it is about 1 km. (0.5 mile) north of the green line.

The Prime Minister of Israel, does not need to be notified, approve or disapprove such decision any more than the President of the United States needs to be notified, approve, or otherwise, of construction of a new mall in Washington DC, let alone getting an approval from a foreign county.

What is it that makes every tin-pot liberal, thinks that he or she has the right to trash Israel’s sovereignty over its capital and within the same breath (or stroke of a keyboard) lecture us about interfering in the internal affairs of some failed rogue country in Africa or the Middle East?

It is clear, that the approval by the district planning committee of Jerusalem municipality has nothing to do with Jo Biden’s visit to Israel, dignitaries visits are not part of the consideration for issuing building licences. Jo has been reported to have accepted it but apparently, but that was not enough for the “don’t let a crisis go to waste” White House and the PC pro-Arab brigade of State Department who went on a massive unprecedented disinformation anti-Israel campaign, you would normally expect from the Huffington Post, not from an ally.

This crisis represents a fundamental shift from the American bi-partisan policy on Israel in general and on Jerusalem in particular which had largely supported the Israeli position. For those fools who had thought that Obama is a friend of Israel, here is your answer!

This rift is not between the people of America and the people of Israel, American public support for Israel viz-a-viz the Palestinians runs 8:1 in Israel’s favour and traverses the partisan political lines, but since when American public opinion counts when it comes to White House ideology?

The Obama doctrine of peace in Middle East is one of appeasement and recapitulation,  appeasement of Islam, recapitulation of the United State policies and a literal recapitulation of Israel, there is no other way to describe it.

The Obama doctrine is based on the debunked assumption that Muslim terrorism can be defeated by addressing the stated grievance of Muslims, whether in the Middle East or elsewhere. Had that been the case, there would have been no Al-Qaida today. Al-Qaida was founded by the “Afghan Arabs” who had come to Afghanistan to fight the Soviet invasion. Having defeated the Soviets, the core cause of their “grievances” the Afghan Arab did not go home, instead they decided to take on the world in general and America in particular.

The same applied to the Middle East. Every gesture of goodwill towards brought a wave of violence, Israel unilateral evacuations of South Lebanon and the Gaza Strip are a mere two examples among many.

Obama was and remains a “community organiser”, he thinks about the Middle East in terms of Saul Alinsky’s (another product of the Chicago left) of “the haves and have nots” whereas the “have nots”, in this case the Palestinians who need to be “organised” against the evil “haves”, Israel.

The failure of the peace process initiatives between Israel and the Palestinians were not due to lack of goodwill by successive American administrations or the intransigence of Israel on one issue or another, the blame lays squarely within the Palestinian camp.

The Palestinians do not want a state, they just want to fight for one! If you think that this is exaggeration, just read today’s paper and watch today’s news. It is Sept 2000 (second intifada) all over again, de ja vu.

Twice in the past 62 years, the Arabs of Palestine chose war instead of having their own state, the first time was in 1948 when they rejected the UN partition plan of Palestine and the second time in September 2000 when they violently repudiated the Oslo Accord, AFTER over 90% of their grievances had been addressed.

Although the Oslo Accord has been nullified by the Palestinians, it remain the only viable basis for a comprehensive peace in Middle East. The negotiations between Israel and Palestinians are now about what parts of the Oslo Accord are salvageable, not about wiping the slate clean and starting it again.

From Israel point of view, having failed in their attempt to destroy the Oslo Accord by brutal violence all across Israel (proper), the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, the Palestinians cannot expect a reward for their action, thus Israel needs much more convincing that indeed, this time the Palestinians actually want to live in peace side by side with Israel — unfortunately the last few days, once more prove the rule that they do not want a state.

Traditionally there were no disagreement between Israel and USA on this point … until Obama was elected, that is.

In his Cairo pandering speech last June (2009), Obama not only supported the Palestinians cherry-picking the Oslo Accord, but he handed them some cherries of his own, cherries that they had not have and had not asked for as a condition for negotiation.

In a typical moral-equivalent carefully crafted address he spoke in front invitees only audience, including representatives of the “Muslim Brotherhood”, the parent organisation of the Hamas, and he said (among other things):

The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop

[Emphasis and highlights are mine]

Oh, really Mr. President? “violates previous agreements”? let see what THE previous agreement really says about settlements.

Article V (3) of The Declaration Of Principles (aka The Oslo Accord) say that:

It is understood that [the permanent status] negotiations shall cover remaining issues, including: Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, security arrangements, borders, relations and cooperation with other neighbors, and other issues of common interest.

[square brackets and Emphasis added]

The teleprompter was not yet turned off as the Palestinians announced a new “pre-condition” for the resumption of the direct talks, indeed why not? Even the president of the United State agrees. The fact that they had agreed to put that issue aside for the interim period in the Oslo Accord became irrelevant. But, hey, this is the Middle East.

I want to make it clear that I have never supported the Jewish Settlement in the West Bank and in the Gaza Strip (which is no longer relevant), I oppose it! but this is not the issue right now.

However,  Jerusalem is not the West Bank! Jerusalem is not a “settlement”, Jerusalem is Israel and Israel is Jerusalem!

* * * * *

Was the Obama Cairo speech, just a stupid comment by an inexperienced president, or was it part of the Obama Doctrine on the Middle East?

Events suggest the later. Although, clearly, Obama was absolutely wrong in his facts, he nevertheless  continue to pressure Israel to accept Obama’s created pre-condition for the resumption of the talks, and to cease construction in the West Bank settlements.

The Israeli government largely acceded to the American pressure albeit temporarily. Whether Israel agreed to halt construction in West Bank to help the president save face or for other reasons, I don’t really know, but what follows was taken straight out of Saul Alinsky’s book, Rules For Radicals.

In his book, Alinsky has a chapter on “Tactics” (of the Organiser) in which he lists “rules”, in Rule Thirteen Alinsky says that:

The Price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.

[Page 130 in paperback edition]

He goes on to explain:

You [the organiser] cannot risk being trapped by the enemy in his sudden agreement with your demand saying “you are right — we don’t know what to do about this issue. Now tell us”

[brackets added]

Such tactic is also known as the “salami tactic” or “moving the goal posts”.

Having got an agreement to partially freeze construction in the West Bank, rather than go back to the Palestinians with “now, what about you mate?” the administration jumped on the “opportunity” and in order to avoid being “trapped by the enemy” moved to the next slice of the salami, Jerusalem.

Read on Mr. President, Alinsky continues:

The fourteen Rule: Pick the target, freeze, it personalise it, and polarize it.

The target, Alinsky explains, is picked on a basis of vulnerability, you don’t necessarily attack the party who is responsible for your grievance, you attack the most vulnerable to such attack.

In this context, you do not attack the District Planning Committee or the Municipality of Jerusalem, the body that approve construction, you attack the “right wing” Israeli government. You further personalise your attack with words such as “insult”, and use emotive terms such  “Jewish settlements”, “occupied territory”, “illegal occupation” and, most of all, you attack, attack, attack!

The Palestinians, whilst have a claim on part of Jerusalem, (which they did not have during the Jordanian rule of East Jerusalem), areas such as Ramat Shlomo have never been an issue, not until now when the administration created it.

Instead of trying to bridge over differences, the administration is in fact putting the sides further apart, but that is not all.

What followed the administration attacks on Israel (“addressing” Palestinians grievances) is an EXPECTED wave of incitement and violence by Palestinians, not much dissimilar to those we saw in September 2000, except that the current violence is totally White House driven.

According to the Jerusalem Post:

The armed wing of Fatah, the Aksa Martyrs Brigades, on Tuesday called on the Palestinian Authority to give back the weapons it had confiscated from the group’s gunmen so that they could participate in the “Jerusalem Intifada.” The call came as both the PA and Hamas continued to accuse Israel of planning to destroy the mosques on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem.

De ja vu!

What we see is typical Arab reaction to what they rightly see as a weakening of American support of Israel, thus a weakness of Israel — anyone who knows anything about the Middle East mentality could have foreseen it coming. I have no doubt that Israel will stop this madness but, no doubt, with the usual accusation “disproportionate force”.

Welcome to the Obama Intifada (God forbid), to borrow a term from Melanie Phillips of the Spectator. The same old story; Palestinians attack Jews, Jews protect themselves, Palestinians play victims, UN condemns Israel,  De ja vu!

What left now for Israeli government to do is give Obama a bit of his own medicine, to take a page from Alinsky book too and put the president “outside his experience”, as Alinsky repeats through his book,  or as Caroline Glick of the Jerusalem Post who does not mince her words this time when she says in her latest article:

Bibi can tell Obama to stick it where the sun don’t shine and rally the Israeli public and Israel’s many  friends in America to his side and so make it impossible for Obama to carry on doing this with immunity. Or he can lick Obama’s boots and set the clock ticking faster towards the destruction of this country.

Caroline! this is not a ladylike talk, but you succinctly expressed my sentiments. Butt out Mr. President before you have your name ingratiating an intifada.

© Copyright Jacob Klamer, all rights reserved.

4 January, 2010

It is getting wackier and wackier by the day!

The president on the United States Of America stood before the people on New year day and “revealed” that:

Here is a transcript of part of what Obama’s teleprompter says:

It’s now been more than a week since the attempted act of the terrorism aboard the flight into Detroit on Christmas day and we’re learning more about the suspect.

We know that he travelled to Yemen, a country grappling with crushing poverty and deadly insurgency. It appears that he joined an affiliate of al Qaeda, and that this group — al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula — trained him, equipped him with those explosives and directed him to attack that plane heads for America.

[Highlights are mine]

So we now know that it is Al-Qaida!

Phew, What a relief! I had been worried sick that the investigation that Obama had ordered would turn out that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab had been trained, equipped and ordered to his “mission” by the Women Zionist Organisation (WIZO) and what he actually carried in his pants was a Hanukkah latkes (potato pancake) mix (OK, the poor soul misunderstood the bit about adding two well bitten eggs to the mix and thought he can use his own)

We can all relax now ,it is all Al-Qaida’s fault! (and George Bush, of course). In a separate interview to Fox News, John Brennan the president’s advisor on counter-terrorism also stressed the Al-Qaida aspect of the terror attack. What is wrong with those people? It sounds almost as if they are saying “it is OK, it is Al-Qaida”

Obama then went on to spread more smoke screen on the real issue by citing some of the BUSH ADMINISTRATION’S success as his own. He then goes on to describe how America would “strengthen (it’s) ties” with Yemen, which means one thing; open your cheque books America, you are about to resolve Yemen’s “crushing poverty”, an obvious attempt to excuse Muslim terror as a poverty “challenge”.

No Mr. President, this is not what we are asking! The problem is not Al-Qaida in Yemen or anywhere else, the problem Mr. President is how a Muslim with known links to terror could obtain a visa to enter the US? Why such person was allowed to board a plane bound for America? And most importantly, how he managed to smuggle explosive onboard?

To remind you, all eleven 9/11 terrorists, entered the USA on valid vistas, didn’t you learn anything?

These are the real questions! So please spare us your rhetorical smoke screen and answer the bloody question, sir!

Another red herring is the Administration attempt to shove some blame to Schiphol (Amsterdam) airport; sure there was a severe breach of security in Amsterdam BUT let me get you on a “secret”;

the security of an airlines is the SOLE responsibility of the airline in question, not the airport. Airport security, is just that, securing the airport parameters — anything beyond the (departure) gate is the responsibility of the airline and its national government of the airline.

Do you think, my friends, that Umar Farouk would have been able to board an El-Al plane in Amsterdam? Not in a million years! The reason is simple; the government of Israel mandates certain security measures that El-Al as a well as any other airline flying into Israel MUST follow, IRRESPECTIVE of local airport security.

Unlike the rest of the world, Israel been grappling with Muslim terror since the 1960’s with the inception of the Palestinian terror. In the past 45 years or so, Israel has got the war on terror, to such a fine art that, ironically, the vast majority of passengers going though Tel-Aviv airport would pass security in a fraction of the time it takes in most other airports in the world. Why? Because the Israeli security people know what they are looking for and don’t concern themselves with symbolism such as confiscating your nail clipper to show you that they are doing something.

Any plane, of any nationality, must accept (in full) the Israeli security measures as a condition of obtaining a landing permit in Israel, the measures themselves vary but a few things never do, one is the security is always controlled Israeli nationals and the second is PROFILING!!!

That’s right! American carriers who fly to Israel have accepted the Israeli security methods on all of their flight to Israel. Profiling is carried out right now, as we speak, in all major American airports!

No thanks to massive disinformation campaigns by the human right industry and the PC brigade, most people don’t understand the concept of profiling, as it relates to aviation security.

Profiling simply means putting more security resources at people who are perceived higher risk, not wasting them on symbolism.

I was profiled a couple of times (that I know of), once I was detained in Heathrow Airport before boarding a plane to Tel-Aviv, my Israeli passport, Israeli national ID card and my fluent Hebrew notwithstanding. I was taken to a side room, my luggage was pulled out, brought in and searched, I was thoroughly searched and interrogated (politely) before I was allowed to board the plane. The apparent reason that I had been selected was that I flew-in from Indonesia, a Muslim country that do not allow entry to holders of Israeli passports and they wanted to know EXACTLY why I went there and what I was doing there.

Was I offended? To the contrary, I was happy to cooperate, it made me feel ten time safer boarding that plane than had they confiscated my nails clipper and my $2 set of mini screwdrivers (the ones I fix my eye glasses with) that were in my briefcase.

Looking at it another way, if you belong to vast majority of passengers ,who are not profiled (or positively profiled as not pausing security risk, if you wish) you go through security in no time, which indeed is the experience of most passengers going through Tel-Aviv Airport.

As you see the problem is not that the CIA, FBI, DHS, TSA (have I miss anyone?) don’t know what to do, the problem is that they would not do for ideological reasons.

* * * * *

If you fly to the USA from Sydney Airport, there is check-in area specifically allocated for such flights of all airlines where security measures are different to the rest f the departing flights . This, we are told here, is to facilitate the security measurements required by US government and indeed it is their responsibility.

Yet this inept president of yours and his administration are telling you that America has no say what happens in Amsterdam airport. This is a lie! a lie intended to cover up their ineptness.

There has surely been a security breach in Amsterdam, but as I said earlier, the responsibility for the security all America airplanes lays purely with the American government. Remember, an American aircraft is an American territory.

The Dutch, the Brits, the French and indeed all countries where El-Al, and other Israeli carriers, operate to and from, America included, do not have any problem with the way the Israelis are conducting their security checks, profiling included.

There is little doubt that one of the main reasons for 911 was the fact that until 9/11, terror was treated as law enforcement issue which costed America dearly. George Bush recognised it and attempted to correct that but since Obama’s inauguration the clock has being turned back for no other reason but IDEOLOGY.

Obama and his politburo deemed the Bush anti-terror measures as not needed because there has not been a terror attack on America in recent years. The very same twisted logic can be applied to Polio vaccination, let stop vaccinating our kids because we have not had a Polio problem for some 50 years.

As I am writing this, the news that the US and Britain are closing their embassies in Yemen “because of threats by Al-Qaida”. We are not privy to the consideration that led to such drastic measures, but how do you think the terrorist interpret such decision? Yes, that’s right! They can push America (and Britain) along.

The decision as to which embassy will remain open is n longer the State Department or White Hall, it is now all up to Al-Qaida to decide, but that’s OK, as the president said, “we know it is Al-Qaida”

How long, do you think, before Al-Qaida would issue a threat against another American embassy somewhere? Hours? Days? surely not longer than that.

Mr President, you don’t need more investigations, you need cojones but I guess that in that respect you have something in common with Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab.

© copyright – Jacob Klamer 2010 all rights reserved

10 October, 2009

We made it, our trendies and left wing whackos has managed to draw the world attention and copy-cat the American Marxists activism with a “proof” that Australia is an evil country and all Australians are a bunch of racists.

It started with TV show, resurrected from memory lane of the 1980’s and … oy-vei included a parody on the Jackson Fives and Michael Jackson, played by … get that! White people who painted their fact black.

The PC brigade shouted to high heaven “gotcha!” demanding apologies on behalf of people who really don’t live here and more important, could not care less. A member of the Jackson family said that they did not find the parody offensive but who cares? The PC brigade pushed on anyway.

The so-called international traction has been exaggerated by our narcissist media, but the issue apparently got some traction in America.

The matter was raised on the “Culture Warriors” segment the Fox’s O’Reilly Factor with Margaret Hoover and Gretchen Carlson. Whilst Bill O’Reilly saw it for what it was, Australian having fun, both ms. Hoover and Ms. Carlson demonstrated their utter ignorance, which caught me by surprise – not the ignorance part but the fact that both ladies expressed opinion without any real facts or understanding of out culture to back their opinion, or making up the facts to support their opinion. The verdict of most Australians was a yawn.

Watch the part that starts at about 3:35 minutes into the clip

Ms. Hoover:

Australia is a little bit behind the US insofar as has human rights is concerned …

She then continues and talk about the white Australian policy (that was finished in the 1960’s not in 1973 as Hoover claimed) and brought in our “issues with Aboriginal culture and integration of Aboriginal culture” and therefore, she concluded that Australia is racist and behind on human rights as she put it.

For crying out loud, we are talking about a short segment of a TV show, in poor taste some will say, yet Ms. Hoover (with the active support of Ms. Carlson) had no qualm vilify a whole nation. This is when the TV show itself stops from being an issue.

Let us start with white Australia policy (it was not a law, Ms. Hoover) that had its root in the beginning of the last century as it sought to limit Asian immigration viz-a-viz Europeans for demographic reasons. whether you agree with the motives for the policy or not, it had nothing to do racism and indeed Asians who had come to Australia during our gold rush were not affected by the policy.

White Australia policy had nothing to do with the Aboriginal people, nothing! Nada! Gurnischt! tipota!

As to Australia being a “little bit behind the US” let me remind Ms. Hoover and Ms. Carlson that Australia has never had neither slavery nor segregation against Aborigines, Asians or anyone else for that matter, either by law or by custom, NEVER! Asian who had come to Australia during the gold rush were totally unaffected by the policy.

The issue here is not racism, human rights or even human rights comparisons between Australia and the USA, the issue is purely a demonstration of political correctness by stupid individuals.

If political correctness is the yardstick for our human rights progress or otherwise, I am surely glad that Australia stayed behind.

© Copyrights Jacob Klamer 2009.

02 October, 2009

Last week we saw one of the most frightening exposition of the end of our individual (respective) national sovereignties as we have been accustom to know it. Last week was the watershed in what our politicians often refer to as “the journey” towards global governance. Call me “scare monger” or “conspiracy theorist” if you wish but I am here neither to scare you nor to advocate a conspiracy theory, I merely seek to highlight certain facts that are unfolding right in front of our eyes and ears and propose their significance, as I see it.

But first let me explain, global governance is not the same as global government. Global government refers to the establishment of one world-wide government, presumably under the auspices of the United Nations (or a similar organisation yet to be established), that would govern the whole world as if it was one single country. Although there are some who aspire to it, world government is not going to happen, not without a lot of bloodshed anyway.

On the other hand global governance is the action of governing under common global set of rules. Instead of blue helmets “policemen” and Black Hawk helicopters with blue UN emblem enforcing the rules of a global tyrant, under global governance, our own, friendly (or not), policemen and women will continue enforce the laws of the land, except that increasingly the laws of the land will be the laws of the globe and will come from a global governance bodies such as the UN and its agencies, proposed and drafted by faceless UN bureaucrats and rubberstamped largely by Non-Aligned Movement’s countries who hold the majority voting power in the UN.

Those of us who live under democracy will still have democracy of sort, we shall continue to vote for our respective national democratic institutions except that those institutions will be subservient to the global governance body. In other words our national governments of the future, in time, will have as much powers as the current federal powers of your local municipal council, the powers given to it by Agenda 21, more about Agenda 21 later.

Within a week, the week ended on 28September, 2009, we saw the United Nations Framework Convention On Climate Change in New-York (Sept 22), the United Nations Security Council Meeting (25 September,2009, chaired by president Obama, the general debate of the opening of the 64^th session of the General Assembly of the United Nation in New-York (on 23-28 September,2009) and the Pittsburgh G20 Partnership Meeting (on 24-28 September, 2009). Whilst none of these events, in themselves, are anything new, apart from a lot of symbolism, it was the first time that leaders of the western democracies not only spoke in such unison on all raised issues BUT the all push the “Global” part above the interest of their own countries.

Our so-called leaders went to New-York and Pittsburgh to represent us, one would assume, but instead they ended up pushing their own global governance agenda through climate change, G20 or straight out UN speak, here are some example:

Barack Obama in a speech to General Assembly, highlights provided:

We have sought — in word and deed — a new era of engagement with the world. And now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges.

He later said:

Today, let me put forward four pillars that I believe are fundamental to the future that we want for our children: non-proliferation and disarmament; the promotion of peace and security; the preservation of our planet; and a global economy that advances opportunity for all people.

Go and tell the brainless idiot Marxists anti-globalisation protestors in Pittsburgh that their Messiah and their activists professors are the champion of globalisation, but hey why lets some pesky fact spoil a good anti capitalists demonstration, beside, who said that riots need have a good reason?

And our illustrious Prime Minister Kevin Rudd aka Kevin747 was at his besting terms of laying grounds for his next job, he said to the very same forum:

And it is on the current challenges facing the global order that I wish to speak to this 64th General Assembly today – the global financial crisis, the unfinished business of the Doha Round, the unfolding crisis of the planet itself, the unresolved question of nuclear weapons 20 years after the end of the Cold War – and of the future of global governance itself.

Dear Kevin, he does not mince his words, does he? He continued:

And a wake-up call that our system of global governance today is in radical need of reform.

You see, to Mr. Rudd, global governance is already in here, all it needs is a radical reform, is that the same person who had told the Australian voters the he, Kevin 07, has plans for Australia? I do not recall any mention of making Australia governed from New-York.

Indeed, in certain aspect global governance is already with us, it has been here for some thirty years, just look at all conventions, declarations, charters, protocol and other euphemisms for RULES, coming down from the UN and ratified by our respective governments under our noses.

Whilst you and I been busy labouring to put roofs over our respective families, and food on our tables, the people who we elected and TRUSTED to protect our interests we busy scheming amongst themselves to bring us a global governance by stealth.

Take a look at some examples, The Lima Declaration of 1975, states, inter alia:

[Solemnly declare] their resolve to ensure the speedy and effective implementation of the principles of industrialisation laid down in the International Development Strategy for the 197Os which is being adapted to the Programme of Action on the Establishment of a New International Economic Order; [para 25]

And

That countries, particularly developed countries, should undertake an objective and critical examination of their present policies and make appropriate changes in such policies so as to facilitate the expansion and diversification of imports from developing countries and thereby make possible international economic relations on a rational, just and equitable basis; [para 27]

In other words, we “particularly the developed countries”, must hand our production to under-developed countries. Why? Because we, the developed country are evil and must pay for our sins – nothing about the billions of aid money that was squandered by corrupt leaders, nothing, no one talks about it because they are VICTIMS.

Then we have The Rio Declaration which is part of Agenda 21, documents that, irrespective of our sovereign laws, mandates local government and NON-GOVERNMENTAL organisations (NGO’s) an official status not only in relation to environmental legislation but also, the use of the environment as an excuse for all left wing doctrines – indeed a masterpiece of left wing activism, here are some examples (from the Rio declaration):

Principle 20

Women have a vital role in environmental management and development. Their full participation is therefore essential to achieve sustainable development.

Principle 21

The creativity, ideals and courage of the youth of the world should be mobilized to forge a global partnership in order to achieve sustainable development and ensure a better future for all.

Principle 22

Indigenous people and their communities and other local communities have a vital role in environmental management and development because of their knowledge and traditional practices. States should recognize and duly support their identity, culture and interests and enable their effective participation in the achievement of sustainable development.

Principle 23

The environment and natural resources of people under oppression, domination and occupation shall be protected.

Principle 24

Warfare is inherently destructive of sustainable development. States shall therefore respect international law providing protection for the environment in times of armed conflict and cooperate in its further development, as necessary.

Principle 25

Peace, development and environmental protection are interdependent and indivisible.

[Highlights provided]

And we had thought that looking after the environment means to ensure clean air, clean water and rain forests. Oh no! Agenda 21 makes it clear that just about any left wing activist can become a police officer.

When your local council require an environmental impact study before it approve your car port, say Agenda 21, when you council declare you town Nuclear Free Zone, say Agenda 21, when your council put up signes calling for the protection of the Tasmanian rain forest, say Agenda 21 – in fact when you council involves itself with issues outside its boundaries chances are that it is Agenda 21.

Charity organisations such as Oxfam or World Vision, supposedly established in order to assist the needy in poor countries (but not in their own for some reason) are getting vocally involved in issues such as global warming or join in condemning Israel’s “disproportionate” use of force, say Agenda 21 – You see my friends, the misery industry, just as the watermelon environmentalism, green on the outside and red on the inside.

The way it works is that the UN organises a convention on the issue, the UN bureaucrats, most come from under-developed countries, who prepare the final outcome and name it as a convention, protocol, declaration, agenda or whatever, it automatically passed by two third majority of the so-called non-aligned bloc with 113 votes of which about Half (56) are also members of the Organisation Of The Islamic Conference (IOC) and now you have it a “UN resolution” that your government rash to ratify as a good global citizen – It is for your own good, even the UN said so ….. hmmm hmmm hmmm.

I am sick and tired hearing politicians using “other countries” excuse as if the monopoly on wisdom lay in other countries – I like it here as it is, thank you very much but when I see politicians from all over the world using the same speak about global governance I get frightened.

whose side are they on?

© Copyright Jacob Klamer, 2009

26 July, 2009

I must confess, I got it wrong, it seemed a good idea at the time, but it turned out like all other ideologies, WRONG!!! I am talking about the ideology of free trade, the philosophy that says that it generate wealth to all that practice it. As it turned out it does not!

The principle of free trade is simple, if I can grow tomatoes better (more efficiently, as economists say) then my next door farmer, who in turn can grow cucumbers better then I do, then we are both better off by I growing all the tomatoes and my next door neighbour growing all the cucumbers and we trade tomatoes for cucumbers between us. In this way we each get better products all around.

In real life, more efficient usually means cheaper, we all agree that if we produce widgets here for say, $4.00 a piece and the Chinese produce them for 10 cents each, it is a prima facie evidence that, the Chinese are more efficient in producing widgets thus we should stop making them, buy all our widgets from the Chinese and concentrate on producing something that we are more efficient at, say gismos, sell them to China and we would all be better off for it, or would we?

Let us pause and look at the “efficiency” again, suppose our workers produce 10 widgets per hour and a Chinese worker can manage only 2 widgets per hour, wouldn’t you say that our workers are more efficient then the Chinese? On this example, of course they are! So you can see that “cheaper” is not always synonym with more efficient, here is why;

If our widget wage costs (actual wage paid to workers and on-costs) amounts to $40.00 per hour whiles a Chinese worker equivalent cost is only $2.00 per 10 hours day,  the vast gap in wage costs completely obscures our advantage in terms of efficiency.

Therefore, we get rid of our workers and produce all our widgets in China albeit it would take five times the number of Chinese workers to produce the same number of widgets.

And in order to further obfuscate the treachery to our more workers we use the euphemism outsourcing. Hey man, you are not sucked, you are just outsourced. (How strange, you never hear of outsourcing the CEO’s of large corporation, do you?)

Further, in order to ensure that outsourcing is REALLY successful, the free traders call on our governments to remove all import duty our forefathers put in place for the very reason of protecting jobs. They even go as far as demonise the word “protection” as a dirty word, something to be avoided at all costs. No politician OF EITHER SIDES, wish to be called “protectionist”, oh no! As if protecting our jobs is the wrong thing to do.

Whose side these people are on?

And so we are handing over our manufacturing expertise to under-developed nations, lock stock and barrel, some of whom don’t even like us. We are quickly reaching the point that whole sections of manufacturing industries are disappearing from our local landscape. What is going to replace lost employment in apparel, steel mills and food canneries that disappeared in recent years?

The economic rationale of free trade implies that everybody has some comparative advantage whereas we may not be as good as say the Chinese at making widgets but are really good in making gizmos, so we let the Chinese make all the widgets and we make all the gizmos … but wait, it has not worked like that at all. What in fact has happened is that, China is making BOTH widgets and gizmos.

Slowly and not so slowly we see that the emerging economies, (a euphemism for China and India) China in particular, are taking over sector after sector of our manufacturing industries, it is like slicing a salami- every day a small slice of our manufacturing industry is carved away without any impact until we wake up one day and realise that the salami  has gone.

Few of us ask where does this jobs destruction lead us get the standard spin is that we do not need manufacturing industry to prosper, we can still prosper by being a service economy .  It make no sense whatsoever we cannot produce wealth by producing nothing.

Serving each other drinks and making each others’ beds is not an economy!

One day we shall wake up, not only with no factories and with no manufacturing expertise, then what?

The Chinese will have us by the sort and curly and they will pull, have no doubt about it!

* * * * *

All ideologies, euphemisms and spins do not change one fact and that is that CHINA IS A TOTALITARIAN COMMUNIST COUNTRY. All the Western democracies would be better advised to take this fact into account when dealing with China before we hand over our manufacturing industry.

Whilst we all pontificating on the merits or otherwise of free trade China is forging forward, not by reciprocating our free trade but by practicing protectionism – the Chinese current import duty tariffs may not be high but don’t let it fools you, the Chinese government has achieved protectionism by other means, not the least their by tight control over EXCHANGE RATES, foreign currency restrictions and other administrative and bureaucratic limitations and control, all aim at supporting their emerging economy not ours.

Since 1984, the Renminbi (China’s people’s currency) has been devalued by 200%. This is as “good” as having across the board tariff of 200% increase on all imports at the time when our tariffs are for Chinese products coming down.

Further the Renminbi is not a readily convertible currency. Traditionally Chinese citizen could not receive allocation of foreign currency for imports, unless they had earned foreign exchange in previous exports. (These restrictions have somewhat relaxed in recent times due to large foreign currency reserves accumulated in recent years.)

As you can see, China’s current wealths is a combine result of sever protectionism on their side and the free trade ideology on our side.

In fact China approach is not unique, all historical economic empires were built on the foundation of protectionism, or mercantilism as it was known years ago. England’s Navigation Act of 1651 reserved all English trade, including to, from and between its colonies to be carried only by English ships (or ships owned by English nationals). The Corn Laws of 1815 that prohibited importing grain into England at a price less than 80 shillings per quarter (28 pounds) are some of such examples of protectionism going back to the 19^th century.

Britain before 1846 (when the Corn Laws were repealed), the USA from 1860 to 1914, Germany from 1870 to 1914, Japan of after WWII and Australia till the 1970’s all developed their economies on a foundation of protectionism.

If free trade is best for nations, how is it that every modern state that rose to prominent and power …. Was protectionist?

Asks Pat Buchanan rhetorically in his book Day Of Reckoning and continues to cite that

All four presidents on Mount Rushmore – Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt – were economic nationalists.

[- pp 195]

The apparent discrepancy in the benefits of free trade is simple to explain, free trade is beneficial to both parties ONLY when it is practised between nations of similar standard of living.

There are many examples that prove this hypothesis, not the least the free trades among the states in the USA, Australia, and the EU, as well as our free trade with New Zealand albeit we are competitors on many products when it comes to international trade.

A recent survey done in Australia, has shown that about 80% of shopper SAYING that they prefer Australian products over overseas’ even if it costs more BUT when it comes to action, only about 20%  of shoppers actually put their money where their mouth is.

I suspect that the situation in America and other western democracies is similar. Come on people, put you money where your mouth is, use it or loose it!

© Copyright Jacob Klamer 2009