Friday, March 30, 2007



By Dr. Laurie Roth Ph.D. March 30, 2007

So, the drama unfolds like a B TV movie with very bad but predictable actors in Iran. You see I have watched this movie before in 1979 when 52 Americans were taken at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and held for 444 days before Ronald Reagan just hours after he became President got them out! I guess the Iranians had a moment of insight and realized that Ronald wouldn't send more therapists, negotiators and politicians…..but rather, bombs, bullets and soldiers would be his ever so empathic gesture! Power talks and terrorists walk!!!
Now, we have a replay but with our allies. Already, the Iranians play their usual media games, TV coverage of hostages, poor me attitude "they were in our water"….on and on the manipulation goes. The pathetic part is, so far, the Brits and us are playing into the whine and "give me" fest!!! I've seen this movie before, so I will give you a sneak peak as to the upcoming scenes. Next, we will see an escalation from Iran, since they have been so violated by the Brits, in seeking an immediate release and withdrawal of the sanctions on them. That won't be all. Next, they will assert their right to continue their ever so economic, nuclear program. They are already demanding from the Brits the "right attitude" of apology and admittance that the troops were in their water.
Sadly, Faye Turney, the female soldier talking on TV there, implied that the soldiers were indeed in the wrong waters……Oh Great! That really helps a ton! Of course, the satellite proof states differently but Faye, try and manipulate a release back to your 3 year old. I'm sure none of the other soldiers have loved ones and kids to worry about! However, her release ain't gonna happen now because the Brits won't apologize or admit that the troops were in Iranian water. Meanwhile, the Iran people wave placards outside demanding execution!
So, how long should the Brits and US wait? 444 days? Until several troops are killed? Until Iran has everything it wants? Until this whole action has TOTALLY emboldened all the other terrorist groups to do their own kidnapping of our troops or civilians? Terrorist groups all over, starting with Iran are at a groovy year-end sale right now. They are all looking at the prices and seeing what they can afford. What will we sell lives for? How many can they kidnap and kill? So far, this sale reveals that the thugs are getting bargain basement prices……..almost clearance prices for lives!!!! WAKE UP BRITIAN and AMERICA!!!

The only proper response regarding "talking" to Iran is to tell them HOW THINGS WILL GO IF THEY DON'T RELEASE THE BRITS WITHIN HOURS, NOT DAYS!!! We need to let them and the world KNOW THE COST OF KILLING AMERICANS AND OUR ALLIES!!!! In my view, we should be declaring war on Iran now for kidnapping soldiers of our close allies. It will be our soldiers next! What are we waiting for? Unless, for the oil price concerns, the empathy for Iranian rights and their needs, you feel that another 444 days is appropriate or execution as some are calling for?

Its time to VIVEDLY DEMAND THE TROOPS BACK IMMEDIATELY OR BOMBS WILL FLY! We must not play the nuclear card by saying we will bomb their nuclear reactor sites if they don't release the troops etc…..why???? Because that is a REAL and growing threat anyway that we MUST respond to soon!!! So, why give them any leverage regarding safe traveling with their nuclear program? The nuclear sites should be bombed anyway and soon!!!!! There must be NO safe ground or negotiating ground the nukes and Iran!!!!! We all must grow a back bone and stand up to the Iranians NOW!!!
© 2007 Dr. Laurie Roth - All Rights Reserved
Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts
Laurie Roth has a Ph.D. in Counseling and held a small private practice for many years. She earned a black belt in Tae Kwon Do. In the late 90's, Laurie hosted and produced a successful PBS television show called "CD Highway" that aired nationally on 130 TV stations.
Tune in to The Roth Show, Weeknights from 7:00 to 10:00 pm PAC and find out for yourself! You can listen live on cable radio network (live on the internet) channel 6 or visit The Roth Show web site and click on "where to listen" Call the Roth Show at: 1-800-837-9680



By Dennis L. Cuddy, Ph.D. March 26, 2007

When President Bush originally announced the U.S. invasion of Iraq, he called it Operation Iraqi Liberation----OIL. Think that was coincidental? One of the first messages he sent to the Iraqi people at the time was "Do not destroy oil wells."
The press and media have downplayed the role oil played regarding the American military engagement in Iraq, but in the expanded addendum to my COVER-UP book, written April 26 and May 1, 2003, I explained that in addition to the prominent role of the Project for the New American Century, there was another important group developing plans for Iraq.
About this lesser known, but extremely important, group I wrote that it was "an independent task force sponsored by the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy of Rice University and the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). In addition to Enron chairman Kenneth Lay, the task force included many oil executives such as John Manzoni (British Petroleum), Steven Miller (Shell Oil), David O'Reilly (ChevronTexaco), and Jefferson Seabright (Texaco). Thomas McLarty of Kissinger McLarty Associates was also a member, and Stephen Oxman (Rhodes scholar, who was an Assistant Secretary of State in the Clinton Administration) was an observer. CFR president Leslie Gelb thanked the task force for 3 "complicated video conferences and teleconferences" (almost a year BEFORE the attacks of September 11, 2001), which resulted in the report, "Strategic Energy Policy Challenges for the 21st Century."
Relevant to the war against the Taliban in Afghanistan, the report indicated that "the exports from oil discoveries in the Caspian Basin could be hastened if a secure, economical export route could be identified swiftly....The option exists to downplay diplomatic activities that dictate certain geopolitical goals for specific transportation routes for Caspian oil in favor of immediate commercial solutions that may be sought by individual oil companies for short-term exports of 'early' oil, including exports through Iran." Note particularly the phrase "downplay diplomatic activities that dictate certain geopolitical goals." In other words, they do not want to call attention to "certain geopolitical goals" that may be driving their actions.
And relevant to the war with Iraq, the task force report stated: "Iraq remains a destabilizing influence to U.S. allies in the Middle East, as well as to regional and global order, and to the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East. Saddam Hussein has also demonstrated a willingness to threaten to use the oil weapon and to use his own export program to manipulate oil markets. This would display his personal power, enhance his image as a 'Pan Arab' leader supporting the Palestinians against Israel, and pressure others for a lifting of economic sanctions against his regime. The United States should conduct an immediate policy review toward Iraq, including military, energy, economic, and political/diplomatic assessments. The United States should then develop an integrated strategy with key allies in Europe and Asia and with key countries in the Middle East to re-state the goals with respect to Iraqi policy and to restore a cohesive coalition of key allies. Like it or not, Iraqi reserves represent a major asset that can quickly add capacity to world oil markets and inject a more competitive tenor to oil trade...."
But what if you don't want to "add capacity" and have "a more competitive" market?
What if you want to limit the availability of oil in order to drive up prices? On March 18, Greg Palast published "It's Still the Oil: Secret Condi Meeting on Oil Before Invasion," in which he wrote that "in 2005, after a two-year battle with the State and Defense Departments, they released to my team at BBC Newsnight the 'Options for a Sustainable Iraqi Oil Industry.' Now, you might think our government shouldn't be writing a plan for another nation's oil. Well, our government didn't write it, despite the State Department seal on the cover. In fact, we discovered that the 323-page plan was drafted in Houston by oil industry executives and consultants. The suspicion is that Bush went to war to get Iraq's oil. That's not true. The document, and secret recordings of those in on the scheme, made it clear that the Administration wanted to make certain America did not get the oil. In other words, keep the lid on Iraq's oil production----and thereby keep the price of oil high."
Palast went on to explain that the report said Iraq should be required to remain an obedient member of the OPEC cartel and stick to the oil-production limits---"quotas"---which keep up oil prices. Palast continued: "And that's undoubtedly why Condoleezza Rice asked Fadhil Chalabi to take charge of Iraq's Oil Ministry. As former chief operating officer of OPEC, the oil cartel, Fadhil was a Big Oil favorite....Fadhil turned down Condi's offer....Ultimately, Iraq's Oil Ministry was given to Fadhil's tribesman, Ahmad Chalabi, a convicted bank swindler....But whichever Chalabi is nominal head of Iraq's oil industry in Baghdad, the orders come from Houston. Indeed, the oil law adopted by Iraq's shaky government this month is virtually a photocopy of the 'Options' plan first conceived in Texas long before Iraq was 'liberated.' In other words, the war has gone exactly to plan---the Houston plan."
The facts are that before the war, Iraq's oil production was 4 million barrels a day, and now it is down to 2.1 million barrels. Today oil is $57 a barrel compared to $18 a barrel before the Bush presidency.
Who specifically has benefited from the war? In my expanded addendum to my COVER-UP book, I wrote that "after the war with Iraq commenced, ABC News on March 22, 2003, related that 'weeks before the first bombs dropped in Iraq, the Bush administration began rebuilding plans.' Referring to 'Secret Bids,' ABC News indicated that it had 'obtained a copy of a 99-page contract worth $600 million....Among the companies believed to be bidding are Bechtel...and Halliburton, Vice-President Cheney's old firm'." Halliburton's primary business is "oil services," such as drilling and piping equipment. And since the war began, Halliburton's stock has tripled in value to $64 a share.
Also, do you remember President Bush's message to the Iraqis as the war began----"Do not destroy oil wells"? Well, guess who got the contract to extinguish oil well fires. It was U.S. contractor Kellogg Brown and Root, a subsidiary of Halliburton. And concerning the oil companies, the value of the 5 biggest companies' oil reserves has more than doubled during the war to $2.36 trillion. Specifically regarding Exxon-Mobil, its record profit of $10 billion last quarter is the largest of any corporation in history !
The power elite who are running the world know exactly what they are doing, and the war in Iraq is part of their long-range plan leading toward a World Socialist Government. One of their key agents is European Union High Representative Javier Solana, about whom I have written before. And on February 14 of this year in New York, he delivered a speech at the Arthur Burns Dinner, in which he stated that "it is true to say that the future global system will be a system of continents and continent-wide regimes, such as the European Union, African Union and ASEAN Plus." He also stressed "strengthening regional cooperation," and said that "in today's world, we must be ready to transcend the inter-state paradigm."
This basically is following Cecil Rhodes' plan "to take the government of the whole world" by linking regional associations, as explained by Rhodes' Association of Helpers member P.E. Corbett in POST-WAR WORLDS (1942). Perhaps the most recent example of the formation of a regional association (involving trade, security, etc.) is the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP), which includes the U.S., Canada and Mexico. And in the SPP's "Report to Leaders, June 2005," one finds language such as "we need integrated, coordinated and seamless measures," and "increased economic integration," and "this Partnership is designed to be a dynamic, permanent process." Get the idea? This is to be "permanent," and "economic integration" means that if Mexico's economy goes in the tank, the U.S. and Canada will also be severely damaged ! Why would any American leader want this type of arrangement?
And perhaps the most recent example of the "linking" of regional arrangements can be found in the the first sentence of the March 20, 2007, FINANCIAL TIMES article, "EU and US to begin single market push," which states: "The European Union and the U.S. will next month start an ambitious initiative to harmonize regulations, norms and technical standards in up to 40 economic and industrial sectors, laying the cornerstone for a single market between the two regions." Note the article even used the word, "region," when referring to the U.S.
The power elite's technique of accomplishing their ultimate goal is to use the gradual approach, otherwise known as the "(Jean) Monnet" method, which was used to condition the people of Europe eventually to accept the European Union, after first having the European Economic Community. This approach began almost a hundred years ago, at about the time Sigmund Freud's nephew, Edward Bernays, authored PROPAGANDA (1928), in which he boasted that they could "manipulate the organized habits and opinions of the masses."
One of the most effective vehicles for manipulating or conditioning "the masses" is to use the public schools----a captive audience of young minds. In this regard, by the 1960s the "progressive education" followers of John Dewey had gained control of the schools down to the classroom level, and changed the emphasis from the cognitive domain (academic basics) to the affective domain (social relationships and feelings). This is because feelings are more manipulable and subject to conditioning. Have you noticed that for the last couple of decades people are more often asked how they "feel" about something rather than what they "think" about it?

To be sure, public schools have not been the only place in which the conditioning process was occurring. The Entertainment industry also has proved useful to the power elite in this regard. For example, rock music de-emphasizes lyrics about which one would "think," instead emphasizing the "beat" which gives one a hyper "feeling." According to Dr. Jack Wheaton, this "triggers major subconscious emotional responses in the body...that can easily overpower the higher reasoning portions of the brain and bring about uncontrollable physiological, psychological, and spiritual changes that are often in direct conflict with Biblical teachings."

Also regarding entertainment, just witness the recent popularity of the movie (and book), "The DaVinci Code," in which Jesus is said to have had sex with Mary Magdalene. How is this an example of conditioning the masses. It brings Jesus down to the level of being just another human rather than God. That's the "feeling" engendered. But if you "think" about it, it makes no sense for Jesus to have sex with a woman. After all, Jesus is God and can do anything. Therefore, He is perfectly capable of instantly thinking Himself into a state of ecstasy far greater than any human sexual activity produces. "Think" about it, and resist the machinations of the power elite who seek to control us.
© 2007 Dennis Cuddy - All Rights Reserved
Order Dennis Cuddy's new book "Cover-Up: Government Spin or Truth?"
Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts
E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale
Dennis Laurence Cuddy, historian and political analyst, received a Ph.D. from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (major in American History, minor in political science). Dr. Cuddy has taught at the university level, has been a political and economic risk analyst for an international consulting firm, and has been a Senior Associate with the U.S. Department of Education.
Cuddy has also testified before members of Congress on behalf of the U.S. Department of Justice. Dr. Cuddy has authored or edited twenty books and booklets, and has written hundreds of articles appearing in newspapers around the nation, including The Washington Post, Los Angeles Times and USA Today. He has been a guest on numerous radio talk shows in various parts of the country, such as ABC Radio in New York City, and he has also been a guest on the national television programs USA Today and CBS's Nightwatch.

Iran and America

Iran and America
By James A. Lyons Jr.Published March 29, 2007

The Iranian-staged capture of 15 British service members who were clearly in Iraqi waters needs to be seen as another blatant "act of war" against the United States. This time, the mullahs' target was the United Kingdom, America's closest ally in the war against terrorism. This was a calculated act by Iran either in response to the United Nations Security Council's sanctions against Iran for its failure to comply with the call to cease its nuclear enrichment program or more likely in retaliation for the five Iranian Revolutionary Guard Quds personnel captured in Iraq distributing munitions and other support to the insurgents. This is the same tactic Hezbollah and Hamas, acting under the guidance of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, have used against Israel for years to obtain the release of terrorists. The question is: What are we going to do about it? I am sure that part of the calculus that went into the Ayatollah and his hard-line council of advisers decision to capture the British military personnel was the nonsupport shown by our Congress for our troops and the president; thereby, leading them to believe we would be incapable of responding to their aggression. The same can be said for the British Parliament with regard to its nonsupport of their Prime Minister, Tony Blair. We cannot turn the other cheek again and look weak and embarrassed in the eyes of the world. We must stand firmly with our ally on this blatant act of war. Our credibility as well as our honor is on the line. Further, our response or lack thereof will have a major impact on whether we can achieve our objectives in Iraq. In November 1979, when our embassy was sacked and our diplomats were taken hostage, I recommended to the then-acting chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Tom Hayward, that our only good option really was to capture Kharg Island, Iran's principal oil export depot. If we did this, we could negotiate from a position of strength for the immediate return of our embassy and our diplomats. Unfortunately, the Carter administration rejected any offensive operations as a means of responding to this blatant act of war against the United States. We were humiliated and seemed to the world to lack the courage to defend our honor. Thankfully, we were not faced with a Falklands Island situation because we did not have a Margaret Thatcher but surely needed one. There is no time to waste. Immediate diplomatic and military pressure must be brought to bear to obtain the immediate release of the British sailors and marines. While our State Department and the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office work to obtain U.N. and allied condemnation of Iran's illegal act, the Joint Chiefs of Staff need to develop or refine a series of military options that can be immediately carried out when directed by the commander in chief, President Bush after coordination with Prime Minister Tony Blair. One such option should be the capture of Kharg Island. That could be viewed as part of a larger economic sanction that the U.N. Security Council has already endorsed. It is not an attack against the Iranian people. In fact, it could further encourage the popular antigovernment movement against the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's corrupt and already shaky regime. The economic cost to Iran would be catastrophic at minimum. Most of all, such a move would end almost 30 years of our Iranian appeasement policy, demonstrating to Tehran we finally mean business. If Iran fails to respond to this measured action, we must be prepared to execute more forceful options. The choice would be Iran's to make. James A. Lyons Jr., U.S. Navy retired admiral, is a former commander in chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet and senior U.S. military representative to the United Nations. As deputy chief of naval operations, he was principal adviser on Joint Chiefs of Staff matters.

70 tornados strike, killing 4 across US plains

A huge spring storm unfurled more than 70 tornados across six American states, killing four people and injuring more than a dozen, US media reported today.
The succession of tornados, which caused deaths in Colorado, Oklahoma and Texas and damage in Illinois, Kansas and Nebraska, began on Wednesday evening and continued until yesterday afternoon, hurling down snow, rain and outsized hailstones across a broad belt of American plains.
In Holly, a town of 1,500 people in southeastern Colorado, a woman was killed when she and two children were thrown into a tree after a tornado more than 200m (700ft) across zigzagged its way across the town, levelling houses, killing cattle and tearing up trees. Rosemary Rosales, 28, died in hospital and 11 other people were treated for injuries.
Another fatal twister struck Beaver County, in western Oklahoma. Residents of the rural community of Elmwood described a tornado hauling across the ground for more than 20 minutes. The storm sirens were sounded but could not save Vance and Barbra Woodbury, whose house was destroyed.
''There was no house left,'' Dixie Parker, a state emergency official told The New York Times. ''It was demolished, and we found them in the field. One was still alive, the husband. He passed away just before the ambulance got there.''
A woman who took refuge in her bathtub when the tornado descended told ABC News: "We were sitting in the living room watching TV. And all of a sudden, the power went out, and it wasn't like thunder that comes and goes. It was a solid rumble. And I looked at Ralph and we said, 'That's a tornado sound.'
"So we ran for the inside bathroom and jumped in the tub. And - while we were in there, we could hear the wind, turning over and over, and going over the house. And I also could hear water being sucked through the pipes because of air pressure."
Over the state line to the south, storms battered the Texas Panhandle, injuring three people and killing an oilfield worker, Monte Ford, 53, whose trailer home was overturned outside Amarillo, the largest city in the region. Rain and hail were thrown across the state and 19in of snow were reported to have fallen in Carbon County, Wyoming, around 500 miles away.
The National Weather Service recorded 67 tornados in its storm report for Wednesday and a further 4 yesterday. The final serious tornado struck in Oklahoma City, critically injuring two people and damaging 50 buildings.
"An 18-wheeler was blown over, eight to 10 cars are in a ditch, power poles are broken, trees are overturned, there's heavy roof damage, outbuildings destroyed," said Ty Judd, a National Weather Service meteorologist. "We can safely call that a tornado."

ABC News has learned that Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi plans to visit Syria next week to meet with President Bashar Al-Assad

White House Criticizes Pelosi's Syria Trip
House Speaker Leads Delegation to Syria, White House Calls Trip 'Bad Idea'
March 30, 2007— - ABC News has learned that Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi plans to visit Syria next week to meet with President Bashar Al-Assad. The visit will make Pelosi the most senior U.S. official ever to meet with President Assad.
White House spokesperson Dana Perino strongly criticized Pelosi's planned visit, saying, "We think it is a really bad idea."
"People should take a stop back and think about the message it sends and the message it sends to our allies," Perino said.
Pelosi will be traveling to Syria has part of a congressional delegation with five other members of the House of Representatives, including one Republican.
As part of the trip, she also plans to visit several other countries in the region, including Israel, where she will deliver a speech to the Knesset.
Pelosi's visit to Syria would come as the United States has severed high-level contacts with Assad's government. The administration recalled the U.S. ambassador to Damascus after the February 2005 assassination of Rafik Hariri in Lebanon. There has been very little high- or mid-level U.S. contact with Syria since then.
Last December, a delegation of four senators visited Syria, a trip that was made over the objections of the Bush Administration. At the time, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice criticized the trip as unhelpful.
Traveling with Pelosi will be Reps. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., Nick Rahall, D-West Virginia, Tom Lantos, D-Calif., Henry Waxman, D-Calif., and David Hobson, R-Ohio.
Copyright © 2007 ABC News Internet Ventures

The dehydration death of a nation

The dehydration death of a nation
Posted: March 30, 20071:00 a.m. Eastern
By Bobby Schindler
Saturday, March 31, will mark the two-year anniversary of my sister Terri Schiavo's death by dehydration. Not a day passes that my family does not think of my sister and relive the horrific images of her needless and brutal death at the hands of those who deliberately set out to kill her.
As hideous as it was, the truth is, long before Terri's case made headlines, the removal of basic care – food and water – was becoming commonplace. It continues to happen every day across our country oftentimes in cases, like Terri's, where the patient does not suffer from any life-threatening condition.
Much of the problem that exists stems from a blind acceptance of misinformation that has moved us from a firm belief in the sanctity of life to a "quality of life" mindset, which says that some lives are not worth living.
This shift, what I call lethal bigotry, began with the medical community, has infiltrated our judiciary and is taking over our nation. People are making decisions in place of God, while even many Catholic leaders remain silent despite the Church's teaching and the pope's constant reminders that God alone is the arbiter of life and death.
The sad fact is we have become a nation that spends billions trying to find the perfect body, while ignoring the condition of our collective soul; where altruism seems to be a thing of the past, and moral relativism has become a bona fide religion.
Combined with a popular media selling the notion that killing people in certain conditions is an act of compassion, one can understand why people with disabilities are in danger.
My sister's case is a perfect example. Look how the popular media presented Terri's story, abandoning any attempt at objective or ethical reporting in their rush to justify her death. In an effort to dehumanize Terri, they repeatedly reported she was in a coma, brain dead, a "vegetable" and that the autopsy proved she was in a persistent vegetative state, all of which are patently false.
All one has to do is watch the videos of Terri to see how alive she was. If that's not enough, more than 40 medical affidavits stated Terri wasn't in PVS and/or could have been helped with new medical technology.
The media chose to ignore all of this, instead reporting what Terri wasn't able to do and referencing a doctor who took pride in the moniker, "Dr. Humane Death."
They painted a story of a husband's unconditional love as he carried out his wife's "wish" to die, completely ignoring the fact that there was no evidence of this and that Michael essentially abandoned Terri as soon as he began living with his new wife-to-be.
They framed this as a strictly pro-life issue, ignoring the 30 disability groups publicly supporting Terri's life.
They quoted Catholic priests who agreed with her "husband's" position, despite the fact this was completely contrary to Catholic teaching.
Completely unaware of their own hypocrisy, they commended Christopher Reeve's wife, Dana, and rightly so, for her dedication in caring for her husband, while vilifying my parents for wanting to do the same thing for their daughter.
In the same vein, they repeatedly questioned the intent of our legal team while glossing over the fact that Schiavo's attorney, George Felos, admitted in his book to having violent images of bludgeoning his wife to death.
They chastised former Gov. Jeb Bush for doing his job by trying to stop the two-week dehydration death of an innocent disabled woman, but praised him when he placed a moratorium on death row executions after a lethal injection went 15 minutes too long.
They justify the destruction of embryos to produce stem cells (ignoring both the success of adult stem cells and that embryonic cells have produced no cures), reporting that their use will improve the lives of the disabled, and at the same time they work to convince the public that it is OK to kill the very same people they say this research could cure.
And, finally, they paid more respect to and had more compassion for a racehorse than they did my sister.
To this day, every story in which a person emerges from a condition similar to Terri's, or an advance is found to help the severely brain-injured, is an opportunity for the media to remind us that, of course, "this is nothing like the case of Terri Schiavo."
Should we be surprised with what is happening when we have so easily bought into what our popular media is promoting? Or that even people like Bill O'Reilly, who claim to be both conservative and Catholic, can be so ignorant on this issue as to raise the idea that if someone "costs" taxpayers too much money, it should be OK to kill them?
This is the same propaganda used by the medical community in Nazi Germany immediately prior to the Holocaust when hospitals were used to kill at least 200,000 handicapped, mentally ill and others who were deemed physically or mentally inferior.
Unfortunately, I don't know if people realize how the mainstream media influences their everyday lives, or the scope of what is happening in our hospitals. Perhaps, more accurately, they just don't care.
With tens of thousand in conditions similar to and even worse than Terri's, we should be alarmed. While many would prefer not to educate themselves on this issue, the cold reality is that one day this "quality of life" approach could very well impact their families, as it did ours.
We will never forget Terri.
This is why, in the years since Terri's death, we have worked, through the Terri Schindler Schiavo Foundation to protect the lives of the vulnerable. We are developing a nationwide network of attorneys and physicians to help families in desperate situations, whose loved ones are in danger of being killed … for the simple reason that they don't meet some arbitrary and subjective "quality of life" standard. We will continue fighting against those that threaten the lives of the disabled, until all are protected.
Terri and others like her should be a constant reminder to all of us that caring for the disabled is never a burden, but is instead an act God's unconditional love.

America unprepared for 'likely' nuke attackPublic awareness campaign is only hope, says 3-year University of Georgia study

America unprepared for 'likely' nuke attackPublic awareness campaign is only hope, says 3-year University of Georgia study
Posted: March 30, 20071:00 a.m. Eastern
By Joseph Farah
© 2000>© 2007
New York CityWASHINGTON – The most extensive study of the effects of nuclear detonations in four major U.S. cities paints a grim picture of millions of deaths, overwhelmed hospitals and loss of command-and-control capability by government.
But the three-year study by researchers at the Center for Mass Destruction Defense at the University of Georgia says a concerted effort to teach civilians what to do in the event of a nuclear attack is the best – perhaps only – thing that could save an untold number of lives that will otherwise be needlessly lost.
"If a nuclear detonation were to occur in a downtown area, the picture would be bleak there," said Cham Dallas, director of the program and professor in the college of pharmacy. "But in urban areas farther from the detonation, there actually is quite a bit that we can do. In certain areas, it may be possible to turn the death rate from 90 percent in some burn populations to probably 20 or 30 percent – and those are very big differences – simply by being prepared well in advance."
(Story continues below)
While America was once prepared for nuclear war with civil defense shelters stocked with food and supplies and educational programs on how to react to a detonation, the report says the threat of a nuclear attack within the U.S. has grown significantly in recent years.
"The likelihood of a nuclear attack in an American city is steadily increasing, and the consequences will be overwhelming," said Dallas. "So we need to substantially increase our preparation."
The study looked at the impact of nuclear detonations of two sizes in New York, Washington, Chicago and Atlanta. Both 20-kiloton and 550-kiloton blasts were modeled in what the authors claim is the most advanced and detailed simulation published in open scientific literature.

The entire report, which also takes into account prevailing weather patterns and block-level population data from the U.S. Census Bureau, is published in the March issue of the International Journal of Health Geographics.
In the study's worst-case scenario, one 550-kiloton detonation in New York City was shown to result in a fallout plume extending the length of Long Island, resulting in the deaths of 5 million.
A similar weapon detonated in the nation's capital would destroy hospitals in Washington, but its fallout cloud would also incapacitate hospitals as far away as Baltimore, a city 40 miles from the District of Columbia.
Even a relatively small 20-kiloton blast in a downtown area would result in almost unimaginable devastation – leaving debris tens of feet thick in streets with buildings 10 stories or higher. Roughly half the population in those areas would be killed, mainly from collapsed buildings. Most of those surviving the initial blast would be exposed to a fatal dose of radiation.
The larger bomb would create additional and substantial casualties from burns. Mass fires would consume cities, reaching out nearly four miles in all directions from the detonation site.
"The hospital system has about 1,500 burn beds in the whole country, and of these maybe 80 to 90 percent are full at any given time," said William Bell, senior research scientist and a faculty member of the college of public health. "There's no way of treating the burn victims from a nuclear attack with the existing medical system."
The report points out hospitals, trauma centers and other medical assets are likely to be in "the fatality plume," rendering them essentially inoperable in the crisis.
"Among the consequences of this outcome would be the probable loss of command-and-control, mass casualties that will have to be treated in an unorganized response by hospitals on the periphery, as well as other expected chaotic outcomes from inadequate administration in a crisis," says the report. "Vigorous, creative and accelerated training and coordination among the federal agencies tasked for WMD response, military resources, academic institutions and local responders will be critical for large-scale WMD events involving mass casualties."
Bell said a 20-kiloton nuclear weapon could be manufactured by terrorists and countries such as North Korea and Iran. The larger warhead is commonly found in the nuclear arsenal of the former Soviet Union and is likely to be stolen by terrorists.
The report confirms other findings that America is extremely vulnerable to a nuclear attack and unprepared to deal with its aftermath.
In a July 31, 2005, confidential memo to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Pentagon analyst John Brinkerhoff concluded: "The United States is unprepared to mitigate the consequences of a nuclear attack. We were unable to find any group of office with a coherent approach to this very important aspect of homeland security."
In other words, after having spent more than $300 billion to protect the homeland in the last five years, America is no closer to a civil defense strategy for a nuclear strike by terrorists.
"This is a bad situation," wrote Brinkerhoff. "The threat of a nuclear attack is real, and action is needed now to learn how to deal with one."
Bits and pieces of a plan are in place, as Brinkerhoff suggests. For instance, the Energy Department's Lawrence Livermore Laboratory is geared up to use real-time weather data, within minutes of a bombing, to create a computer model charting the likely path of a radioactive cloud. There's just one problem. There is no communications system in place designed to reach the people most in need of the information.
The government's own National Planning Scenario projects even a small, improvised 10-kiloton nuclear bomb would likely kill hundreds of thousands in a medium-sized city. The carnage was estimated at 204,600 dead in Washington, D.C. – with another 90,800 injured or sickened. Another 24,580 would likely die of thyroid cancer later because the simple compound potassium iodide, which can prevent it, was not made available to civilians in advance of the disaster.
President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and the 9/11 commission have all concluded a nuclear terrorist attack is not only the nation's No. 1 nightmare but also something of an inevitability at some time in the future.
The University of Georgia study calls for a public awareness campaign to teach civilians what to do in the event of a nuclear attack. Even simple measures, the researchers point out, can save many lives. For instance, since radioactive clouds move downwind, a person can determine which way the wind is blowing and flee in a perpendicular direction to the wind. Even on foot, people can move one to five miles can be the difference between life and death. On the other hand, though, people in areas upwind from the detonation site are better off staying put.
Dallas is scheduled to address the United Nations for the second time in as many years where he will discuss options for repairing the crumbling sarcophagus surrounding the reactor that triggered the Chernobyl nuclear disaster in 1986. He will also talk about the consequences of a nuclear attack and what nations can do about it.
"We want to try to encourage people to pay attention to this, because it's not all the end of the world," said Dallas. "There are actually steps that one can take to save lives. But we're running out of time."
The Center for Mass Destruction Defense is funded by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. It is dedicated to reducing casualties and social disruption from weapons of mass destruction and natural disasters.

Pakistan to support Iran in case of US attack: Rashid

Pakistan to support Iran in case of US attack: Rashid

RAWALPINDI: Federal Minister for Railways Shaikh Rashid Ahmed while expressing fear of a US attack on Iran has categorically stated that Pakistan would never offend a Muslim neighbour at the cost of a fair-weather friend, the US.“We would support Iran if attacked by the United States and would not provide airbases to America,” he stated in categorical terms.Addressing a ceremony held in connection with Pakistan Day celebrations at Lal Hawaili here on Friday, Rashid said it is now Iran's term after the US attacked Iraq and Afghanistan. “The US is sitting ready to attack Iran but Pakistan will never allow Washington to use its territory for launching an attack,” he added.Being a nuclear state, the responsibility of Pakistan has increased manifold as far as conflicts in the region are concerned. “Pakistan is in a leading position for the Muslim Ummah and it would be impossible for Pakistan to support America in this regard.”“We have decided in clear terms that we will support Iran instead of America if any aggression is initiated against Iran,” he said. “We cannot leave our best friend for the sake of a fair-weather friend,” he added.He said Pakistan came into being in the name of Islam and it is our responsibility to make Pakistan a progressive and prosperous by following the teachings of Islam.Rashid said other Muslim countries are full of resources but being a nuclear power, Pakistan is the only country that would lead the Muslim Ummah.Commenting on the current crisis in the country, the minister said the government has to face some hardships in the present political situation but things would become normal after two or three months.About Indo-Pak talks, Rashid said Islamabad has a friendly and peaceful policy towards New Delhi but “one should not consider it our weakness”. “We can defend ourselves at the time of test,” he added.

Is the Army headed for collapse?

Is the Army headed for collapse?
By Robert H. Scales
Published March 30, 2007

If you haven't heard the news, I'm afraid your Army is broken, a victim of too many missions for too few soldiers for too long. Today we have deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan all of our fighting brigades, both active and reserve. Every brigade save one in Korea has spent time in combat. Twenty have two tours there, nine have three and two have four. Some of these brigades' one-year deployments were extended by several months. To demonstrate the gravity of the problem, let's do the math. After the surge the nation will need to keep 33 brigades, each consisting of about 3,000 soldiers, in the field. Past experience tells us that three brigades are needed to keep one continuously in the fight (one recovering and one training up to support each deployed brigade). The Army could in theory maintain itself in combat indefinitely using such a scheme. From a human perspective, a three-for-one schedule would allow each soldier two years back for every year in combat. That is tough but sustainable. So, that means we need a total of 99 brigades to support 33 in the fight. Sorry to say, we only have about half that number available to the Army and Marine Corps. The Army has paid an enormous price for too few brigades chasing too many missions. What the math tells us in practical terms is that today soldiers are getting a year off for every year in Iraq. Soon that period at home will shrink to only nine months home for every year deployed. It's important to understand what these back-to-back deployments mean in human terms. Take a brigade with only nine months between trips to Iraq. Upon return, it will lose over half its soldiers due to rotations, school dates and soldiers leaving the service. The first three months back will be devoted to block leave so that soldiers can reunite with their families. The next two months are needed to assimilate new arrivals. At least two months are needed on the other end to prepare the brigade's equipment for the return trip to Iraq. That leaves only four months to train at the local level — too little time for a combat unit to bond and coalesce into a first-class fighting outfit. Past experience tells us that it takes at least a year to build a first-rate small unit. Like a fine wine, making superb small units cannot be rushed. Commanders stay awake at night worrying that their companies and platoons will go to war as a collection of strangers. Nine months between deployments will guarantee this condition. The time-between-deployment problem ("dwell time") has become so acute that Army planners, borrowing a phrase from Wal-Mart, are talking about "just-in-time deployment," meaning that units are being rushed through training to arrive in Iraq just in time. In the past, attendance at the Army's superb National Training Centers in California, Germany and Louisiana was supposed to be a finishing exercise where brigades topped off their skills in realistic and demanding maneuvers. Today, these centers are used to do the most basic skill training in order to get units in the best shape possible so as to arrive in combat "just in time." Bean counters in the Pentagon tell us that Army recruitment and retention are in good shape. Problem is, our cumbersome readiness reporting system only informs leaders in Washington of conditions on the ground many months after the force begins to break. Today, anecdotal evidence of collapse is all around. Past history makes some of us sensitive to anecdotes and distrustful of Pentagon statistics. The Army's collapse after Vietnam was presaged by a desertion of mid-grade officers (captains) and non-commissioned officers. Many were killed or wounded. Most left because they and their families were tired and didn't want to serve in units unprepared for war. If we lose our sergeants and captains, the Army breaks again. It's just that simple. That's why these soldiers are still the canaries in the readiness coal-mine. And, again, if you look closely, you will see that these canaries are fleeing their cages in frightening numbers. The lesson from this sad story is simple: When you fight a long war with a long-service professional Army, the force you begin with will not get any larger or better over the duration of the conflict. For that reason, today's conditions are pretty much irreversible. There's not much that money, goodwill or professed support for the troops can do. Another strange consequence is that the current political catfight over withdrawal dates is made moot by the above facts. We're running out of soldiers faster than we're running out of warfighting missions. The troops will be coming home soon. There simply are too few to sustain the surge for very much longer. Retired Maj. Gen. Robert H. Scales is a former commander of the Army War College.

US financial sources in Bahrain report American investors in Bahrain advised to pack up business operations and leave

DEBKAfile Exclusive: US financial sources in Bahrain report American investors in Bahrain advised to pack up business operations and leave
March 30, 2007, 3:56 PM (GMT+02:00)
The advice came from officers with US Central Command 5th Fleet HQ at Manama, who spoke of security tension, a hint at an approaching war with Iran. Arab sources report the positioning of a Patriot anti-missile battery in Bahrain this week; they say occupancy at emirate hotels has soared past 90% due mostly to the influx of US military personnel. They also report Western media crews normally employed in military coverage are arriving in packs.
Thursday, March 29, Gen. Khaled al-‘Absi, Bahrain’s chief of air defense operations disclosed that new alarm networks had been installed and air defense systems upgraded to handle chemical, biological and radioactive attacks.
The USS Nimitz and its support ships will be departing San Diego Monday, April 2, to join the John C. Stennis Strike Group in the Persian Gulf. The nuclear carrier is due to relieve the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower , but military sources in the Gulf believe all three US carriers will stay put if tensions continue to climb or if fighting breaks out involving American, British and Iranian forces.
The mighty American armada is further supported by the USS Bataan and USS Boxer strike groups.
War tensions have been triggered most recently by the crisis over the seized British sailors and large-scale US sea, air and amphibious exercises in the Gulf.
1. DEBKAfile’s Tehran sources report that in the contest within the Iranian leadership over how to handle the affair of the captured British seamen, the wildest radical element has gained the upper hand, reducing the prospects of their imminent release. Heading the tough Tehran faction are hardline president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Gen. Rahim Safavi, commander of the Revolutionary Guards whose naval wing performed the seizure.
They gained strength from the British premier Tony Blair’s initial passive, semi-conciliatory response. Tehran quickly grasped it had acquired not just a propaganda tool but a military asset, which the UK cannot match as long as the Americans desist from throwing their military might into the fray. Washington has refused to risk of a full-scale war confrontation with the Revolutionary Guards for the sake of the British sailors.
Iranian strategists also registered that, although the Blair government has begun moving mountains to gain the freedom of the marine crew held in Tehran, London appeared fairly laid back about the kidnap of BBC correspondent Alan Johnston in broad daylight by gunmen in Palestinian Gaza, although three weeks had gone by.
Revolutionary Guards serving with Palestinian terrorist groups in Gaza no doubt filed a full report on the Johnston case to Tehran, which drew its own conclusions.
2. Taking part in the big demonstration of American naval, air and marine force launched March 27 are the two nuclear carrier strike forces Stennis and Eisenhower , thousands of marines and 100 warplanes. Maneuvers on this scale in the tight, overcrowded waters of the Persian Gulf carry risks of a collision between American and Iranian craft.
DEBKAfile’s military sources report that the Nimitz group is composed of the Princeton guided-missile cruiser, four guided missile destroyers – the Higgins , Chafee , John Paul Jones and Pinckney . The strike force is armed with two helicopter squadrons and a special unit for dismantling sea mines and other explosive devices.
Earlier, DEBKAfile quoted intelligence sources in Moscow as predicting that a US strike against Iranian nuclear installations codenamed Operation Bite has been scheduled for April 6 at 0040 hours. Missiles and air raids will conduct strikes designed to be devastating enough to set Tehran’s nuclear program several years back.

Wednesday, March 28, 2007



By William Hunt, MS
March 14, 2007

You may have noticed politicians now are making statements and photo ops related to global warming to score points with their constituents and admirers without understanding just what it is that they are speaking of. Prince Charles of the United Kingdom recently took a trip to New York to accept an award for effective work with environmental concerns and would take a commercial flight rather than chartering a small jet to reduce the carbon dioxide produced by his activities. While this may make the Prince and his admirers feel better, the commercial jet will fly partially empty, to allow for security measures. It will cost considerably more in fuel and fees to travel this way as commercial jets are designed to be most fuel efficient and cost effective when at full- passenger capacity. The British government will no doubt pay the airline for the empty space and extra security and the U.S. government will have to pay for the Prince's security in New York. All of these costs represent work done and a lot of extra gasoline, diesel, etc., used by all the extra persons, vehicles and equipment involved. Given the variables, the decision may well have doubled the Prince's use of fossil fuels just to cross the Atlantic in royal fashion.
On our side of the Atlantic, newly sworn-in Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi wasted no time in making global warming a centerpiece of her agenda by announcing the creation of the "Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming" on January 18, 2007. She states, "The science of global warming and its impact is overwhelming and unequivocal. We already have many of the technology (sic) and techniques that we need to reduce global warming pollution, and American ingenuity will supply the rest. With this new Select Committee, we demonstrate the priority we are giving to confront this most serious challenge. Now is time to act; the future of our country, indeed our entire planet, is at stake." OK. To make such a statement either indicates a severe ignorance of the purely political nature of global warming as a tool to harm the western nations and particularly the United States, or that she is merely following the party line of the internationalists and environmental lobby that desire the industry and power of the U.S. to be ended.
Pelosi is quite correct about one matter: it would be easily possible for the United States to cease using oil products as fuel. We need to become energy independent again for many reasons. One is the cost of importing the oil from 7000 and more miles away. Another is being beholden to countries that do not have our concern for human life. Oil has been fought for since Hitler tried to take the Baku oilfields from the Soviets in 1942-1943. There is some irony in that most of the world's petroleum has been controlled by unstable and often despotic governments. From 1990 to 1993, most of the aid to terror groups provided by the Soviet Union ended with that nation's fall. Now, most funding for terror groups comes from Iranian, Syrian and Saudi oil sales. Drug money from opium smuggling and Islamic "charities" provides the balance of the terrorist's operating funds. Prior to our second war with Iraq, much of the funding came from Iraqi oil. That, at least, has ended. Ceasing to buy oil from these nations would help immensely in dealing with terrorism. There would be no further risk of retaliatory embargoes for stopping Islamic slaughter of the innocent or having to tolerate governments that glorify slavery and murder. U.S. energy independence would aid in stabilizing both the U.S. economy and the world economy as well.
The irony of Pelosi's statements and initiative is that it has consistently been the Democrats and the environmental lobby that has prevented the deployment of new power sources for almost thirty years, and they have locked us into using energy sources that produce a lot of pollution, such as coal and oil. Fully 71% of the electrical energy produced in the U.S. is now from fossil fuels. Fifty percent is from coal alone.
A recent example of how the environmental lobby kills positive changes to energy infrastructure: when the offer was made by the President in 2001 to improve coal plant capacity by 100%, the environmental lobby screamed because it potentially could add 20% in emissions if the plants were run at 100% capacity. However, since it would take years for that level of electric demand to arise, they completely ignored the fact that those plants would be producing only 40% of their current pollution to generate their current power output- 60% less in emissions! Even alternative fuels such as biodiesel have been all but ignored by most Democrat senators and congressmen and, surprisingly, by most of the environmental groups until recently. Biodiesel could be cheaply mass-produced from domestically grown oilcrops such as soybeans, and while it produces some pollution when burned, would reduce soot and nitrogen oxides in urban air when used to replace diesel fuel.
Biomass burning would be an efficient way to use second growth thinnings and would generate some electricity and steam, but eventually the environmental groups will realize that that, too, produces carbon dioxide and come out against it, just as many have come out against wind generation for killing the occasional bird.
Nuclear power- that awful bugaboo of the environmental lobby- could have freed us from energy imports and pollution from combustion a decade ago by hydrolyzing hydrogen from water to use for fuel, but nuclear generation has dropped to only 19% of U.S. electric generation. Hydrogen fuel has many advantages, but hydrogen requires one thing to be made practical - it requires low-cost electricity in large amounts to generate the quantities that we would need to fuel our land and water transportation systems. The only technology we currently have that could economically generate the power needed is nuclear power. Wind power could generate some of the electricity needed, but now many of the environmental lobby have turned against it because of "visual pollution" and the occasional avian casualty. President Carter inaugurated the current nuclear waste problem by preventing the construction of waste reprocessing plants to manufacture new fuel rods from spent fuel rod material. Despite his degree in nuclear engineering, Carter reasoned that terrorists would be able to make off with nuclear materials to construct bombs if reprocessing plants were constructed. That the fissionable metals would not be in a form that the terrorists could use apparently eluded him. Unfortunately, no administration or congress since has seen fit to reverse that error and now we have massive stockpiles of waste that sit, unused and a potential hazard when the containers wear out. Nuclear power in the form of breeder reactors would cut fuel consumption by 90 to 97% and effectively end the problem of waste. Eventually, the Baby Boom Generation of "against everything" environmentalists will die off and progress can be made in cleaning up our power generation.
One of the current wrinkles of the global warming fad now has politicians and environmentalists advocating the use of ethanol for fuel. The farmers like it, because it allows them to sell more grain. The politicians of the Midwest like it, because the farmers prosper. The environmentalists like it currently, because it appears better on the surface than fossil fuels. Unfortunately, ethanol is not practical. First, it requires diesel to power the farm vehicles in preparing the soil, planting, spraying, and harvesting. Then, coal is used to produce the electricity to grind up the grain into mash and then to heat the mash for fermentation. 98% of the energy in the grain is lost during the fermentation process. After fermentation, electricity is used to heat the mash and distill the alcohol. Lastly, diesel is used to transport the ethanol to gasoline wholesalers and then retailers.
Ethanol is a net energy loss and requires huge amount of fossil fuels to produce. In addition, pure ethanol has only one third of the energy of gasoline, meaning one has to burn three times as much to have the same mileage. Ethanol added to gasoline reduces the efficiency of gasoline engines. A ten percent ethanol, ninety percent gasoline mix reduces gas mileage by roughly thirty percent, so that a vehicle that would normally burn 10 gallons to go 200 miles on 100% gasoline would need 13 gallons of 10% ethanol mix to go 200 miles- an extra 2.7 gallons of gasoline are wasted to go that 200 miles. When the environmentalists realize the amount of fossil fuels needed to produce ethanol, and also realize that the net carbon dioxide from producing and burning ethanol is several times the amount created from producing and burning gasoline, they will no doubt turn against ethanol as well. Unfortunately, ethanol is the "in" thing now, environmentally, and a tremendous amount of money is being wasted at public expense to create the infrastructure to mass-produce it.
Unfortunately, the public good never seems to be a factor in global warming and the debate over what kinds of energy to produce and use. There are other fuels like natural gas, of which the U.S. has most of the world's reserves in the form of methane clathrates, that politicians would better serve the public in promoting.
Q and A
In order to clarify some questions on Global Warming, here are some questions and answers.
1. How would the theory of global warming cause the wiping out of industry and personal freedom as you stated in your article?
The basic idea of global warming goes back to the late 1800s, where it was predicted by those who wanted to eliminate industry in major cities because of the terrible pollution it caused and the human suffering of 1890s industry. It was picked up and expounded by the environmental socialists in the 20th century for the same reason. The effort to control "global warming" itself would not destroy industry and personal freedom. What would destroy industry and personal freedom is the pushing of blatantly political "global warming" agendas that harm national economies in which global warming in the name of environmental protection is used as the excuse. All of the ways to "deal" with global warming to date involve reducing carbon dioxide emissions by arbitrary amounts, effectively penalizing the western nations and especially the United States for their standards of living.
You may or may not have heard of Kyoto. The Kyoto Climate Change treaty is the chief plan of the UN and international environmental organizations for "reducing" "greenhouse gases" like carbon dioxide by severely reducing energy use. This, ladies and gentlemen, would restrict our personal freedoms. A nation's standard of living is ultimately based upon the use of energy- all of life's activities require energy, be it for work or play. Transportation systems require energy. Cooking requires energy. Heating one's house requires energy. Mowing the lawn or driving to the grocery requires energy. Making widgets requires energy. Going to the coast on the weekend or camping requires energy. All of these represent freedoms, both nationally and personally. The ability to get into a car and drive is an incredible freedom that most of the world does not have. Kyoto's plan to "reduce" global warming by reducing "greenhouse gases" requires the dramatic reduction of the use of energy and this would reduce or seriously restrict our freedoms and cripple our industry.
2. Why do the progressive liberals and environmental lobby invariably slow down or stop development of alternative energy?
The base problem with alternative energy sources is that they all have drawbacks of one kind or another. Nuclear power produces waste, wind power is dependent upon wind and causes very limited avian mortality, solar power is very costly and produces a lot of waste in manufacturing the solar cells, hydroelectric power diverts water and this affects fish and other aquatic life, etc.. The standard many use for the environment is perfection, i.e., no downsides and it's much easier to be against something, than to modify or repair the problems of any of these power sources. Too, most politicians and environmentalists are not knowledgeable in practical terms about the nature of energy and indeed, the way natural systems work, and so, any perceived threat to those natural systems, even one born of total ignorance, is to be stamped out ruthlessly.
In addition, alternative energy represents freedoms, both personal and public. Cheap, clean energy means that people can do more, both in their work lives and personal lives. The primary goal of most liberal progressive politicians is to gain power, keep it and wield it. Everything is secondary to that. Good of the nation, the common wealth, truth, scientific fact, honor, the value of human lives, freedoms, everything, is secondary to the desire for a political philosophy and power. At present, their dominant philosophy is socialism and as such, private enterprise and constitutional freedoms are suspect. The progressive liberals and the major media outlets have latched on to what amounts to false environmental stewardship during the last 20 years. This mindset has yet to produce any truly positive results. The conservative leadership mostly abandoned the true conservation movement during the same period. The voice heard today most commonly regarding energy and natural resources in the media is the radical environmental voice, rather than that of effective conservation.

Essentially all of the nation's environmental groups are socialist in their outlook, and this is insanity- protecting nature is directly contrary to the teachings of socialism. Socialism pretty much wiped out the environments in the East Bloc, Russia, China, and their satellite countries. The water, soil and air pollution was such that life expectancies in Poland's Silesia, East Germany as a whole, much of the other eastern European lands, parts of Russia and China dropped dramatically from birth defects, lead and cadmium poisoning and lung ailments when industry was well established by those nations.

In the 1960s, the United States began cleaning up its air, water and soil and in the 1980s; Europe began to do the same. Most of the former East Bloc is now cleaning up their horribly polluted environments, but only now that socialism has been overthrown. The industrial economies of the West have much greater life expectancy than the socialist and former socialist nations and overall, much better health and general welfare. The United States has cleaner air, water and soil than any other industrial nation and most of the world's developing nations. Despite these obvious contradictions in the effects of the two societal models of socialism and the controlled-capitalism of the west, environmental groups cling to socialism to "save the world" from environmental destruction.
This double-think and double-talk of the radical environmental movement is what I will continue to stay committed to uncover in my on-going series on Global Warming Exposed!
© 2007 William Hunt - All Rights Reserved
Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts
William Hunt holds a Masters Degree in Environmental Education with an emphasis on Conservation Biology and Wildlife from Southern Oregon University in Ashland,OR. He has worked for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration of the U. S Commerce Department.
William lives in Bend, Oregon and is an active naturalist, technical consultant and columnist for daily periodicals and William can be contacted via
E-mail; William Hunt
For Global Warming Exposed CD/audio go to Website:
For press relations or speaking engagements contact: Mr. M. Kim Lewis , Kingsley Lewis & Associates, Inc. or 541 482-9852.



Coach Dave Daubenmire
March 22, 2007

All talk no action. That is a phrase that fits most Christians. They say they are pro-life, they say they are tired of the moral degradation; they say they want to protect marriage, but it is hard to find any evidence that their talk is any more than jaw-jabbering.
The Internet is full of those who are pointing out what is wrong with America. Anyone with any discernment at all knows that America is in trouble. You don’t have to be a social scientist to realize that America is becoming a vast, moral wasteland, and that we are becoming slaves to un-elected government. You certainly know that if things continue the way they are going our children and grandchildren are in a world of hurt.
Some are banking on the Rapture. The escapism-theology has convinced many that there is no need to fight. Jesus is coming soon and He will rescue all us sheep from this evil world.
I don’t want to argue about it. All I know is that Jesus told us in John 9:4 “I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work.” Or how about this one, “occupy until I return” Luke 19:13.
The sun is still shining, so we must continue to work. If you believe Jesus can rescue you, what else can you believe Him to do?
Jesus told us in Matthew 13:18 “upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” Isn’t it interesting that Jesus said the gates would not prevail AGAINST THE CHURCH? Not the Republican Party, not conservatism, not the Christian Coalition, but against THE CHURCH. There are certain battles mandated that the CHURCH must fight. A fighting-for-Truth Church? A storming-the-gates-of-Hell Church? Boy that doesn’t seem very Christ-like. Instead we have hired political-mercenaries to do the fighting for us. We spend most of our time begging evil men (politicians) to do what’s right.
Most folks will lament, “Well Coach, we just have to pray.” Want to know what I think? I think that is a cop-out. Sadly, most don’t really pray when they say they will, and for most the “let me pray about it” answer just gets them off of the hook. They don’t ever have to DO anything; they just hide behind their "I’ll pray about it" excuse.
It’s like I told a pastor-acquaintance of mine when he gave me that I’ll-have-to-pray-about-it line after I invited him to go to a school board meeting with me. “I already prayed, Pastor, and the Lord told me to tell you to come with me.” He didn’t come. I guess he must have a special private-line to the Lord.
Prayer is powerful, if we really do it. Jesus prayed. But He was a man of action. Isn’t it odd that most of his ministry was done on the streets? When He fed the 5000 it wasn’t in the safety of some mega-church edifice. Jesus took the Truth to the streets.
Our Father in heaven saw that the world was in a mess so He did something about it. God so loved the world that HE DID SOMETHING. We would do well to follow His example. But that is the problem. We want HIM to do it. He wants to empower US for the work.
The civil rights movement was launched when Dr. King and his followers took it to the streets. They didn’t just pray for freedom; they put their prayers into action. Prayer is like the electric wires along the highway. They are not the power; they are merely the conduit through which the power flows. Prayer, which is potential energy, becomes power, kinetic energy, when the one who prayers goes into action. Before He went to the cross Jesus prayed. Would you be free from your sins if He hadn’t followed His prayer with action? His prayers provided the power to do the work before Him.
Peter would never have walked on water if he had stayed in the boat. The water would never have been turned into wine unless someone had been obedient to “go and fill the water pots.” God rewards Faith. Action is the evidence of Faith.
Today’s evangelical church has lots of faith. Most teach that Jesus can make one healthy, wealthy, and happy. In fact, that is where much of the focus of the teaching is directed. “If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth.” You see, it is never a question of what Jesus can do; it is only a question of what you can believe. We have faith that He can forgive sins, we have faith that He can heal; we have faith that He can give one wealth, but we don’t have faith that He can do something about this mess-of-a-nation.
Why? Because to believe He can clean-up this cesspool would require action on our part. God works through people. It is more pleasant to ask for a financial blessing than to ask for courage to face the giants. No, we don’t lack faith, we lack courage…and desire.
So let’s try this. If it doesn’t work you’ll never hear me complain again.
If the Church really believes that God created our children and that we should “train them up in the way that they should go,” then our faith should lead to action.
Imagine if you will the Southern Baptist Convention issuing an order that all Christians remove their children from government schools. What if other Christian denominations followed suit? What if the folks in the pew obeyed the leadership? How long would it take for parents to once again get control of the education of our children? Instead, we beg Caesar for vouchers. Whose children are they? Let our children go!
Do you really think abortion is murder? Is all life sacred? Does God approve of abortion? Does God obey the Supreme Court? Let your walk match your talk.
What if the Pope ordered all American-Catholic churches closed until abortion was ended in America? What if he issued a mandate that in all cities where an abortion clinic was located, local parishes would be assigned a day in which they were to surround the death camps and pray without ceasing for the end of abortion? How long would it take to shut those abortuaries down if each day a different parish surrounded the hell-holes? Instead, we fight for pro-life judges. Our claims of being pro-life sound empty. If abortion is murder, then the CHURCH must stop it.
Do you think a values-free education is a good thing? Do you think our government is better without the acknowledgement of God? Tired of all of the evil legislation? We can stop it.
What if Focus on the Family, the American Family Association, the Family Research Council, and other national ministries joined together for a march on Washington? What if they encouraged their supporters to take a week’s-vacation and stage a sit-in right in the halls of Congress? What if they asked two million Christians, two hundred thousand at a time, to go to Washington and bombard the halls of Congress to do something about the lie of Separation of Church and State as currently practiced in America? Can you imagine 200,000 Christians a week for 10 weeks turning up the heat in Washington? Instead we sign on-line petitions and seek larger donations for political causes. We know Christian values are what made this nation great and that they are our only hope for a return to sanity. But we give lip service, when we need foot service.
Isn’t it strange that Dr. King led much of the civil rights movement from jail? His willingness to suffer inspired others. How many members of the National Association of Evangelicals are willing to go to jail for what they believe in? Paul wrote much of the New Testament from behind bars because of his witness for Truth. Today’s leaders want to fight global warming and be tolerant. Keep sitting on your butt and I promise the globe is going to get warm!

But here is the Truth. We lack the courage and the desire to do it. Our leadership is not willing to take the steps necessary to clearly speak for Christ. They have a foot in both worlds, they are serving God and mammon, they are double-minded and without vision. They are trusting in political parties, dumping millions of God’s dollars into political action, praying some politician will have the courage to do what they will not.
In a time when we need God’s men, the Church is looking to hire the States' men.
Psalm 20:7 Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God.

Americans used to love to win. Christians used to love to fight. Today we seek compromise and comfort. “Where there is a will there is a way.” Our leaders lack the will. No will, no way.
I’m going to Lexington. Seventy-seven common Minutemen changed the world. God can do it again. It’s time for a street fight.
Order the CD’s here.

Do you think like a Christian or a humanist? Did the Founders really separate Church and State? Is Judicial tyranny ruining America? Check out these great teachings by the Coach.
© 2007 Dave Daubenmire - All Rights Reserved
Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts
E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale
Coach Dave Daubenmire, founder and President of Pass The Salt Ministries and Minutemen United, is host of the high octane Pass The Salt radio show heard in Columbus, Ohio.
In 1999 Coach Daubenmire was sued by the ACLU for praying with his teams while coaching high school in Ohio. He now spends his energy fighting for Christian principles in the public domain.



By Paul Proctor
March 21, 2007

Country singer, Lee Greenwood wrote and recorded a very powerful and inspiring song many years ago that has all but become the new unofficial national anthem of the United States of America. The lyrics to God Bless The USA begin this way:
If tomorrow all the things were gone I'd worked for all my life, And I had to start again with just my children and my wife, I'd thank my lucky stars to be living here today, 'Cause the flag still stands for freedom and they can't take that away…
Now, I'm not sure why Mr. Greenwood would thank his "lucky stars" for the privilege of living in the USA, right before calling on Almighty God to bless it - but the words do make one pause and think about the unthinkable, hopefully to reassess what is treasured most in this country. Our flag indeed still stands for freedom, but I'm not so sure that the freedom for which it stands can't be taken away.
Many today believe America is God's modern day Ark, where those who reside within her are protected by Divine providence. But even Noah's Ark had its time.
At this writing, its deteriorating remains, according to experts, rests amid the mountains of Ararat. In its present state, were God's judgment to again come upon the Earth, I doubt seriously it would provide much protection for anyone. And, I dare say, what remains of America in 2007, in its present and deteriorating state, isn't all that reassuring either. Even many of our nation's elected officials seem hell-bent on legislating away the very freedoms God has given us under the guise of "national security." With countrymen like these, who needs enemies?
Unless you consider America to be "Mystery Babylon," there's really nothing specific I can find in bible prophesy about its existence in the last days, much less, it being a world superpower. So, with that in mind, for just a few uncomfortable moments, let's think about the unthinkable.
When America is gone, to whom will you pledge allegiance?
Will it be to the Democratic, Republican or Independent party?
Will it be to some political action committee, social organization, charity, faction or militia?
When the stock market crashes and money becomes as worthless as your property and portfolio, will you pledge your allegiance to those who initiate martial law, close the banks and promise a new financial system, electronic currency and National ID?
Or, will your allegiance be to a foreign nation that rises from the ruins of a global financial meltdown to take ownership of our bankrupt nation and its assets?
Will it be to the commanding officer of an invading army that storms our shores to plant his flag on our fruited plain after some nuclear event?
Will it be to doctors, emergency personnel or pharmaceutical suppliers that have the necessary treatments, vaccines and antidotes on hand to sustain you when a biological war or pandemic threatens the population?
Maybe your allegiance will be to some charming and charismatic leader who emerges from the chaos and confusion brought on by a combination of catastrophes working wonders before your eyes and offering inspiring words and grandiose plans for peace and prosperity when all hope seems lost?
Or, will you simply pledge allegiance to your local church or pastor when America is gone, because they've always been there for you in time of need?
Maybe your allegiance will be to your friends because you know they'd give you the shirt off their back.
Or, is it to family, because they're flesh and blood and the only ones you can really trust?
But then, it might be you're convinced there's no one you can trust but yourself - and to you, survival is all that really matters. So, as far as you're concerned, it's every man for himself.
"Thus saith the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD." - Jeremiah 17:5
Before that terrible day comes, if indeed it does, perhaps we should consider someone from the past whose allegiance never wavered even after he lost everything but his own life?
As Job sat in the dust scraping his sores and remembering all of the health, wealth, family and dignity that had been taken away while a handful of friends tormented him with innuendo and bad counsel, where was his allegiance and did it waver with the terrible turn of events that were allowed to happen by the very One in whom he trusted?
Even his own wife told him to "curse God and die." (Job 2:9)
Fortunately, Job didn't take that advice.
No, he said: "What? shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil?" (Job 2:10) adding later, "Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him…" - Job 13:15a
In good times and in bad, Job's allegiance never changed.
During Jesus' earthly ministry, He found the Jew's allegiance to be toward their temple and their homeland.
And, what did He tell them?

"And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down." - Matthew 24:2
And who was ultimately responsible for the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem and the Jews' exile from the Promised Land?
Was it not the same One who told His disciples: "…lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world?" - Matthew 28:20b

And, was He not justified in relieving them of both?
So, where is your allegiance; and will it change when America, as we know it, is gone?
"For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." - Romans 10:13
© 2007 Paul Proctor - All Rights Reserved
Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts
E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale
Paul Proctor, a rural resident of the Volunteer state and seasoned veteran of the country music industry, retired from showbiz in the late 1990's to dedicate himself to addressing important social issues from a distinctly biblical perspective. As a freelance writer and regular columnist for, he extols the wisdom and truths of scripture through commentary and insight on cultural trends and current events. His articles appear regularly on a variety of news and opinion sites across the internet and in print.



By Berit Kjos
March 12, 2007

"Last year, it was the Gnostic nonsense of the 'Da Vinci Code.'... This year it's a variation on the 'Da Vinci' theme. We are not only being told that there was a Mrs. Jesus (aka Mary Magdalene). We are also informed that her tomb and that of Jesus have been found in Jerusalem; that DNA testing has proved that they are not related and so must have been married (how exactly does it prove that?)... In a surreal moment on 'Larry King Live' earlier this week, the film's producer, James Cameron, told us with a straight face that we should all be thankful that we now have tangible evidence that Jesus existed. Actually, no serious historian of biblical antiquity has ever doubted that there was a historical Jesus."[1] Wall Street Journal
"All archaeologists confirm the nature of the find."[2] Discovery Channel
"Professor Amos Kloner, the Jerusalem District archeologist who officially oversaw the work at the tomb... dismissed the claims. 'It makes a great story for a TV film.... But it's impossible.... There is no likelihood that Jesus and his relatives had a family tomb.... They were a Galilee family with no ties in Jerusalem.'"[3]
Is this science? Or part of an intensifying battle against unchanging truths -- a despicable mockery of the God of the Bible and the significance of His death, burial and resurrection?
It doesn't take much discernment to see through the hollow "theories" used to validate these "scientific" fabrications. But in today's atmosphere of politically correct "open-mindedness," there is little resistance to riveting misinformation! And those who are driven by manipulative marketing are likely to buy the tempting illusions about God as well.
The producer (James Cameron) and director (Simcha Jacobovici) of Discovery Channel's "Jesus Tomb" documentary featured fake evidence, false conclusions and a phony tomb -- one that's more accessible and "convincing" than the original.
"Jacobovici shows pictures taken by a camera that was sent down a pipe into the tomb. The majority of the viewers won't understand that this is not the same cave," said Professor Kloner, who supervised the original work in 1980. "Much of the movie was filmed on sets recreated from the drawings and photographs taken from those [false] works.... The documentary was made according to the 'imagination of people.'... I don't accept the claim that this tomb was the burial place for the family of Jesus."[4]
The two filmmakers may have been motivated primarily by fame and fortune. But the change agents that supported them have more revolutionary missions. So, before we rebut the Discovery Channel's absurd suggestions, let's remember that the vast majority of today's media masters have joined the crusade for global transformation. They share a stake in the destruction of Christianity -- the main obstacle to the UN vision of social solidarity and spiritual synthesis.
Since Biblical certainties stand as a barricade against crowd thinking and dialectical delusions, what could better serve the globalist purpose than undermining the heart of the Christian gospel: the purity, death, burial and resurrection of Jesus? The timing of this travesty is no accident. This new "revelation" -- riding in the wake of The Secret -- surfaced just in time to corrupt the celebration of Christ's resurrection in the minds of people around the world.
It all makes sense when we remember that Discovery Channel is part of the global media conglomerate, Discovery Communications. The last few years, its senior vice president for Public Policy & Communications has been Donald A. Baer, an influential member of the Council on Foreign Relations and a "former Assistant to President Clinton for Strategic Planning and Communications."[5] [See CFR: Task Force Members]
Strategic communication -- whether outright propaganda or "convenient" facts -- is vital to the CFR's plan for a New World Order.[6] As Aldous Huxley warned in "Brave New World Revisited" (his 1958 update on Brave New World), the emphasis on psycho-social manipulation was set in place long ago.
"There are two kinds of propaganda--rational propaganda in favor of action that is consonant with the enlightened self-interest of those who make it... and non-rational propaganda that is... dictated by, and appeals to, passion....
"Propaganda in favor of action that is consonant with enlightened self-interest appeals to reason by means of logical arguments based upon the best available evidence fully and honestly set forth. Propaganda in favor of action dictated by the impulses that are below self-interest offers false, garbled or incomplete evidence, avoids logical argument and seeks to influence its victims by the mere repetition of catchwords, by the furious denunciation of ... scape­goats, and by cunningly associating the lowest passions with the highest ideals....
"The power to respond to reason and truth exists in all of us. But so, unfortunately, does the tendency to respond to unreason and falsehood -- particularly in those cases where the falsehood evokes some enjoyable emotion....
"Mass communication, in a word, is neither good nor bad; it is simply a force and, like any other force, it can be used either well or ill.... In the totalitarian East there is political censorship, and the media of mass communication are controlled by the State. In the democratic West there is economic censorship and the media of mass communication are controlled by members of the Power Elite...."[6]
No small part of that "Power Elite," Discovery Communications wields its mind-changing influence through its vast network of global operations which include Discovery Channel, Animal Planet, Discovery Health Channel, Discovery Kids, Discovery Times Channel, TLC, Travel Channel, The Science Channel, Military Channel, Discovery Home Channel, Discovery en Español and dozens more. Do you wonder what kinds of facts and worldviews this massive media system promotes? Or what it censors?
Let's turn to its page on "The Lost Tomb of Jesus." Here we are told that "hundreds of tombs and thousands of ossuaries (limestone bone boxes) have been discovered in the Jerusalem area.... One of these tombs was found to contain ten ossuaries. Six of the ossuaries in this tomb have inscriptions on them. As it turns out, every inscription in this particular tomb relates to the Gospels."[7]
But it's not true! Consider its claims and the contrary evidence:
Not true! Steve Caruso, a professional translator at Aramaic Designs, has been studying the Aramaic language for nearly a decade. Decoding the imprecise script and scratches is neither easy nor conclusive:
"Out of all of the inscriptions, the one attributed to Jesus is the most difficult to make out, and as a result the most difficult to interpret.... I honestly could see how Bar or 'son (of)' was implied.... With Yeshua or 'Jesus,' however, I had a great amount of difficulty...."[8]
"It is not scholarly and not scientific," said Professor Kloner, the original research manager. Dismissing Discovery Channel's claims altogether, he notes "that the documentary spends about 10 minutes talking about 'the missing ossuary,' suggesting it could be the same ossuary that turned up several years ago in the hands of an antique dealer.... Experts later discredited the ossuary (which bore the inscription 'James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus') as a forgery and fraud."[4]
Not true! "I've known about these ossuaries for many years and so have many other archaeologists," says "the dean of biblical archaeology," retired Professor William Dever. "None of us thought it was much of a story because these are rather common Jewish names from that period," he explained. "It's a publicity stunt, and it will make these guys very rich, and it will upset millions of innocent people because they don't know enough to separate fact from fiction."[9]
Others agree. "Leading archaeologists in Israel and the United States are denouncing the purported discovery of the tomb of Jesus as a publicity stunt," writes Alan Cooperman in his article, "Jesus tomb claim denounced." He continues:
"Scorn for the Discovery Channel's claim to have found the burial place of Jesus, Mary Magdalene and — most explosively — their possible son came not just from Christian scholars but also from Jewish and secular experts who said their judgments were unaffected by any desire to uphold Christian orthodoxy."[9]
"This whole case is flawed from beginning to end," said Jodi Magness, an archaeologist at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill. "By going directly to the media, she said, the filmmakers 'have set it up as if it's a legitimate academic debate, when the vast majority of scholars who specialize in archaeology of this period have flatly rejected this.'"[9]
Not true! This absurd claim hides the fact that no one checked or recorded the DNA of Jesus 2000 years ago! DNA testing for identity -- even in the most prestigious laboratory -- means nothing if there's no original sample to compare it with. Matching the DNA of individuals or unknown family members may sound "scholarly" or "scientific," but it proves nothing about our Lord!
Not only does Discovery Channel market its blasphemous message under the prestigious banner of "science," it also invokes the occult mysteries behind Gnosticism. The following statement by Director Simcha Jacobovici (posted on Discovery's website) shows how important those long-hidden heresies were to the filmmakers.
"The key moment in the investigation was the identification of the second Mary," he says. And in our "Post DaVinci Code" era, everyone knows Mary Magdalene." Then he shares an old secret:
"...her real name is Mariamne, which is the Greek version of Mary Magdalene. I found out that Scholars don't argue about that, because of the Gnostic gospels, because of the Acts of Phillip, several ancient texts that have recently been discovered.... And guess what, that's what it says on the ossuary.... So at that moment the light bulb went on."[10]
Was Gnosticism the key that unlocked the tomb's mysteries? According to this documentary, those occult legends tell us that Mariamne and her son moved to France (which didn't become a nation until centuries later). Discovery Channel's myth brings her back to Jerusalem before her death. Otherwise, how could her bones be added to the tomb?
The dramatization of Mary, Jesus, and the fake tomb makes it all the more believable. And to a world seeking spiritual thrills, this Gnostic version of "history" may seem too real to resist.
Today's assaults on Christianity are well timed and increasingly blatant. But they shouldn't surprise us. Blinded by the world's never-ending stream of entertaining distractions, the masses have little time for the truth, facts and logic that would enable them to resist deception.
That fact hasn't escaped our global leaders, including the mainstream media within the Council on Foreign relations. The mood of the nations has been surveyed, assessed and manipulated for decades awaiting that "opportune" time [Luke 4:13] for speeding the transformation. What the International Congress on Mental Health concluded in its 1948 report has now become reality:
"Change will be strongly resisted unless an attitude of acceptance has first been engendered."[11]

Today, more than half a century later, that general "attitude of acceptance" has been established! Nations around the world are fast conforming to the pattern set by UN founders in the 1940s. And the global networks of "mental health" and pluralistic partners are working to prevent any uncompromising Truths or moral guidelines that would hinder "positive" or "collective thinking" around the world.
We don't know the nature of the next assaults on God and His people, but we know the God who reigns in the midst of them. Are you ready to stand firm in Him when they come?

"...though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God...." 2 Corinthians 10:3-5
1, Ben Witherington III, "Tomb of the (Still) Unknown Ancients," Wall Street Journal, March 2, 2007.2, "Has the tomb of Jesus Christ been found?" Discovery Channel 3, Mail David Horovitz, "New film claims Jesus buried in Talpiot," February 25, 20074, Julie Stahl, "Jesus Tomb' Filmmakers Should Be Ashamed, Archeologist Says," (Jerusalem Bureau Chief), March 1, 2007.5, Council on Foreign Relations and Mock National Security Council Meeting on North Korea6, Aldous Huxley, Brave New World Revisited (New York: Perennial Library, 1958), pages 32-35.7, "The Lost Tomb of Jesus,"8, Steve Caruso, Aramaic Designs9, Alan Cooperman, "Jesus tomb claim denounced," The Honolulu Advertiser, March 3, 2007.10, The Lost Tomb of Jesus: Simcha Interview - Part 111, "Mental Health and World Citizenship," founding document of the World Federation for Mental Health, pages 7 and 8.
© 2007 Berit Kjos - All Rights Reserved

Order Berit's book Brave New Schools
Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts
E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale
Berit Kjos is a widely respected researcher, writer and conference speaker. A frequent guest on national radio and television programs, Kjos has been interviewed on Point of View (Marlin Maddoux), The 700 Club, Bible Answer Man, Beverly LaHaye Live, Crosstalk and Family Radio Network. She has also been a guest on "Talk Back Live" (CNN) and other secular radio and TV networks. Her last two books are A Twist of Faith and Brave New Schools. Kjos Ministries Web Site: