Weiss Report Blog

Reports of Yaz side effects continue to grow as the makers of Yaz, Yasmin and Ocella ready themselves for further judicial proceedings and more likely lawsuits. Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, makers of Yasmin and Yaz, and Barr Pharmaceuticals, makers of the generic version Ocella have been bombarded with allegations leading from downplaying the severeness of side effects in their adverts to knowingly letting loose a dangerous and potentially fatal product on American women.

There are already numerous lawsuits filed in various counties across the country against the birth control manufacturer. This number is expected to reach 1,000. Typically, those effected by Yaz, Yasmin, and Ocella can fill out the form at thelegaladvocate.com to have an attorney review their info in order to be provided with answers and eventually legal representation.

Any women that have been hurt as a result of taking Yaz, Yasmin or Ocella may be eligible to compensation. Many attorneys and legal counsel agencies such as thelegaladvocate.com now offer assistance to anyone going through side effects and health issues as a direct result of using Yaz contraception. Now that more women across the U.S. are coming forward and filing lawsuits, the legal system is moving closer to rendering justice for those who were misinformed by the birth control manufacturers and possibly their doctors.

Volunteering — a path to a closer community, and supporting your local needy. Traditionally, however, freeing up the time to volunteer may waste some of that valuable free time. Reacting to this problem, firms have begun making themselves into initiatives encouraging their employees to give back to the community. One of the leaders in this is Adaptive Marketing LLC of Connecticut who also offer programs like SavingsAce.

If you think of company-supported charitable effort, you probably think of blood drives, maybe a Christmas call for donations, but that’s no longer the case in the modern day. Looking at a specific company, Adaptive Marketing has offered staff the opportunity to take part in everything from shoe recycling efforts to local tree replanting events. By centralizing the organization individual initiatives became events, with specific times, locations and dates noted ahead of time to make time management easy for those signing up.

Giving volunteers their say in what programs are available is essential. At Adaptive Marketing, the firm behind SavingsAce, staff can pick and choose from a diverse list of drives in the local area. You’ll find there’s so much to be done, after all; working with children, helping with environmental activities, or improving the area’s look through artistic projects among others. Adaptive Marketing’s members of staff are sure to choose something they enjoy to volunteer for, ensuring they’ll spend their time happily and productively.

Usually a company-supported volunteer project — getting involved with a homeless shelter or helping out at a local school — is done either as a one-off event or on a regular schedule in pursuit of a bigger goal. Staff members may well say — and really assume — that they don’t have any free time, though it would be rather surprising if they seriously can’t free up enough resources to lend a hand with an event covering only a single day. We’re sure that by now you’ve heard a number of examples of organizations supporting the people who live nearby. Like many other firms, Adaptive Marketing maintains volunteer initiatives to support the people of its home town and to generate goodwill within the local community through its staff members activities. Helping around your home town leaves you feeling like a better person — exactly what you need to leave employees motivated in both their volunteer work and back behind their desks, too.

Cancer of the mesothelium is a scarce cancer of the tissues that line the body’s interior organs. Almost two thousand new occurrences are diagnosed every year in the whole US. Of these, aroundthree fourths of occurrences concern the sac around the lungs, referred to as the pleura. This is known as pleural mesothelioma. In almost 10 to twenty percent of occurrences, malignant mesothelioma could concern the tissue that envelopes abdominal organs, named the peritoneal membrane, generating what is then acknowledged as peritoneal mesothelioma.

Being introduced to asbestos is positively the main cause for this uncommon sickness. After asbestos exposure, the time period to development of the mesothelioma disease might be 20 to 40 years. As a result of occupational exposure, cancer of the mesothelium is around three times more regular in males, than in women. Due to the amount of occurrences moves upward with your age, there are almost ten times more cases in the men more than age 64 than in the men in their 30s.

Having Mesothelioma is a severe sickness, that, at the current time, has a very poor degree of overall endurance. Nonetheless, if it is diagnosed early, care are then obtainable that can significantly extend the patient’s life. All new approaches continue to be and are being developed through clinical trials.

Many of the problems that the members of the European Union are expressing with their constitution are in matter of fact problems with they perceive to be the ‘one size fits all’ idea of policies. The French are loudest in expressing their objections and looking at the history of the evolution of the nation state, perhaps they have a point. It took millennia for the idea of the Nation State to evolve into any recognizable shape. So to expect a huge bloc of countries to continue to integrate without noticeable hiccups would be naive.

The idea of the modern state as it can still be seen in Europe and the US was in matter of fact invented by a Frenchman. Political philosopher Jean Bodin in his 1576 book Six Livres de la Republique describes a republic as “a just government of several households and of what they hold in common, with the power of sovereignty”. His description and further treatment of the subject confirms the great importance the concept ‘authority’ and ’sovereign rule’ has had in our formative ideas of statehood. Bodin is a very contradicting scholar. He is said to have been both the proponent of an overly powerful ruling class -absolute monarchy- as well as an advocate for limiting the power of this sovereign to the doorstep of every household.

He was the first to hit home the notion of sovereignty as a limited entity when he at the time of writing referred to mostly feudal and monarchic systems elsewhere in the world as simply horrific. Slave master relations in countries like Russia, Turkey and Iran at the time abhorred the Europeans. These countries had a sovereign who was more or less full master of the “bodies and goods” of his subjects. The people of Europe would have not put up with such a regime that took for granted certain limits to the state’s authority, according to Bodin. On the other hand, Bodin was accused of being a proponent of unlimited rule. True enough, Bodin extolled in extravagant terms the prerogatives of sovereignty; but these did not include the power to impose new taxes. ‘Natural law’ forbade this, he said.

Bodin cites Seneca to the effect that `to Kings appertains the power over all, but property belongs to individuals’” Bodin is said to have been very impressed with Europe’s eldest form of democracy, embodied in the ancient democratic ceremony of the Carantanians (currently in Austria), which he said “had no parallel throughout the world.” And perhaps he was right; The Slovene community in Carantania was one of the few at the time to not have slaves. Stretching from the river Elbe to the Adriatic Sea, its centre was at Gosposvetsko Polje near Krnski Grad which is in present-day Austrian Carinthia.

The free Carantania became infamous for resisting all foreign domination for almost one hundred years, which in this area of tribal Europe was also quite impressive. Besides leaving a lasting imprint on the historical memory, their example has inspired European countries to date as well as the US, where Thomas Jefferson took inspiration from the Six Livres in his constitutional work. The Carantanians’ celebratory democratic institution, the installation of a Slovene duke persisted down to the year 1414 was quite a remarkable piece of culture even at the time. It took place during a general assembly of all free Carantanian Slavs, by voting. A duke would be installed with at a place called Knezji Kamen (the Prince’s Stone) with special rites by a peasant, the embodiment of the people, on whose behalf he invested the duke with power and authority. Just imagine the scene.

The prince had to make a solemn pledge in public to be fair and just at all times, to defend Carantania bravely against all enemies, to do everything possible to safeguard peace, and to help the poor. The ceremony at the time was quite unique and attracted the attention of the humanist Aeneas Piccolomini, Pope Pius II, who travelled through Slovene lands, to say that the installation ceremony “was second to none.”

This Robin Hood type democracy is known to have flourished centuries before the adoption of the Magna Carta in 1215, which is widely regarded as the cornerstone of contemporary western democracies.

This is not to say that Bodin advocated the Carantanian ideas, yet he was convinced though that human structures as they had formed did show that they were quite detached from the balance of nature. Primitive tribal democracies of the Carantanian time might not at all have been compatible either with the statehood that Bodin describes. “In order to function as viable members of a medieval polity, states had to possess permanent social structures. First of all, a state had to be identified with a definite geographical space, a stretch of land whose physical features could imprint themselves

on the collective psyche. Such a rooting in a particular territory could not be brought about except by centralized political power which could define the territory’s limits and organize their defense. This demanded, in turn, the development of a social hierarchy in which a ruler and a class of nobles shared the burdens of power and were able to interact with their social counterparts in other states. The definition of spheres of authority and the stabilization of administrative practices called for the adoption of definite legal procedures for whose formulation a supratribal literary language was needed,” describes Alexander M. Schenker, a Yale University scholar in his ‘An introduction to Slavic Philology”

He then goes on to illustrate that the void here was filled up by the literate clergy. Those days, the church pretty much assumed political powers as a natural extension to its religious teachings. Bodin, who lived at the time that Huguenots and Catholics were involved in religious strife, advocated more secular, professionalised political rule that superseded church domination.

“Cadres of learned, or at least literate, people had to be developed in order to use this language in the course of performing the necessary administrative functions. Hence the need for Christianity with its monastic tradition of learning, with its schools where Latin or Church Slavonic were taught, with its ability to replace tribal particularism with its own universalist message. To initiate a social revolution of these dimensions, strong leadership and permanent political institutions had to emerge,” Schenker writes. It took some European countries millennia before the favorable conditions for the establishment of a nation state arose with a central element here often the opposition of pagans toward ruling by a clergy elite.

Bodin’s thinking on political issues was quite similar to that of thinkers of his generation, including Montaigne, Pasquier and Le Roy. These thinkers, like Bodin no longer believed that human laws and society very closely reflected the immutable principles of the divine and natural orders, but instead argued that human affairs were generally detached from these orders and were characterized by a high degree of particularity, variability and mutability. However, Bodin did say that the human political order could not subsist without some divine and natural foundation. His works are attempts to identify a new universal foundation for human laws and society, anchored in the divine and natural orders and are highly regarded in their pioneering the nation state until today.

Bodin’s treatment of the nation state appears to be motivated by his perception that the limitations of power needed to be made clear. In arguing the case for absolute monarchy, he did speak out against abusive taxation policies in outside countries, but underlined the need for a well ordered society which did away with the remaining remnants of feudalism. He saw France’s defense as neccessitating collective payment of soldiers to defend the country against a Spanish army, which was financed by silver from the New World. (This was the first standing army since the Romans’ more than a thousand years earlier.)

Incidentally, this was also the occasion on which France established a mercenary economy; it started to create revenues by keeping imports low while pushing exports and subsidizing them. Few political thinkers have been regarded to be at once as innovative and as self- contradictory as Jean Bodin, a statement that would not be totally out of line describing Europe of today. A number of his ideas were developed in the seventeenth century, in Germany, the Netherlands and England. They either reconciled apparent contradictions within his thought or exploited their ambiguity for political advantage.

It took 300 years–the time until the unification of Germany and Italy in the 19th century–before Bodin’s description of the nation-state came to dominate Europe. But his mercantilism was adopted almost immediately by every European government, large or small. It remained the reigning philosophy until Adam Smith showed the absurdity of believing (as mercantilism does) that a nation can get rich by robbing its neighbors.

Yet twenty-five years after Smith, mercantilism was still the doctrine that underlay America’s first and most important work in political theory; The Report on Manufacturers (1791) by Alexander Hamilton. And almost a century later, in the second half of the 19th century, Bismarck based the new German Empire on Bodin’s mercantilism as adapted to Europe by Hamilton’s great German admirer, Friedrich List, in his 1841 book, The National System of Political Economy. However discredited as economic theory, mercantilism, not Adam Smith’s free trade, thus became the policy and practice of governments virtually everywhere (except for one century in the UK).

The Spanish, predictably, never took a liking to Bodin. Their Counter-Reformation ideas disparaged Bodin as a politico, second only to Machiavelli in his alleged advocacy of the subordination of religion to political ends. By contrast, Italy during its Counter-Reformation heydays, did adopt some of his ideas but thinkers in this country had difficulties with his theory of sovereignty. But Bodin has left his strongest imprint on politics in France. Hence, some political commentators regret today’s Non in France and say that the French for all the reasons they may have to do away with the European ideals they themselves are among the strongest proponents for, is simply a denial of their own origins. “A continental Constitution that ensures basic human rights and dignities seems to be as much a French legacy as anyone else’s. […] we are awash in examples of people who lightly toss off their hard- earned heritage”, writes Dawn Miller, an editorial writer of WVGazette, who fails to understand the Non camp, after spending 11 days in a Parisian neighborhood.

Others have issued warnings of doom if the technocrats of Brussels continue to ride roughshod over the clearly expressed aspirations of member states, referring to recent challenges to democratic ideals that are steeped in plenty historic precedent. “There have been enough hints by the electorates of various member states in a sufficiently large number of national elections to give Brussels a sense of what needs to be done. Each time, election results that have reflected the rise of populist, anti-EU parties (such as occurred in France’s last Presidential election) have been dismissed as one-off aberrations”, writes Marshall Auerback in his international perspective on Prudentbear.com He says that as a consequence, the underlying political message is ignored and that this is storing up more trouble for the future. That is why we already see a vacuum in Brussel which is likely to only get more extensive as time goes along and no change is made in operating procedures.

Angelique van Engelen is a freelance writer based in the Netherlands, writing for http://www.contentClix.com. She writes political reports, news, features, web content brochures and research. Contact her for a free quote: Angeliqueve@contentclix.com.

If you have been following my columns (and if not, why not?), you know I am embarking on a series of articles, prompted by reader’s comments on the “Illegal Alien” issue.

Reader’s Comment Two: How could you live in a country that is so dangerous?

At first, I thought this individual was referring to the United States–I am not being sarcastic. Not until I figured out he was making a commentary on the state of criminal affairs in the country to which my wife and I had expatriated could I form a cogent reply.

There is violence in Mexico. In addition, and what may surprise some of my critics, is my admission there has been some violence against and kidnappings of some Americans. That is a fact.

I had a reader quote an article by Tracey Eaton, with the Dallas Morning News, in hopes, I suppose, of supporting his claim that crime is massively rampant in Mexico. Ms. Eaton does quote some figures and then points out, and quite correctly I might add, though the dead include

“…university students, assembly-plant workers, farm hands, businessmen, journalists, money couriers, drug gang henchmen and dozens of police officers.[1] They ALL are thought to be linked to organized crime.”

I spoke with Ms. Eaton, who agreed with me that Americans need a great deal of perspective when reading articles like this and coming to such emotively blustering conclusions that each time anyone, whether Mexican or an American expat or tourist, walks out the front door, it is time to play the “let’s dodge the bullets” game.

She told me,

“I agree with what you wrote. I lived in Mexico City inthe 1980s and again in the 1990s and I know what you mean about perspective. It’s not like you walk out your front door and have to dodge bullets.”[2]

The issue is one of perspective. Ms. Eaton agreed.

So how much crime is in Mexico? Is the criminal element that exists in Mexico killing masses of innocent Americans daily? From the hype that has been in the Minuteman Project reports and from their supporters, you would certainly think so. Also, from the State Department’s unfounded “traveler’s warnings”, you would think you do have to dodge bullets each time you dare take one step over the Mexican-American border.

You would think it must be some humdinger of a statistic to warrant the State Department’s and the Minuteman supporters’ frightening warnings.

The truth is, when Narco News reporter, Bill Conroy tried investigating this little statistical wonder, here is what he got:

“We don’t have figures to respond to this question at this time,” said Diana Page, assistant press attaché for the U.S. Embassy Mexico. “The consular section is working on helping Americans, so getting statistics together has to wait.”

Say what?

Next, Conroy filed the Freedom of Information Act with the U.S. State Department. Here was the reply from Greg Blackman, a State Department program analyst:

“… I severely doubt we have the information you’re looking for,” Blackman said. “… I have people looking into it now, so I don’t know for sure what records are kept or how yet.”
Again, I exclaim, “Say what?”

Then, what is the deal with the State Department’s warnings and the Minuteman supporters’ claim of the massive Mexican criminal element?

I cannot explain this. Who could? Perhaps God Himself could explain just how the U.S. State Department’s bureaucracy works and why they do what they do. Then again, maybe even The Almighty might have trouble doing that!

So, what is the truth about Mexican violence against Americans?

According to a report, U.S. Citizen Deaths From Non-Natural Causes, By Foreign Country, there were some interesting revelations:

“In 2003, the first full year for which homicides figures are recorded, a total of 42 U.S citizens were murdered in Mexico, the report shows. A total of 18 homicides that year occurred along the U.S.-Mexican border. In 2004, through Dec. 31, a total of 35 U.S. citizens were murdered in Mexico, with 17 of those homicides occurring along the border. That’s right. The murder rate actually dropped between 2003 and 2004″, reports Bill Conroy.

I grow weary but can manage to croak it out again, “Say what?”

I encourage a great deal of perspective when a potential expatriate or tourist is evaluating the issue of crime in deciding whether to move to or visit Mexico.

Look at this:

In Mexico in 2003, there were 13 murders per 100,000 people in the entire country. In the United States in 2003, that was the same homicide statistic for the state of Louisiana![3] These stats come from the FBI Uniform Crime Reports for the year 2003.

“Another conclusion that can be drawn from the State Department report, which some in the U.S. government might find shocking, is that Mexico appears to be a safer place to be for U.S. citizens than their own homeland. The State Department figures show that a total of 77 U.S. citizens were murdered in Mexico during the two-year period ending Dec. 31, 2004. That’s for the whole country.

By comparison, according to the FBI Uniform Crime Reports, in 2003 alone, 109 people were murdered in the mid-sized city of Milwaukee. In Washington, D.C., where State Department officials cook up their policies, a total of 248 people were murdered in 2003, the FBI report shows. New York City weighed in with 597 murders that year.” Bill Conroy NarcoNews.

So, why the hype? Americans need to learn how to detect “Phony-Boloney” when they hear it. Stay tuned and we will learn how to do thattogether.

[1] ‘It’s a war’ along the Mexican border 300 have been killed as drug crime thrives in Mexico 08:23 AM CDT on Friday, June 3, 2005 By TRACEY EATON / The Dallas Morning News

[2] Tracey Eaton in conversation with author.

[3] http://www.benbest.com/lifeext/murder.html#usa

About the Author

Doug Bower is a freelance writer, Syndicated Columnist, and book author. His newest book Mexican Living: Blogging it from a Third World Country can now be seen at http://www.lulu.com/content/126241

My, How Cumbersome!

Terry Dashner……………….Faith Fellowship Church PO Box 1586 Broken Arrow, OK 74013

His name is John Stossel. You might know him as co-anchor of ABC’s 20/20. He has written a really good book entitled, Give Me A Break How I Exposed Hucksters, Cheats, and Scam Artists and Became the Scourge of the Liberal Media… (Perennial Currents 2004).

The reason I’m commenting on his book is because it strikes a nerve with mea raw nerve at that. I love my nation. I think Government is, by and large, composed of good men and women who really do work for the common good. I believe most leaders are honest and pretty sharp; however, the system they serve is broken. The Government has become so large and cumbersome that it impedes progress. Stossel’s book supports my reasoning. Let me share some of his insights.

“Last year, the Agriculture Department paid subsidies of almost $200 million to make sure some sheep and goat ranchers made a profit. Why? Because in 1954, nine years after World War II, congressmen argued it was crucial to ‘national security’ that America have enough wool to make soldiers’ uniforms. Today most military uniforms aren’t even made of wool, but no matter, the Agriculture Department still gives the farmers handouts.”

I think the United States would have surplus monies if it would trim back its leviathan Government and stop wasting money. For example, “At the Pentagon, the accounting discrepancies total $2 trillion. ‘They may have it. They just don’t know where it is,’ David Walker, head of the General Accounting Office, told me. How can they not find that much money? Walker says the Pentagon has bought things with it, but doesn’t know what. ‘They don’t know that they have it,’ he says. ‘They may buy it again.’

“No private company could get away keeping its books that way. The investors would be all over it. It would go bankrupt. The managers might go to jail. When I said that to Walker, he answered, ‘We’re not a private company.’”

Stossel says, “There you have it. Government doesn’t have to follow the same rules. When they lose money, they just demand we give them more. And we do.” Why do we do that? Why haven’t we demanded fiscal responsibility of our Government? The Republicans blame the Democrats for spending. The Democrats blame the Republicans, and nothing significant ever gets done. We still see fraud and waste in spending. Will it ever change?

I believe that Government is essential to any society. I believe that laws should be enacted and enforced for the common good; however, I believe Government can get too big and too powerful. When our Government was first formed, it gave us basic services and taxed us a fraction of what we are taxed today. After the Stock Market crash of 1929, our Government started expanding to help the common man get back to work. Good idea, but we are still paying the bill. The Government kept growing until it became unmanageable.

Thanks to the great Reformers named Martin Luther and John Calvin, America was built on Capitalism. The free market is the foundation on which America has prospered for over 200 years. The free market continues to fuel America today, but it is ever in danger of being doused by big Government and its controls. Government services can be good, but Government can’t change and flex in short notice like Capitalism can. Competition among American merchants is good for everyone involved. But Government services can’t flex and move like free markets can. Government services are too fat, and too slow to adapt to changing markets; therefore, Government should govern and let business do what it does bestdo business. What say you?

Give Stossel’s book a read, and then write your Representative, telling her she needs to be advised. Americans are demanding a shaping up and trimming down of their Government. Pastor T. dash.

About the Author

Pastors a small church in Broken Arrow, OK. Retired police officer. United States Navy veteran. Father of three grown children.

By Doug Krieger

A STRATEGIC AND ESCHATOLOGICAL IMPERATIVE

This week (ending December 3, 2005) in Washington, D.C., the
United States and Israel, after a three-year hiatus, resumed
their “Strategic Dialogue.” This is different–very different.
Something far more significant has commenced between the two
allies facing the likes of a burgeoning insurgency fed by an
Iranian President who insists that “ISRAEL MUST BE WIPED OF THE
MAP” and a resurgent Syrian-Hezbollah-Hamas (Baathist
Socialist-Shiite-Sunni) alliance whose intentions mirror those
of Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in a “World Without Zionism”
(Haaretz).

Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev claimed the
Strategic Dialogue had broken off for “logistical reasons”–not
because tensions over upgrading Israel’s Harpy anti-radar aerial
drones, originally purchased by China in the mid-’90s under Ehud
Barak’s regime, were the actual cause of the estrangement
(Israel sent the degraded drones back to China; ipso facto, it’s
time to strategize (PINR)). Frankly, the US and Israel are
harping about something else . . .

IRAN’S NUCLEAR PROGRAM MUST BE WIPED OFF THE MAP

Targeting March of 2006, IDF Military Intelligence Chief, Major
General Aharon Ze’evi, and Ariel Sharon have given official
notification: Israel is not apt to abide the diplomatic
ineptitude of the French, Germans, and British with the Iranians
in stemming the inevitable WMD and the delivery systems now in
place to fulfill the visions of Ahmadinejad, Osama ben Laden,
and Zarqawi on behalf of Israel–let alone the aspirations of
“democratic reforms” fashioned by Egypt’s Islamic Brotherhood
(BBC)!

“‘If by the end of March 2006, the international community
(i.e., the inane efforts of the British, French, and
Germans) does not manage to use diplomatic means to block
Iran’s effort to produce a nuclear bomb, there will no longer be
any reason to continue diplomatic activity in this field, and it
will be possible to say that the international attempts to
thwart [Iran’s efforts] have failed,’ Ze’evi said.” (December 2,
2005, Haaretz) Indeed, the pivotal Brits (perennial toadies of
the US-Israeli Axis) have no need to fear a politically defunct
EU aghast at what an attack on Iran might engender throughout
the Moslem World–at least not according to John Laughland in
ICH:

“Will an attack on Iran put unacceptable strain on Euro-Atlantic
relations? Will Britain be forced further onto the horns of the
dilemma it has striven to avoid, namely to be forced to chose
between the US and the EU? No. US and British policy has ensured
that the EU will itself be in such turmoil over the next year
that it will not be able to respond in any meaningful sense to a
new act of Anglo-American aggression.”

As the “watch and see” Israelis reach “maximum
vulnerability”–the US-Israel “special relationship” may, like
the Syrian-Iranian Defense Pact of early 2005 (Fox News),
evolve–by necessity–into a far more sinister tool of Western
colonial imperialism. The Moslem World–and think not that I
stereotype all Moslems into that “world”–is fixated,
notwithstanding the ineffective fringe of moderate-secular
Islam, upon the awful and inevitable prospect:

THE US-ISRAEL DEFENSE PACT

This is a huge enchilada to swallow; thence, we shall dismember
this wildebeest in four stages: (1) The nature of such a Defense
Pact; (2) The circuitous route through Israel’s history it’s
taken; (3) Allies behind the pact; and (4) The eschatological
imperative embedded within an ultimate security agreement
between the US and Israel (let alone the scores of nations who
will sign on to such an arrangement). No, I don’t wish to sound
presumptuously prophetic; however, if you still can’t see the
elephant in the picture (having been mesmerized by the white
crane taking a free ride atop the pacaderm) then let me disabuse
you of your preposterous pigeon-vision perspective and get a bit
stereoscopic: BEHOLD, THE ELEPHANT COMETH!

First, let’s be clear, the aforementioned “strategic dialogue”
between the USA and Israel is designed to put Iran on notice:
The Elephant Cometh. Secondly, there’s no need to hide the
obvious–nothing like putting the whole world on notice, for
we’re about to see the wave peak: The Sea Change Cometh!

Now, Herr Hitler in Mein Kampf said he intended to
kill the Jews–grief, he meant what he said. Well, today you
have Radical Islamicists (who need little “doctrinal platform”
from the Koran to launch their aspirations)–double grief, they
intend to “Wipe Israel off the map.” Next, you have the
Commercial West, led by the political chutzpah of the USA and
the shock and awe of history’s most awesome military machine
ever to countenance the planet–under girded by the recalcitrant
“Bush Doctrine”–an amalgam of victorious democratic
enforcement, buttressed by the
Judeo-Christian-Evangelical-Zionist-Neocons, with the corporate
elite picking up the rear, hoping they’ll get the contracts from
this hyphenated juggernaut and the oil from not only Iraq, but
also Iran et al.

Forgive, but at this juncture, the altruistic peaceniks–you
know, the Air-head America Radio types–who have the
supercilious notion that a unilateral and immediate pullout of
American troops from Iraq and the entire Middle East, along with
keeping “international accords” and the like, will somehow
regain American stature and alleged credibility in the world.
Look, let’s just cut to the chase: The US Congress has
spoken–401 to 3. We’re staying put!

The Israelis and the US know that their “strategic-special
relationship” is not built on thin air–but upon a host of
platitudes: Shared values; Judeo-Christian beliefs; Cold War
allies; pioneer spirit (settlers); only democracy in the Middle
East; over a million Israelis holding dual US citizenship
(approximately of the nation); both are terrorized by
terrorists–the same ones; Israel’s identification with the
West, ad nausea, ad infinitum. Whoops, and as the Moslem
World sees it: Shared Western decadence and heretical religious
affirmations–right smack in the midst of the 10/40 Corridor,
the Holy Land which Saladin et all took fair and square from the
Crusaders way back when!

“Since the establishment of the State of Israel, the deepening
and strengthening of ties with the United States has always been
a central, essential issue in Israeli foreign and defense
policy. In this context, the possibility of establishing a
formal defense pact, with the United States has
arisen from time to time . . . since the end of the Cold War and
with the progress made in the peace process, some complex
elements have been added . . . it is clear that the nature of
such a pact in the current period would be significantly
different from one during the Cold-War era” (Yair Evron, Jaffe
Center for Strategic Studies-Strategic Assessment).

This only gets more specific . . . as Mr. Evron–way back in
October 1998–outlines the reasons for such a “Defense Treaty
between Israel and the U.S.” (minor editing):

1. When Israel-Syria negotiations are resumed, a defense
pact is likely to serve as part of American
‘compensation,’ offered in exchange for Israeli withdrawal from
the Golan Heights, or within the framework of American
guarantees for developing a ‘package’ of security measures,
which would undoubtedly constitute a central component of such
an agreement.

2. The subject of a defense pact, might also arise
within the context of the possible ‘leakage’ into the region
(Note: Veiled allusion here to, at the time, Iraq, and assuredly
Iran and even Syria–my edit) of nuclear materials or weapons
from Russia . . . a defense pact would be likely
to moderate or preclude the development of dangerous conditions.

3. Assuming the peace process continues, it is likely that a
regional security system will be established; an
important component of this regime would be (predicated) on (an)
Israeli-U.S. defense pact.

Again, Mr. Evron’s perceptions regarding such a defense pact
clearly grasps the overall strategic understanding between the
USA and Israel; however, if you would–strategic peculiarity–of
a defense pact occupies an “above and beyond” all Memoranda of
Understanding, all elements of the existing strategic alliance
between the two, and, most definitely, all existing
military-cultural-religio affinities to wit:

“The idea of a defense treaty arose again in the 1970s and in
the 1980s. During the Cold War period, the U.S. viewed Israel as
a ’strategic asset’ and a stabilizing influence in the region .
. . Israel clung to this perception in the hope that mutual
strategic interests would serve as a foundation strong enough to
formalize defense relations between the two countries, despite
the absence of a solution to the problem of the territories
occupied in 1967. The 1982 Lebanon War and the continuation of
the regional conflict, however, prevented such formalization,
and it appeared that the U.S. would not be prepared to protect
Israel’s borders if those borders included the occupied
territories. In the absence of a formal defense
treaty, Israel’s status was defined, for the first time,
as a Non-NATO Ally in early 1987.” (ibid. Yair Evron)

Be very clear–the U.S. and Israel know perfectly well what such
a DEFENSE TREATY entails. During the Peres government (and, who
knows, sounds like Sharon-Peres will have a government again if
their Kadima party wins in March, 2006–same time that Iran gets
the bomb) in 1996 Israel pressed for just such an accord. But,
that expectation was placed on the back burner when Netanyahu
took over as Prime Minister.

BARAK - CLINTON - AND THE DEFENSE PACT

Never mind, Ehud Barak, strolling around Camp David with
President Clinton back in 2000 knew precisely the cost of such a
DEFENSE PACT. Bruce Riedel, Clinton’s Special Assistant for Near
East and South Asian Affairs on the National Security Council
spelled out the financial ramifications and parameters of the
elusive pact in an article found on bitterlemons.org.

Riedel spent time with Barak’s aides, Danny Yatom and Zvi
Shtauber, in formulating the “defense agreement and the
compensation package” that Israel would receive if they
structured a peace deal with the U.S. Riedel related how the
Israelis came to Camp David prepared–they “placed a draft of
the DEFENSE AGREEMENT on the table along with a detailed list of
financial and security requests” (Aluf Benn, Haaretz). Now,
listen how Aluf Benn puts it:

“According to Riedel, Barak wanted a contractual format for the
strategic relations between the U.S. and Israel, which had
developed substantially over the years but lacked a formal
dimension. His proposal was to sign an agreement in
which the U.S. would agree to come to Israel’s aid in the event
of future attacks and then get the pact ratified by the American
Congress and the Knesset.”

Is that clear enough? O.K. let’s spell it out:

(1) $15 Billion in American aid–primarily upgrading the IDF (2)
$10 Billion to compensate the Palestinians (3) $10 Billion for
building desalination plants in Israel, the Palestinian state
and Jordan TOTAL: $35 Billion

Ultimately, the befuddled Riedel pondered . . .

“Two years after Camp David (2002) the tragedy of the missed
opportunity that the summit presented is clearer than ever.
Imagine a Middle East without the Intafada and with a peace
agreement buttressed by an enormous reconstruction fund, akin to
the Marshall Plan that President Truman used to rebuild Europe
after World War Two” (ibid. Aluf Benn).

PERES AND THE ELUSIVE US-ISRAEL PEACE PACT

Remember, the 82-year old Peres has wanted a US-Israeli Defense
Pact for a long time–positioning himself in the new
Sharon-Peres Alliance provides ample space to conclude such a
pact.

Back in 1995 Dore Gold contemplated Peres’ US-Israel Defense
Pact in “Is a Mutual Defense Treaty Between Israel (and) the
U.S. Needed?” He cautioned:

“Israel and the United States have already been allies without
an alliance. But taking the relationship one step further to a
formal treaty? In the past, Israel had no pretensions of being
able to defend itself against the Soviet Union; thus
U.S.-Israeli ties complemented the IDF’s independent military
power. But in the context of an Israeli-Syrian peace treaty, a
new strategic relationship could evolve into a substitute for
Israel’s self-defense capability; with enormous implications
beyond the peace process itself . . . the essence of a formal
Israeli-U.S. alliance is the recognition that an attack on
Israel is an attack on the United States itself. And if that is
the case, it can be argued that a treaty reduces the need for an
independent Israeli deterrent capability. Why not depend on the
retaliatory power of American submarines in the Mediterranean?
The alliance could thus become a useful instrument to get Israel
to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.”

WHY IS ISRAEL HESITANT IN SIGNING THE DEFENSE PACT WITH THE
USA?

Interesting, isn’t it . . . for decades Israel has “gone it
alone” - while increasingly relying upon the USA’s benevolence
and “strategic cooperation” on many fronts . . . but there’s
always been that slight, yet profound hesitancy to take the
final leap into the DEFENSE PACT? A sample of conflicted Israeli
leaders has repeatedly warned:

“I don’t recommend that any one of us accept as a substitute
(for Israel’s positions in the territories) even entering NATO,
international guarantees or American soldiers” (Moshe Dayan,
1981)

“No army is a substitute for the IDF in protecting Israel’s
security” (Yitzhak Rabin, memoirs) (Dore Gold, Jewish News
Weekly, 1995)